Talk:Graffiti/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

something small

I don't usually make comments or edits to pages, so feel free to ignore if I'm wrong or if this doesn't matter. This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense (I think): ""Graffiti" is the plural of "graffito", which singular form has become relatively little-known in English." Could someone please change "which singular form has become relatively little-known" to something more suitable? Possibly: "though the singular form is relatively little-known"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.35.175 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

English or American Spelling

I don't understand why someone called an Englishman an "idiot" for spelling "colour" instead of the American "color" (see edit log for the article) Generally, which is accepted better on Wikipedia, American English or British English? Is there a general rule, please???

see WP:ENGVAR "For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English; none is more “correct” than any other." Basically, either American or British English is fine, but it needs to be consistent within the article, and shouldn't be changed from one to the other. If an article is created with British English spelling, it should be retained throughout it's lifespan. There's also a tendency to keep it American or British depending on the content; as Graffiti sort of originates in NY (depending how you look at it), this article probably should be in American spelling. --duncan 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Clutter

This page is getting pretty huge. I think it would be a good idea to make seperate pages for the terminoligy and the list of graffiti artists, I would think they're worthy of their own page.

ER and ONE suffixes

How about some info on why some artists append "one" or "er" to their name?

note

Adding ONE after a name implies that the person is original. Also descended from early writers such as Julio 204 and Taki 183, who used their street numbers. Some Crews today use their postal code. I would require more examples to awnser your question about adding ER however. Usualy it is for asthetic appeal. -rf

note2

Also many writers who have numbers after their names claim that the number is how many different styles they have. e.g. 180 after your name would mean that you can do 180 different styles.

"Giraffiti"?

"This "giraffiti" became so well known among the Mormon community that their newsletters often mentioned it as a specific example demonstrating misunderstanding." The link for 'giraffiti' goes to a 'no article' page- is it a typo or a neologism, and if the latter, could someone give it a definition? People who have a lot of respect add ONE to their tag to prove it. To be a one, you either have to do really good work, or be really crazy about how you do your graffiti.

WikiProject Graffiti

Graffiti now has it's own WikiProject! Click Here to join or for more information.

EMERGENCY

Continuing 'Graffiti' problem with this page. Would it be considered ironic that some keeps 'tagging' this page with profanity and rude comments?

Update, great! This is a featured article and the thing is laced with profanity and rude comments to the extent that I cannot determine where the last good page was posted.

EMERGENCY

Someone has heavily vandalized this page, filling it with a lot of profanity, sexual references, and various racial slurs. I tried to fix it myself, but I couldn't find where it had been attacked.

Graffito

An anonymous contributor wrote while redirecting Graffito to Graffiti: Because of the "singular" convention, why is "graffiti" not here?)

Answer: because the English word "graffiti" is a mass noun, not a plural. --Brion

correct!!! well done

The English word "graffiti" is a mass noun, but the article seems to imply that it is a plural, and one of the pictures is labled as being a photograph of a "graffito". Vsst 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

The Vandals are famous for their graffiti (giving us the word vandalism).

AFAIK, the Vandals were famous (rightly?) for destroying, raping and plundering. I didn't know about their graffiti. I'd remove the above phrase. -- Error 02:11, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

removed it. High on a tree 02:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Missing a lot of info

To better cover the topic "graffiti", needs more info on graffiti as a nuisance in addition to graffiti as art & lifestyle. I agree about merging a lot of this into graffiti art and adding more about how much money and effort (including volunteer hours) are spent trying to reduce or remove graffiti.

Elf 21:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well done. I was disappointed to find this page included nothing about costs such as anti-graffiti paints, specialist police forces, etc..

--150.101.201.96 08:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Artistic vs. Tactical graffiti

This is truly a fat topic. I'ld like to throw in my $0.02 worth by suggesting a couple of major divisions, perhaps treated in related articles:

artistic graffiti: from the sublime to the ridiculous - A treatment of graffiti in terms of self-expression and its elevation to a legitimate art form.

This article (currently graffiti art) can present graffiti artists that have gained right of passage in Fine art circles and/or those who have made a noble effort.

tactical graffiti: an in depth study of the motives, intensities and circumstances of graffiti artists with a mission.

This new article might contain somewhat classified areas of political and racial strife in the context of:

  • A. Low tact (gangs, race, gender, orientation and other potentially nasty stuff)
  • B. High tact (anti-propoganda, civil disobedience, calls to action, etc - graffiti with a bit more purpose and constraint)
  • C. Moderate tact? Other aspects of tactical graffiti or that used simply to provoke thought (this may have strong ties with graffiti art).

Creating such major divisions might help the reader to pursue his or her interest more readily. Eh? Quinobi 15:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the addition of over 30 german books to the Literature list can safely be considered spam, i suppose (they are copied from de:Graffiti and anonymous user User:195.93.64.14 didn't even bother to translate the bibiliographical data). High on a tree 02:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The description of Tox as a bomber might confuse some people, especially as his tag has been mentioned in reference to the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Perhaps it should be explained. --83.151.246.2 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted info?

All of this was removed from the article. Seems a bit trigger-happy on the delete key. Comments? —radiojon 05:32, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

These developments of graffiti art which took place in art galleries, colleges as well as "on the street" or "underground", contributed to the resurfacing in the 1990's of a far more overtly politicized form in the subvertising, culture jamming or 'tactical media' movements. These movements or styles tend to classify the artists by their relationship to their social and economic contexts, since graffiti art is still illegal in many forms, in most countries. Contemporary practitioners are therefore varied and often conflicting in their practices. There are those individuals such as Alexander Brener who have used the medium to politicise other art forms, and have taken the prison sentences forced onto them, as a means of further protest. Anonymous groups and individuals, however, are very varied also, with anonymous anti-capitalist art groups like the Space Hijackers who, in 2004, did an action about the capitalistic elments of Banksy and his use of political imagery. There are also those artists who are funded by a combination of government funding as well as commercial or private means, like irational.org who recently coined the term Advert Expressionism, replacing the word Abstract for Advert, in Clement Greenberg's essay on Abstract Expressionism. Graffiti is sometimes seen as part of a subculture that rebels against extant societal authorities, or against authority as such. However these considerations are often divergent and relating to a wide range of practices. For some, graffiti is not only an art but also a lifestyle. For others it is a matter of political practice and forms just one tool in an array of methodologies and technologies or so-called anti-technologies of resistance. see also writing, visual art, protest

This wall, in Gainesville, Florida, has been set aside for use by graffiti artists and passerby.
This wall, in Gainesville, Florida, has been set aside for use by graffiti artists and passerby.

Images

This image was replaced in an edit entitled "correct spelling". Perhaps it should be put back into the article, but I'm not sure where. Tim Ivorson 10:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That does look a little strange. I hadn't noticed that that lead image was so new when I added an image yesterday. I've sent a note for User:Hbomb to add source info add copyright tags for the image, but it could be appropriate to revert. It seems a little odd that so few of the graffiti examples here show text or tags. -- Solipsist 10:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Graffiti as political v's Political graffiti

Added a section on graffiti that is done to promote political ideas, and some pictures. Have inc' stickers and posters as graffiti is this okay?--JK the unwise 14:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see a large overlap in stickering and graffiti in the places I've lived. Postering is more borderline, between guerrilla advertising and guerilla art. See also guerrilla communication. (My "seeing" this is of course highly subjective.) --Elijah 23:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Clean up?

This article may not be perfect but the clean up tag is a bit unfair (or so it seems to me) so I,ve removed it--JK the unwise 19:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Not perfect, but the last few days have seen some substantial improvement. Are there specific additions or edits that someone's wanting to see at this point? GTBacchus 20:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

updated photos

When I saw the article I realized I had a couple photos that would go well with it so I released them under the GFDL and stuck them on here. If the top one is too flamboyant feel free to revert it, but I think it is suitable. The bottom replacement I made seems better in all respects. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 22:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, i'm a bit curious about this image. Don't we have a policy to be non-self-referrential?
Image:Wiki-graffiti2.png
Computer generated graffiti reading "Wikipedia"
Perhaps replacing it with a computer generated graffiti rendition of the world "Graffiti" would be more appropriate! Here is the policy: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 22:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then be bold and create it. As for the panoramic image, its simply too damn big. FAC thread already complains about images overlapping the TOC on low res screens. Which is why its got the small image of the wall in florida to begin with. However it is a nice photo and has been moved to lower in the article. Alkivar 01:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"lower resolutions" are essentially 800x600 and the distortion will occur when you place it inline with the TOC, which the current revisions primary image does. You complained that it is just "too damn big," however, I saw that you were knowledgeable enough to resize the image. Are you aware that the image currently being used has an area of 80,150 pixels, and mine currently has an area of 39,000 pixels? Your rationale is hogwash! Regarding the self-referrential image, I do not have the graphics package used to create it, obviously. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 01:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nor do I. Alkivar 02:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wanted to add that even before you resized it to be smaller the area was still only 77,000 (as the one below) --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 01:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow, quite hypocritical! You replace the other image which is quite obviously superior due to it's non americanness and don't bother to realize that your same rationale applies to the other image as well!!!! (eg gainesville florida vice roma!) --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 01:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility, read it. Please do not continue to make Ad Hominem attacks. The size varation is due to its Width by Length measurement ... yours is nearly TWICE AS WIDE!!!! Width is the issue not length. I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to use your image once its cropped into an acceptable size.Alkivar 02:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh please, linking to an article on civility does not make you civil. You are yelling at me! I don't appreciate that. I'd also like to point out that you reverted other edits of mine with that revert and you had no reason for doing that. You have clearly lost your cool. I must now ask you to see the article on the Grand Canyon. Wide photos are simply a dislike you have. Like I said, several sysops and admins loved the way the photo looked in the article when I showed in IRC. Now, because someone else has also edited, I must go through and pick them out one by one to fix the mess you have created. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 03:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More pictures

Graffiti on the banks of the Tiber river in Rome, Italy.
Graffiti on the banks of the Tiber river in Rome, Italy.
  • Excellent - a much better lead image. -- Solipsist 08:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rv - User Alterego submitted for arbitration due to repeated ad hominem attacks.

Where is this? I don't see it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 05:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the fact that you just passed the three reverts per day rule. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 05:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
look again. I was in the process of editing page when you went looking. Alkivar 05:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar, I look forward to seeing you now engage the dispute resolution properly. I find that since you have accorded that it is a superior image, and that there are examples of even wider primary images in very good articles on Wikipedia, there is no reason it shouldn't go up. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 18:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar, I am awaiting your reply. Although the arbitration was rightfully shot down, this issue is not over. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 00:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Have your picture... you are now officially charged with dealing with all FAC complaints regarding it. I wash my hands of the entire problem. And your point that other articles have wide images is immaterial as NONE of the pages at Wikipedia:Featured articles do. Remember the point to this is to pass FAC. Your image pushes strongly against that possibility. Alkivar 05:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey man, I shun responsibility just as well as the next man, but you can't deny the fact that we are all charged with dealing with FAC complaints. I've had pictures and articles both shot down in the past. It's just a reason to spend a bit of my idle time over the next couple of months cleaning an article up. Some articles get shot down 5-6 times before going up. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 05:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Computer-generated graffiti

I'd never heard of computer-generated graffiti till I read this article. I don't mean to belittle it, merely to warn that what I'm about to say may be severely underinformed. (I've also missed any relevant, earlier discussion.) Anyway, I read in one caption:

Computer generated graffiti No Guts, No Fame, its noticeable "anti-police" theme shows its artist's frustration with the percieved illegal threat of graffiti, and also its artist's belief that the possible penalty is worth the fame.

I've read and reread that with increasing confusion. Of course percieved is misspelt, but however spelled, what does the "perceived illegal threat of graffiti" mean in this context? ("Perceived penitential threat to graffitists", perhaps?)

Sorry your right, my summary is a bit lame. I'll clean it up. Its in the section of legality for a reason — because graffiti is by many perceived to be ONLY vandalism not BOTH art and vandalism. The perceived threat is that graffiti will lead to disorder and moral decay (one of the primary statements in most anti-graffiti "propeganda". Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, isn't the (possible) fame worth the (possible) penalty rather than the reverse?

I dont follow? Its undeniable that in the mind of the writer that graffiti will lead to fame, but it is also certainly undeniable that they expect to be prosecuted. As many more are prosecuted than become famous I would therefore postulate that "likely penalty is worth the possible fame" which is how I probably should have worded it. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Er, sorry, but I really think that you mean "the possible fame is worth the likely penalty" -- Hoary 09:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Which artist is being commented on: the artist shown in the computer-generated graffiti, or the artist who created the computer-generated graffiti, or both?

The artist shown is a self portrait of the creator of the image, therefore its a comment on both. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the image needs such a laborious explanation, should it be there at all? Can't a photo of genuine graffiti be used for the purpose, rather than (to phrase it unkindly but I think not wrongly) imitation graffiti? -- Hoary 05:51, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I dont consider this a laborious explanation, I just think I poorly worded it. As for your question of can't a photo of genuine graffiti be used, I say we have enough genuine graf included as it stands now. This was included to show that there is more than just physical graffiti. This is not really "imitation" graffiti, as its creator does both. In this instance he simply chose to use a computer rather than a spraycan. I'd also like to state i regularly hear users complain about brief captions that are not complete sentances. This is as concise a summary of the image as I could create. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And sorry if answering you point by point like this makes your original statement slightly unclear. Alkivar 06:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, fine. I don't have anything in particular that I want to add, other than my comment above on "fame—penalty" versus "penalty—fame". -- Hoary 09:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

It appears to make even less sense at the moment: Computer generated graffiti No Guts, No Fame, its noticeable "anti-police" theme shows both its subject's and its creator's frustration with the perceived illegal threat of graffiti, and the belief that the likely penalty is worth the price.

One would assume that the price is the penalty. So the likely penalty is worth the likely penalty? I'm missing something here. "The price" is usually (always?) a bad thing. - Vague | Rant 06:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed I hope. if not ... be bold. Alkivar 06:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to go ahead and change it when I saw that there had been some discussion over it. I figured I should ask about it here, first, before changing it and possible upsetting someone. - Vague | Rant 07:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


Length

I'm on a Mac, running OSX and IE 5.1 or something, and I can no longer edit the page because it's right at 32 kilobytes. My browser freaks right out. Time for some ruthless trimming? Are the images making the file big? We like the images, but I was about to do some serious organizational stuff, that needs to be done. Someone knows more about this type of problem than I do? GTBacchus 09:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It won't be the images as such. I'm not so familiar with IE 5 on OSX, but problems with 32K limits are usually about the number of characters in the editing text box (there is not much excuse for this sort of problem these days). So images will add something, but only to 200 characters or so for their [[image:....]] image tag. It looks like it is a known issue with the MediaWiki developers.
Of course, you can edit individual sections, but that doesn't help much with the structural reorganisation you are describing below. The better solution is probably to try the Mozilla Firefox browser which is gaining a lot of attention. Its not perfect, but I'm pleased I switched - the tabbed pages are a major benefit. -- Solipsist 15:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad it's not the images. Unfortunately, I'm visiting family, and this isn't my computer to install new browsers, etc. Firefox does kick IE's butt, but you try and explain that to my mother. Meanwhile, I welcome any suggestions on the restructuring proposed below, and invite anyone with a better browser to have at it. As noted on the FAC page, the current organization (a result more of sedimentation than of anyone's volition) leaves something to be desired. GTBacchus 17:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Previous FAC nomination discussion

Self-nom. I've spent quite a bit of time rearranging content and editing this. Might be considered a bit heavy on the images, however as Graffiti is a visual art I think this is appropriate. I'm hoping this is ready for FAC status, I think it is. Share your opinions folks. Alkivar 02:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has come a long way, and I think it should be featured soon. I'm still looking a little bit sideways at the ==20th Century== section... it hasn't really got a flow... gangs, then WWII, then DC, then London, then Scandanavia... it's all good information, but randomly assembled. However, the bulk of the article is quite good, and it's very thorough by now. I think the plentiful graphics are appropriate. GTBacchus 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've reordered the 20th Century subsection, is this better? Alkivar 10:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is, although the computer I'm using now suppresses half of the first paragraph in that section, for some reason. When I click "edit" I can see it's all still there... GTBacchus 03:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Did you try purging your cache? I've had this problem with pages on Wiki before. Alkivar 03:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm back on a normal machine now. Never did figure out what was wrong with that old Mac. GTBacchus 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, needs copyediting. Fredrik | talk 11:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there something in particular your noticing? Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I copyedited one section which really seemed to need it. The rest of the article looks better, though, at a glance. I must still object due to the much too short lead section. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Cruddy lead section. Picture and TOC overlap to create formatting hell at 800x600. Could do with a bit of a copyedit (i.e. one not very long paragraph uses "in some cases" three times). What is there is quite reasonable, with a bit of an edit. However, there's really a lot missing about the bad side of graffiti - sure, sometimes it is art - but a lot of it is just vandalism, and there's very little of that there. There's also little coverage of the societal implications (I'm thinking of Giuliani's crackdown on graffiti in the early stages of his war on crime, as NYC mayor). Ambi 11:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It most certainly does mention the negative side, theres an entire section on its legality/illegality. It mentions UK campaigns to wipe out graf completely. All throught the article it mentions illegal graffiti. I dont think we can stress the point too much more without beating people over the head. On your other points, I was unaware of the formatting hell, I dont browse at 800x600 (and havent since 1998). I'll see what I can do about that. Alkivar 12:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have since reduced the lead in image size, it appears on MY computer at least to stop the overlap. Is this good enough for you? I have also added a paragraph regarding Giuliani's crackdown of the mid 1990s. Alkivar 18:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have also beefed up the lead in a bit, is this better? Any suggestions on how I can improve it more to change your objection? Alkivar 06:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, this article has come a long way since I last saw it. I remember tagging it for cleanup (or at least wanting to do so). It still needs minor fixes: it's wordy in some places and might be tightened, and I guess that train bombing could be part of the legal section, without its own heading. But it's pretty close to featured status. I'll see if I can do some copyediting later.
  • Comment: I've asked Zephyr to come look it over and make a few changes. He certainly knows the history having been involved with the Graffiti culture of NYC since the 1970s. Hopefully this will tighten up the article and remove some of the worthless chaff. Alkivar 19:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lastest featured article (Restoration comedy) has loads of red links thus I retract my statment as irelivent--JK the unwise 13:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Image:Wiki-graffiti2.png
Computer generated graffiti reading "Wikipedia"

--[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 22:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me, your going to object to the entire content based on 1 image? First it is not really a self reference since it does not refer to "the website" nor to anything except as a caption for the word "Wikipedia" which is contained therein. Granted this is semantics but in this case this is pretty tame. I think this easily falls under "...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." except that we're not discussing it merely referring. Second I should point out that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not a set-in-stone policy, it is merely a suggestion like the one here: Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers which I am following. Alkivar 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that you have, in general, been very mean to those responding on this page. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego☺]] 04:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Image has been removed. Does this end your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: A good article, but not featured article quality yet, imo. The structure seems a bit disorganized to me (the table of contents lists many major sections but not so many subsections - surely there's a way of dividing the subject up into 4 or 5 main sections and then breaking those down further?). Perhaps it isn't so important, but I think there should be a section on graffiti in video games (such as Sega's Jet Set Radio) - tagging "simulators". I'm also not comfortable with "computer generated graffiti" being used for "graffiti drawn using a computer". At least in music and most art, computer generated suggests that the computer is actually creating the aesthetics -- acting as creator, with some direction from the use -- not merely being used as a low-level tool. -- Oarih 11:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've done something on the section/sub-section front. Better now? GTBacchus 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - self reference policy dispute needs to be sorted out. Other than I think the article is great.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Image has been removed. Does this end your objection?  ALKIVAR™ 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Things have been sorted and I think its about ready.
  • Support - I've just made some edits to the computer-generated section which address Oarih's concerns above. I think we're good to go. GTBacchus 19:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another image for the article...

Whenever I go out railfanning, I always tend to photograph the more elaborate tags on railroad equipment. I've seen some that take up the entire side of a car, but can't seem to find photos of tags that big in my collection right now. Here's an image I shot of graffiti on a couple boxcars traveling through Wisconsin...

Graffiti on boxcars travelling through Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, August 8, 2004.
Graffiti on boxcars travelling through Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, August 8, 2004.

Further on this that I didn't mention earlier... There is a bit of a controversy in the hobby of model railroading on whether or not to depict graffiti on our models. Personally, I model reality, so I will include some in my model building; but other modelers have declared a complete aversion and disgust toward graffiti and refuse to model it in any form. Reference: American Graffiti --- The Final Frontier (Trains.com) slambo 20:42, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

literal computerized graffiti

here are two examples:

http://www.hektor.ch/

http://www.appliedautonomy.com/gw.html

- Omegatron 19:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

From "Tree Graffiti" article

When I tryied to follow this link: A tree graffiti in a park in Zurich, Switzerland, photographed on Street Parade 2002 I got this message

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /31/2/31/50/236223150FIRLAN_ph.jpg on this server.
Apache/2.0.50 Server at image30.webshots.com Port 80

--JK the unwise 16:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tree layers

From reading their articles, I am unable to ascertain if the layer that must not be ring-cut is phloem, xylem or vascular cambium. Someone who remembers their biology, please change this and the relevant article. --Error 01:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a Featured Article?

The elevation of this unresearched, weasel-word infested dreck to Featured Article status is ironic: it gives me the same feeling I get when some self-important dolt decides to leave his unworthy spray-painted mark on my neighborhood. Blair P. Houghton 03:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny it was approved after 2 times thru the FAC process, passing the last time with 0 objections. Perhaps if you actually spent some time making specific criticisms, or paid attention to the FAC process you could have made some input then.  ALKIVAR™ 03:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer to spend my time improving the Wikipedia by editing it directly. If I participate in political activities related to it, it's incidental and diversionary. I've also not wasted a lot of time on my signature. O woe. Blair P. Houghton 21:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good answer. LOL -Pedro 18:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The writing could use a lot of work. --Alterego 04:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs some reference to the Graffiti series by Nigel Rees, collections of humerous graffiti. - Jinx

Which weasel words are used in the article? How could the writing be improved? Any specific suggestions? Hyacinth 16:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to vandalize the graffiti page?

Yes--JK the unwise 10:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just put an X through the tags of those we've killed for vandalizing our turf. Blair P. Houghton 21:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bad opening....

From the article:

"The difference between tagging and graffiti is to be discussed and is arguable, but some say it's a clear one: tagging is gang-motivated and/or meant as vandalism (illegal) or to be too vulgar/controversial for public, with graffiti being the more artistic meant kind, politically meant or not."

Believe it or not that is one sentence. I can't discern a focus of that but it really turned me off of the article.19:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

Front page traffic

There are occaisional debates over whether items featured on the front page should be temporarily protected or not. With Graffiti being the front page featured article yesterday, it or course attracted a flood of edits and a fair bit of vandalism. Overall, has the article improved or deteriorated as a result? -- Solipsist 12:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I'd say deteriorated. I'd like to make a revert back to before its mainpage listing (but a 2-3 day revert is not really fair).  ALKIVAR™ 13:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

terrorism v's pollitical graffiti

"The use of Nazi images against Jews, some of whom may have lost friends or family members in the holocaust, is considered by many not to be political graffiti at all, but rather a form of terrorism." hmm... people might say this (I've never read/heard anyone say it) but it seems a bit strange to me, why does it being terrorism stop it being pollitical graffiti? If it is to stay can we have ref' to some one saying it please. --JK the unwise 21:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) (P.S. People who do Nazi graffiti are scum)

How is it terrorism? I don't think that word should be applied to any objectionable activity. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Probably the only thing that all the Definitions of terrorism have in common is that they all define terrorism as an act of physical violence against an actual human being. Defacing a tombstone, no matter how offensively, does NOT count. GTBacchus 03:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A flaming cross on someones lawn is "terrorism" so would be a swastika's sprayed in a jewish synagogue. felony "terrorizing" charges stem from "fear for immediate harm to ones life or safety". I didnt add that particular wording, but thats not to say that I necessarily disagree with it.  ALKIVAR™ 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A flaming cross on someone's lawn is a fire right next to their house. Of course they would "fear for immediate harm to life or safety". I don't see that applying to vandalism in a cemetery, which is not anyone's front yard. It would make someone who sees it feel very bad, yes, but I don't see it as a threat of "immediate harm".
BTW, what's your source on the flaming cross case? Terrorism doesn't mention it; nor does Definitions of terrorism. GTBacchus 04:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Terrorism can be widely defined so say to include acts of vandalism that terrorise. However most of the stuff on terrorism and on Definitions of terrorism defines terrorism as being only violence against people. Except this "United States Code of Federal Regulations: the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."(From Defs of terrorism). This includes property damage if intended to intimidate. Nazi graffiti does intimidate and is no doubt intended to do so. Also seems likly to induce fear of personal safty since swastikas are associated with one of the most violent acts against people in history. Thus I agree it can be thought of as terrorism (widly defined) however how does this stop it being polltical graffiti, things can belong to more then one catagory.--JK the unwise 10:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've restored a version of the sentence, based on this discussion. GTBacchus 18:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just think there's a huge difference between offending someone with painted symbols and indiscriminately murdering people. You can't reverse the damage done by a car bomb with a brick (I smash away any swastika I see, or if its in marker i turn it into a flower :P I recommend it, its a very satisfying experience) --Tothebarricades.tk 20:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Radical and political graffiti

This statement: the considerations of the practitioners are often divergent and can relate to a wide range of attitudes is practically identical to this one: Graffiti means different things to different people. I've taken out the latter three times now, please don't add it back in.

Loads to think

I would ask any Graff people to look at the top pic of the artist on the link i will provide and tell me if you see a connection with graffiti art? http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Bios/Bomberg.htm

Although he chose to use bright colors and a blockish modern style, that doesnt seem graffiti related to me. People like Jackson Pollock have much more in common with graf in my opinion.  ALKIVAR™ 04:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see the connection with West Coast U.S. wall art. Nick Boulevard 01:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linkarrahea

I suppose there's a certain irony in that the graffiti page would spawn dozens upon dozens of weblinks and red links to obscure graffiti daubers and their fans. I'm inclined to cut&paste any remaining red links to talk, and pare down the external links soon -- thoughts? jdb ❋ (talk) 21:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not touch the Famous artists section, these are probably the only graffiti artists worthy of their own pages on WP notability wise. As for the external links, yeah we're turning into a link directory, so that can probably be pruned down. I'll go through and prune it a bit this week.  ALKIVAR™ 22:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I daresay that you're going to have to do more than bluster to convince me of their notability. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They are universally declared "hall of famers" by the award winning documentary Style Wars the definative movie on Graffiti. Pick up any book on graffiti, look for a hall of fame, you'll find them there. Nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 01:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good. Thanks. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A good portion of links in the famous artist section link to something totally unrelated. Not sure about the proper way to fix this though. Maybe add (graffitti artist) to their links? And artists with an "aka" should not have two links. For example, "Giant aka Mike Giant" should probably be "Giant aka Mike Giant". Paul Slocum 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "Famous Artists" should be renamed "Hall Of Famers". There's an awful lot of names there that aren't even linked to stubs, and it just might cut down on obscure wikifluent taggers deciding this is another place to write their name... (A5y 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

little comments

nice little photo contribution of the berzerker character.Being from montreal I've noticed his work before.Big ups for the fliks! P.S. I don't see why the artists list is seperating "aerosol artists" and "subway artists", Both lists contain names of oldschool "subway aerosol artists".With the exeption of Cap, who was just a bomber(read vandal),and never did any artistic graffiti(although he is an important mention, being a prolific and influential vandal.)Ostione

Its based upon their preferred target... the "subway artists" almost exclusively hit trains. The others did occaisionally do trains but mostly did walls/buildings/bridges etc...  ALKIVAR™ 18:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Crass, Banksy etc

Great that this is now a featured articel, but seems a shame that its at the expense of political stencil graffiti-ists like Banksy, Crass, etc who have now been shunted to a sub-page. I feel this current should at least be acknowledged in the main article even if more detail is elsehere quercus robur 9 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

The graffiti font

A common feature I've observed in modern graffiti is the often unreadable, highly stylized font being used. Can anybody explain the origins and significance of this font, and why it's so prevalent compared to regular handwriting? Does it even mean anything? Here's an example. Tronno 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


It is not one "font" but thousands of different fonts. Pretty much each graffiti writer will have a different "style" to others. Some people prefer to do a highly complex and complicated style as a way of showing off they have mastered doing letters, whilst others prefer to do a plain simple style as they prefer to show they know letters so well they can strip them right down to something basic and they still look good. What does your question about it meaning anything refer to? Are you asking about the meaning of the font or the word that is written? Luc1972


Thanks for answering. By "meaning" I meant, does the complexity of the style have some deep-rooted significance, is it linked to kudos/respect, things like that. You already covered it, though - thanks again! Tronno 06:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as a graffiti 'font', font is for computers. What you are refereing to in the handstyle, the handstyle shows the depth and complexity to which you can form your letters, and therefore your tags. The handstyle also depends on the person, some people choose to have a as you put it a 'highly stylized font' to show that they can do complicated letter formatios. While others use simpler ones to show that they can use basic letters and still form a decent tag. Using regular 'handwriting' would get rather samey after a while too. - rf

SEZ1 Says One ...

"It's a Testing Place; It's a Stepping Stone ..." We're all into saving face, but we're a long way from home. Shoppers and Plumbers, we are - a curious fix of the Merchants Of Assembly, yet we manufacture nothing, only that which supports and affirms our own comfort zone, our own crusty envelope.

Graffiti is one of the pure live wonders left on the square streets of Mankind. We're born into a Circus and convinced of it's predictable alleyways and cauldrons at a very young age. We deviate not, for fear of losing what we are most bored with, and most conceited of: our ego. Graffiti is a Shouting, a Scream, a diamond in the Mud Puddle, the Dog who got the Weiner from the Butcher and still has a smirk on his face. It is not on the menu handed to us by our Physics Instructor.

We can intellectualize until the cows come home, with our diplomas and curious command of professional boredom. It doesn't change a thing. Art is what art is, and a sidewalk is what a sidewalk was. Our whining and maneuvering makes not an iota of change, nor does it instill any new color in our morbid palette. It is just the sound of cows grinding their dentures into oblivion.

There is a significant boundary between vandalism and art, and that stands for each of us to deal with, as it were a fly in our own soup. You can blame the waiter, the restaurant, the soup company, the fly, flies at large, insects in general or weather in particular. Or you can flick the fly and eat your soup. Dig what is worth digging. Bury the rest. And make your own garden good for your own dog.

That's the most honorable position imaginable.

[1]


FA review of November 2005

This review led to consensus that this article does not currently meet standards, that a revert to a prior version would not meet standards, and that the issues involved can not be easily fixed. It has been listed on WP:FARC.

Promoted February 4, 2005. Photo in lead makes for very awkward formatting on my machine. The "References and additional resources" sections are way too big and unspecific. I'm not sure about focus -- this article is about ancient Roman graffiti, modern hip hop graffiti and things American cities have done to combat graffiti, which sounds like it is missing a lot. But then, it doesn't seem like the originally promoted version was any better in that regard, and I do think (references and additional resources beside), the changes have been overall positive. Tuf-Kat 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Here is the article as it appeared at the time of promotion. The original article wasn't fantastic, and some of the changes make me consider listing it on FARC -- there are too many inline links, the Terminology section should be converted to prose, and there are way too many short paragraphs. I don't know if it should be reverted, because the same problems exist in the original article. This requires a major rewrite, and depending on consensus I may list it on FARC. PacknCanes | say something! 04:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record I complained at the time that this image was too damn wide, but the only way to get it past FAC was to keep it there *rolls eyes*.  ALKIVAR™ 09:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree there are too many lists and too little narrative. It's also unclear if the refernces - especially the section on films- are discussing material that was used to write the article or if they are movies about graffiti- whetever the case it need to be made clear. The link farm at the end of the article is also a bit excessive.--nixie 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is due mostly in part to most of the content being shunted into other articles. In particular see Types_of_graffiti this spinoff made up about 50% of the original FA'd article!  ALKIVAR™ 09:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Clarification between tagger/writer and tagging/piecing

There is inconsistent use of the expressions tagger and writer (writers are generally what they call themselves) and when talking about the work they do the phrase tag/tagging is used to describe lots of aspects of graffiti. I'll have a go at tidying it up if no one objects. luc1972

Art or Crime:

Is graffiti an art or crime? Many belive its just a bunch of little hoodlems running around when in fact many people do it including people who come from very wealthy families. Not only that you have to look at the work as if it where on a canvas at an art exibit. Was the person who did this tring to say something other then something about a gang? Does this look as if someone really cared about what they wrote? You may wanna take into consideration the diferent types of graffiti tags. Many tags may be just gangs marking they're territory. Other go out and risk they're life to deliver a message that many people just call garbage. If you would like to contact to me, you can at doggiefic@yahoo.com

[ADDED: 10/2/07] Graffiti is a crime there is no reasoning with that. Writing on something that is not yours in against the law. It is however, art at the same time. A huge piece thats covers top to bottom and end to end on a wall is illegal (if not done on a legal wall) but it is still art. Most people say that there are two sides to graffiti. Taggers and artists, and that the tags are not art and the big fancy pieces are. This is not true. A tag and a piece are the same thing. How can anyone say a piece is art while a tag is filth when they are the same thing. A piece is nothing more than a tag with design and some 3D. While a tag is the writer's name. A tag is the fastest way to get your name on a wall. While a piece is the longest. Don't confuse this with gang graffiti. Gang graffiti is a gang marking their territory. Graffiti taggers mark their names on everything they can write on. Art is really just how you interpret something. Some see graffiti as self expression while others don't see what was put into it by the writer and dismiss is as filth. Either way graffiti is against the law and is a crime. I'm not saying that it is wrong and that it shouldn't be done, I'm just saying that it IS illegal. by: ["TEARone" EAB'krew']

needs hip hop section

This article is great, but it definitely needs a section on its relevance and importance in hip-hop; which is arguably the reason that it has gained such prominence in modern times.--Urthogie 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would love to see more information on its connection and history within hip hop culture. Currently, "hip hop" is only mentioned at the bottom of the article in the section References and additional resources. Wintran 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Chaka here?

"Chaka" (Daniel Ramos born somewhere in early 70s) is the most famous graffiti artist in Los Angeles until he got arrested somewhere in the early 90s and they erased all his tags. He accomplished 10,000 tags from San Diego to San Francisco. He is a legend only to those who were old enough to remember the early 90s streets, signs, and freeways of Los Angeles. [2] r430nb

I may be able to get some documents from court cases on this subject as a member of my family worked on the prosecution side for a while in the 1980s. Slambo (Speak) 15:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Guerilla Marketing PSP/Slashing incident.

2005-2006, there was a campaing in San Fransisco, where someone, apparenty hired by Sony had painted numerous PlayStation Portables advertising character on walls. Local writers had responded by slashing them, they had put eg. red paint over the characters eyes. Anyone know more about this, and know whether it should be mentioned?

[ADDED: 10/2/07] If i knew how to embed an image i would but here is the link for the example image. http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/getout.png http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pi5send5_f-thumb.jpg http://www.yardwear.net/blog/content/binary/sony-psp-graffiti.jpg by: ["TEARone" EAB'krew']

Miscellaneous Improvements

-The section "The Rules Of Graffiti" could use a citation... unless these rules are simply the contributor's own. (This is my suspicion, unless anyone else has heard of these "rules".) See Wikipedia:Verifiability. (I also cannot resist commenting on the misspelling of "orthographic rules", the irony is delicious.)

-"Computer generated "tags" of usernames are now increasingly popular on forums, one notable site being Gaia Online." ...is this pertinent to an article on graffiti? Graffiti's stylized letterforms can be found innumerable places, online and off (most notably in advertising), and I don't think one web forum's avatar trend is relevant to the article.

- "Famous Artists" should be a linked-to category, not a sprawling list of links at the end of the article.

- The computer-generated "No Guts No Fame" image, besides being used in five (!) wikipedia pages, is more of a homage to graffiti than an example of it (see first line in article for a definition of "graffiti" - "Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces"). The image's wordy caption also tries to cover too much -- maybe this could be the start of a separate article on computer-generated "graffiti"?

- I also have many graffiti pictures; what guidelines are we using to select pictures for the article? We should have some -- any wiki-saavy graf writer is going to think his/her own work belongs here. That's the nature of the beast :)

Discuss? 24.21.187.9 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

adding borf

seeing as though borf is one of the most well known graffiti artists of the current time next to banksy, i would say that he deserves a place in this article. correct me if im wrong, cheers --zachjones4 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

graffiti websites

think we shuld add a section on the prominent graffiti art websites such as the wooster collective and stencil revolution? cheers, --zachjones4 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

you mean bork.

Article deficiencies

I am tempted to list this at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates for the following reasons:

  • References are inadequate. The supposed "References and additional sources" are comprised of film documentaries and general websites, most of which simply show images of graffiti. There do not seem to be any print or scholarly sources used, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty on this subject. Additionally, inline citations aren't used, so it would be difficult to verify anything that is said.
  • The article's coverage of the subject seems incomplete. Sociological, psychological, and aesthetic/critical interpretations are absent, and I'm pretty sure significant academic research has been devoted to this subject. Graffiti seems more complex than just a history and legal section...
  • ...and terminology and famous artists sections, which I think should be moved to seperate articles, then linked via see also. These sections are by nature endlessly expandable and encumber the main article with what can be considered trivial information.
  • As a consequence of lack of adequate sources and inline citations, the text is littered with generalizations, weasel words, and what may be considered non-NPOV statements. Good example:

"Most of those who practice graffiti art wish to distance themselves from gang graffiti. Differences in both form and intent exist: graffiti art aims at self-expression and creativity, and may involve highly stylized letterforms drawn with markers, or cryptic and colorful spray paint murals on walls, buildings, and even freight trains. Graffiti artists strive to improve their art, which constantly changes and progresses. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, functions to mark territorial boundaries, and therefore does not transcend a gang's neighborhood; in the eyes of lovers of graffiti-art, it does not presuppose artistic intent."

  • In general, the language needs a thorough copyedit. —jiy (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the diff between the last edit of User:jiy and the present version. In the past month it looks like

  1. the reference content has increased (or been reformatted)
  2. the "legality" section has expanded a little (two paragraphs)
  3. the "modern graffiti" section has expanded a bit (one short paragraph)
  4. several additional images have appeared

How are folks feeling about the appearance of this article on WP:FARC at this point? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture references?

I'd like to include a reference to the character Matt from the MTV show Downtown. The character was the only attempt I've ever seen of a television drama trying to explain the motivations of taggers. I suppose it would go into a pop culture or television section, as opposed to film. But I'm not about to create a whole new section to an already long article just for one item. If a more regular editor feels this is a valid edit, I'd appreciate it if you'd add it.

Selected Article on the India Portal

The tag says: Graffiti is a selected article on the Indian Portal, which means that it is a high quality India-related article. I wonder...How is this article India related?? If no legitimate answers are given then I may put this article up as a Selected Article Removal Candidate. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to be putting it up for SARC now. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

citations

The text should also be converted to the <ref> system (see WP:FOOTNOTEs) and the external link references need to be organized according to {{Cite web}} Chubdub 13:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti Terminology

Interesting as the "graffiti terminology" section may be, it's probably too long of a derail to stay where it is. Maybe move this section to its own article, like those in the Lists of Slang category. churl 06:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done —jiy (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

A large portion of the Modern graffiti section seems to be a copyvio, with no wikilinks, and a large amount of text inserted by one anon user. I am going to revert this addition to last edit by Srikeit, but I made this just in case of any disputes. --FlyingPenguins 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright undetermined Howcheng suspects that this article (specifically [55855244 this version]) is a copyright violation, but without a source this can not be definitively determined. If this article can be shown to be a copyright infringement, please list the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are certain that the article is not a copyright violation, you should give evidence below. Please do not remove this tag without discussion.

the TRUTH about OBEY & Shepard Fairey

People, please. Shepard Fairey is NOT a graffiti artist. He is a sticker bomber & wheatpaster. He has NEVER used spray paint as the main medium of his so-called phenomenology acts. Stop adding him to the WIKIPEDIA LIST of GRAFFITI artists. It is an insult to anyone on that list who has ever risked their life or freedom in the name of GRAFFITI. "Wildstyles", anyone ? Instead of continuously overlooking the facts, one of you should research the company FUCT™ & its creator Erik Brunetti. If anyone on this website wants to uncover the "truth", it will be well worth your time. I would even say that it would be a great contribution to the world of information. For starters, you can log on to this website: [[3]]. Good luck.

-Brighton58Brighton58 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting, Rewording etc.

I am not an expert on graffiti but I am a fan and stumbled across this article and the quality standards tag. I did a considerable ammount of work, removing redundant parts etc to clean up that middle section that was in need of help. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Currently the "Famous Artists" section is not included, I did not remove it, though possibly did by accident. It is however complicated to compile a list without a means of verification such as a news paper article perhaps? I think if you guys come up with a standard that can be verified it will help determine who belongs and who doesn't. Once again I did the edits hoping to restore the design aspect to this page and hopefully did not remove anything important. Please read the whoel thing as many sections have been moved, and some removed for redundancy. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Input Required

So far I have just edited the work that was already here, but I am interested in adding a paragraph on Basquiat during the appropriate period of his graffiti work, and compare that work to De La Vega in more recent years. I do not however want to step on any toes depending on what other editors actually feel "graffiti" is. I do think it would do good to expand the idea and possibly give readers a greater understanding on some artists that have a foundation in graffiti. If I don't see any opposition I will work on a paragraph soon. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti and nazi pictures

It was me who removed the picture of Nazi cemetry so I think I need to justify my actions (some say I shouldn't have removed it). The pic had to be removed because:

-someone who wants to find out what graffiti gets the wrong visual definition

-the contemporary definition of graffiti has very little to do with political radicalism

-vandalising cemeteries is not graffiti related

-nazi symbols are DEFINITELY NOT graffiti related


It's like talking about STDs in an article about PLAYBOY! I've been a graffiti writer for over 13 years now and I must say the article is unfortunately not very good (I will gradually try to clean it up and update it). Ask 10 random people what graffiti is - the answer you will get will be "colorful paintings on walls" and this is the exact definition of this term. Of course vandalism and radicalism should be mentioned (but not with sentences such as "some would classify it as a form of terrorism" - this sentence also needs to be deleted) but showing a picture of desecrated cemetery is too much, not to mention associating 'graffiti' with nazi symbols. Look at the pictures I've just added - this is what graffiti is - how does it correlate with symbols of a regime which killed millions? Imagine a person who wants to learn the ideas behind graffiti and wants to look it up in wikipedia. They see nazi symbols and get the wrong visual impression, I think you should also consider the correct impression that an article creates. Hope you understand my point. Thanks.

You recently removed an image that was directly related to the content which it was located by. Which was the image of the graves with nazi symbols on them. I ask you put it back, considering your edit summary said it was not related, as I pointed out though the text it was next to shows exactly why it is. I know for some people the mere sight of Nazi symbols is disheartening, however its related to the article and I believe relevant to show hateful graffiti. If your objection is just that it portrays a negative view of graffiti itself, please take in mind we have to show both sides, the negative things graffiti creates as well as the amazing murals. I hope to get a response soon from you and hopefulyl we can work to a middleground if you do not agree with me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your quick reply, but I feel as you are a graffiti writer you are perhaps not seeing the full picture. Graffiti has been used as a form of terrorism as well as forms of political speech. While I do not mind the removing of the picture, removing of its mention int hese fashions would bias the article. Both sides of the debate have to be looked at and accepted in the article. While the article has an extremely large section on its history, it does not nearly adequatly focus on its negative impacts to society. Removing a portion that states graffiti has been used as a for of terrorism and racism would be a form of censorship, attempting to hide or stop the negative uses of graffiti from being explained. I hope you can take a step back and realize we have a NPOV policy on wikipedia that promotes articles to be fair to both sides. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

_________________________________

Ok, to answer your post:

- not seeing the full picture? As a graffiti writer I think I can see more than the average person

- graffiti terrorism? You need to understand that Wikipedia is read all over the world, not only in the US. In Europe we hardly even use the word 'terrorism'. I'm sorry, but associating it with graffiti is just ridiculous... The definition reads: Terrorism n. - the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organised group (...) You can not use force or violence by making graffiti in any form! Please, be realistic.

- I haven't removed any portion of the text or censored anything, I just removed a picture which had nothing to do with the article, if there was a photo of a toaster in it I would do the same thing. The negative side of graffiti is and should be mentioned. I think the photo that someone posted (about gringos) perfectly illustrates the issue.

If we were to think like that then we would have to include pictures of devastated bus shelters and phone booths in the article about glass production. These things are just not related in the same way. Greetings

_________________________________

Berlin wall

Thought this pic might be useful for this or another article. Cheers, --Alterego 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti on the Berlin wall
Graffiti on the Berlin wall

Hi man. Let's keep high quality of the article and please do not use the pic - the graffiti is not very good and it doesn't add anything valuable to the article. Greetings!

PureGraffiti.com added to the Article External Links

How do you get external links added accepted? Some of the external links on the graffiti article page are commercial, personal sites. I tried adding my site, and it was removed, stating that im not allowed to do this. I feel like my site is part of Graffiti Artists lifes, its been up since 1997 and writers from all around the world have gathered there for years. My site was currently re-constructed so it might look like its new, but its been around for years. Since its new opening may 23, 2006 , more than 35 thousand graffiti pictures have been added to the Gallery by Graffiti Artists themselves. We offer free space where members can upload pictures straight from their computer and store them on our site for free. No other Graffiti site offers this. Also, we are growing rapidly, and will remain non-profit, meaning with no advertizements to make money off people. We are not out to make money, we have a dedicated server and pay the bill ourselfs just so that we can provide Graffiti artists with a free medium where they can go to express their artistic talents and add to the massive collection of Graffiti photos. The entire website is User ran, meaning everything added to the site from Graffiti videos, Graffiti Articles to Graffiti pictures are added by people from all around the world. I would like the editor of this section to please re-consider adding PureGraffiti.com and evaluate its worth in the Graffiti Culture and all that it offers for the Graffiti Community.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.118.182 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-06T15:40:22 (UTC)

You are not allowed to link to your own site on Wikipedia; please see Wikipedia: External links. I removed your site because it appeared to me that it was only added to promote the site's online store. There may be other external links in the article that were added for promotional purposes. If so, they should be removed, but that is hardly a good reason to add further promotional links.
Raising the issue on the talk page, as you just did, is the first step in getting a link added. If any established, neutral editor wants to vouch for your link and re-add it, I have no objection. However, adding your own site or attempting to promote any site goes against Wikipedia consensus. Wmahan. 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We offer free space where members can upload pictures straight from their computer and store them on our site for free. No other Graffiti site offers this. - that's not true; a lot of other graffiti sites allow users to upload their pictures. --duncan 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Please re-consider once again, Im not sure if its appropiate for me to discuss this here, let me know if its not, I dont want to break any rules. I investigated the following in hopes to get a better resolution, I dont feel like the external links page shouldn't include the following if my site is not allowed because they contain the exact same things as my site, also, just because I am the owner of the site and am adding it, what would be the difference if I acted like I wasnt the owner? I I have only one link to the graffiti store once you enter the site, and its nowhere on the gallery or the top navigation, but just because I have a store doesnt mean I was posting my site in order to promote it, I was certainly not, or else I would of tried to add the store url when I added the other url. Also like I said before, my site has been up since 1997 off a different domain, and since 1999 off the current domain. We are ranked 5 on google, and get plenty of hits on our own, I was not trying to add my site here to receive more hits. PureGraffiti.com is going to be online for as long as the internet is alive, the gallery will be the biggest gallery of graffiti art online, weather one agrees with me or not, you can take a look at the stats and figure it out yourself. We are online for Graffiti Artists that dont have the knowledge or money to get their pictures up on a website that is already established and well known by almost everyone in the USA that is a Graffiti Artist. The store we have merely pays for the dedicated server bill costs to keep this huge site alive, and there are 500 other stores online that do advertize on google and other sites, we on the other hand dont. We also dont charge for the webspace, and we also dont have advertizing for money on our site in hopes to make money of our viewers like many of the sites you have accepted.

Please take all this into consideration:

http://www.Artcimes.org = first graffiti site. They have a store as well, and they have advertizing for money all through-out their site. Just because they are the first graffiti site, doesnt give them any special treatment. http://www.bombing.org = Advertizing for money all over the site http://writers.org.ua = advertizing for money pop-up when visited the site.

P.S. By no means I have a problem with these sites, however, I do think it is unfair that they get to be on there when my site is the same, and does not contain advertizements to make money.

Thank you once again. Sabrina

Sabrina, I don't think you get the point Wmahan made earlier. The difference is you added your own site. Susan Farrell didn't come here and add Art Crimes herself. If PureGraffiti.com should be added to this links section, you can't add it, some other user needs to add it for you. Of course, that probably wasn't the reason the link was originally removed. --duncan 07:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Duncan, how do you know the other peopel didnt add their own site???? What is your proof?? My point exactly. So if someone goes and adds my site, it would be accepted? because if its not, then what is your excuse then? You both are contradicting yourself, and also not answering my questions. All you are telling me is " oh you added your own site, so thats why it wasnt accepted" but you arent answering any of my questions??

You are probably right that there are still inappropriate links in the article. It's common for people seeking to add promotional links to object by saying "but other people do it!". But to be honest, that's a weak argument against the consensus on Wikipedia that adding one's own site is not allowed.
If someone else added your site, it would be examined in the context of that user's contributions, with an attempt to assume good faith. So if an established neutral, editor were to add it, I would have no objection. However, you already said you are the owner of the site in question, so naturally you are not the best person to make an objective decision about whether it is included. Wmahan. 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyways, I appreciate your feedback.

Introductory picture removal

A long time ago I placed an introductory picture of various European graffitis at the beginning of the article. I thought it is a good idea to make the article look more professional and visually appealing and let others get the right idea of graffiti when they look it up. I placed it next to the contents table so it wouldn't take too much space in the article and so it would look ok both in 800x600 and 1024x800. Couple of days ago a user named zero0faults made the pic smaller and moved it to the styles section. I didn't agree with that and moved it back where it was. Because I already had a discussion with this user (see the above posts) I went to his profile and checked his contributions and it looks like I'm not the only who has problems with his actions (he describes it in his profile as if he was proud of it). This is also the same user who thinks swastika is a good example of political graffiti and that graffiti can be a form of terrorism(!). I strongly disagree with all his actions so I want to ask you to post your opinion here (NOT YOU zero0faults!).

Should the graffiti stylaz.jpg picture stay as a graphical introduction?

Thank you & respect. - User:Nrgiza

No it breaks formatting in 1280x1024, which emans there is no way it fits in any lower resolution. Furthermore the section styles lacks a picture and that picture is perfect for the section as it displays various pictures. As for your ignorant comment about me being proud of moving your picture, if you took a look at the history of this article, it got a major cleanup thanks to me, a cleanup that didnt involve your picture btw. Furthermore why dont you attempt to read the article instead of making outlandish comments like "swastika is a good example of political graffiti and that graffiti can be a form of terrorism" Yes graffitti can be used to terrorize a populace when the graffitii being placed is of a swstika. The article says it if you cared to read it instead of worrying solely about the prominence of a picture you uploaded. I never said it was a good example of political graffiti. And to close, you cannot tell me I cannot defend my point, you do not own the article (see WP:OWN) --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I know you wont actually read the article I will show you why that picture was there:

This type of graffiti can seem crude, for example fascist supporters often scrawl swastikas and other Nazi images. Because of the strong associations between Nazi images and racial violence, many see this type of graffiti as tantamount to a threat of violence, and thus some would classify it as a form of terrorism.

Next time do some research before commenting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes I do take pride in contributing to this article as this is what it looked like before [4] and this is what it looked like after [5] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care if the style photo is included or not, and Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that a photo can only be used once. So Nrgiza, you would do well to put it up on the styles page. But Nrgiza, ZeroFaults put a lot of time into this page and I completely understand his desire to try and protect it as much as possible. But to both of you: I think that most editors are growing weary of this pissing contest over the image--so come up with a compromise. I note that in neither FireFox (@home) nor Explorer (@work) does the image disrupt the formatting, as much as just closes a big hole. Otherwise, it doesn't make much difference--I just think you guys should be adult and stop wrestling and figure a way to resolve this dispute. You both are doing great work! --DavidShankBone 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you David for an intelligent comment. You're right, no point in arguing about little things, but I don't agree with your sentence 'I completely understand his desire to try and protect it as much as possible'. Zero0faults didn't need to protect it because I wasn't vandalising it. In my opinion I only made it look better.

But now I know why the article is so bad, it's because of users like zer0faults, people who think they own the articles. It looks like the biggest strength of wikipedia is at the same time its biggest weakness. It takes only one maniac to discourage the rest of the wiki-community to contribute in any way... I wanted to start editing the article but I'm 100% sure that every time I make an edit zer0 will show up and delete it (even the nickanme suggest what kind of person it is). This way the graffiti article will include a picture of swastika, definition of terrorism, and probably soon links related to G.Bush's biography. An article should properly define a given term and I think nothing shows the meaning of graffiti better than pictures. Don't know how the picture should fit the styles section because it shows only newskool and one poor example of throwup (but of course zer0 wouldn't know that being the graffiti expert)... nevertheless, I'm out of here, I hope there will be someone else who will take care of this mess and realise that the history of graffiti started way before 1971 and that ancient Romans had nothing to do with modern definition of this term. Good luck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrgiza (talk • contribs)

Your ignorant comments astound me, I did not write anything for the article, therefore I couldnt have made it worse, I did not contribute any of its content, mearly cleaned up the mess that was already here. Before you start editing articles you should read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as you seem to have little concept of civility. You say you want to contribute, but your contributions only revolve aroudn the placement of a picture you uploaded and your want for it to be at the very header of the article. Maybe you should contribute by looking up some sources so this article can one day meet featured status instead of failing on the basis of WP:OR all the time. I do not know what your terrorism and George Bush rant was about ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And your idea that the term Graffiti did not stem from ancient romans language means we have to ignore historians and take up your perception ... I think i will stick to historians for some reason. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to contribute perhaps reading it first would help, the first paragraph says Graffiti in relation to its modern usage now had its prominent years of 1966 – 1989, so who is saying it started in '71? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Artists and Styles

I just came back from an exhibit at Brooklyn Museum that featured Graffitti as an art form. I will post some information about writers and styles as viewed from the museums perspective and non-writers point of view. give me 3 days to make sense of my notes etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that this article is about GRAFFITI! It doesn't belong in museums and non-writers point of view really is of no relevance here. Again you try to introduce a huge misconception. When do you realize there is something wrong with your concept of graffiti? Graffiti is spray paintings IN THE STREETS! If it's in a museum it's not graffiti any more! It may have the graffiti style but it's art then. If you want to learn something about graffiti look up the term TOY. This is what we call people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrgiza (talk • contribs)

The world seems to disagree with you, as I said this suppose to cover Graffiti as a whole, not your limited understanding of it. I have already added the relevant information to other articles. Second of all I do not write so I wouldnt be a toy, perhaps you should look up the term and cease your personal attacks. If I am to take you correctly it means you feel Neckface, Basquiat, Cope2, A-One, Bear167 and Fab Five Freddy are all not graffiti artists? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti Cultures: a Sociologic approach to Graffiti

Not sure of the value of this section. The image is basically a venn diagram that doesn't really tell us very much about graffiti. The text seems to be lifted from the essay that it references. It appears to have been badly translated into English, and seems to be mostly original research. I vote to strike it from the article completely. --duncan 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I did nto want to remove it because I have been accused of vile things, however I do agree it seems it may be a copyvio issue and while I think certain information may be useful merged into other sections, I do not think it should get its own slapped in, the author may have had good intentions but they should have explored the article and inserted text where appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I published the text, I'm Italian and I took that essay from Author's Online Essay with his permission (it is published also in Italian Wikipedia and it's considered as an important theorisation by European Art Dealers. I suggest to correct english errors and to ask the Author to expand it, as it has been done on the huge database of graafiti.org . I'm an Italian wiki editor since 2004. Thanks for the cooperation. Federico Marelli

Have you considered summarizing the text and attempting to find where its portions best fit into the current article instead of inserting the entire text right into the article? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zerofaults, I considered it before publishing but a lot of people related to "Graffiti World" and not only, suggested me that that theory and definitions couldn't melt in other definitions. Minelli's essay defines artistic genres and this is very important and allows people involved in conventional art to come in touch with graffiti world, calling the different disciplines with their internationally used names. Sorry again for my writing mistakes. I published this essay because I consider it very important and in europe as already been published by important newspapers and art reviews. By the way my words are only suggestion and I think time will give me reason. With love and respect. Federico Marelli

"in europe as already been published by important newspapers and art reviews" - really? which ones? --duncan 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the best bet would be to paraphrase it if we cannot find suitable locations for merging, however keeping the full text I believe is not appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be that we should come up with a new section, to follow on from Clean Trains Movement, that talks about post-graffiti/street art/whatever. But after trying to edit Minelli's text yesterday, I find it to be almost worthless as it currently is, partly due to losing a lot in translation ("this pictorial discipline has enriched of meant traditional Graffiti connoting them and enhance them to great public" anyone?), but also because it isn't actually that interesting and states the obvious for the most part. Despite the author's unsourced claims for its importance. So maybe taking ideas from the text, but doing a complete rewrite, cutting it right down to something more succinct, and putting it in an appropriate section. --duncan 08:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cope2 image / 'Derivate Works'

Haukurth commented out the Cope2 'Time magazine' image, with comment 'this is not a free image, it is a derivative work and should be deleted from the commons. In my opinion we shouldn't use it here either'. After reading up on what the Commons has to say [6], it seems that pretty much every photo on this page, with the exceptions of the ancient graffiti, is a 'derivative work' and should be removed. Personally I'm all against that; is there any way around this other than claiming fair use? --duncan 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, I've been going through the images and adding notes that they are derivative works. Going forward we should contact graffiti artists and ask them to licence their works under a free licence. Unfortunately they are often anonymous. Haukur 20:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So if we got some graffiti artists to submit their own photos of their work, it would be ok? Or is it possible for them to give the ok to our photos of their work? I might be able to arrange something if so.--duncan 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
An independant artist taking a picture of a publically displayed piece of art should not fall under this. Can someone please post this definition so i can read up on it or a link. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the Commons page on derivative works: [7] This would fall under "artworks in public spaces" but I don't think that really helps. Or if artworks in public places really are automatically in the public domain then we need a new page on that. Haukur 12:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
After reading this I have to say that the graffiti pictures done illegally are not protected, however the Times image was correctly removed. There was a previous image that can be put back however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... What makes you think illegal graffiti art isn't protected by copyright? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see your source. In any case it often isn't clear whether a given graffiti work of art was done illegally or not. Haukur 17:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Because its not considered art work its considered vandalism, its also 2D not 3D, and its artist cannot be determined, so no real copyright protection can be established. If it was considered art, then the artist can sue anyone removing it as destruction of their work, their work cannot be protected if its on the property of another person. Also there is a clause about permanantly public displayed 2D art, which that would fall under as they cannot possibly remove it from its location. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It can be both art and vandalism. I've heard this argument before, that somehow being illegal means it has no copyright, and that's completely false under copyright legislation. the 2D/3D thing is irrelevant. The artist often can be determined. And illegal graffiti is definitely removable from it's location; who says it has to be removed by the artist? As it stands, illegal graffiti is usually less-permanent than illegal graffiti. --duncan 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's more in line with what I thought. I think we have to be conservative and assume all graffiti art is copyrighted unless we have a very good reason to think that a particular work is not. Haukur 09:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The government does not recognize it as art or the property orf the creator if its vandalism, hence why the owner cannot remove it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The 2D/3D thing is not irrelevant if you read the page on derivative works, there is a dif in which photography of a medium becomes exploitable by its creator. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Further the artists cannot be identified, nor do they want to be most often. Do you really think a graffiti artist commiting vandalism has a right to have their art protected. I am all for calling ti a art form, but to think the government see's tagging on walls the same way is beyond silly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Artwork doesn't magically enter the public domain if you use it to vandalize something. If I vandalize a wall by drawing a Pikachu on it and then someone comes along and photographs it, the photograph is not in the public domain. If I vandalize a wall with my own original art then I still hold the copyright to that art. It's even possible that I have, at an earlier date, published the piece of art in another more legitimate forum. There is nothing in the laws which allows us to assume that graffiti art is in the public domain. I'm sure you can get away with using such images in most cases but that doesn't mean they are free. Haukur 10:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Further the idea that it may be contained elsewhere doesnt change the fact that the picture is of a publically displayed permantly that is, piece of art. Further, any piece of work can be somewhere else in a private collection hidden, if that is proven to be the case then the images can be removed. Until I see different by arbcom, I will assume I am right. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Its not art, its vandalism, ask the people on derivitive page, they will tell you. You keep calling it art, its not art its vandalism to the government, its why there are no protections on it, lol. Can you see a tagger suing a store owner for destruction of his art? Also its 2D and permanantly installed art work, so it can be photographed, read the page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read the page. You are misunderstanding the point about 2D/3D. You're also misunderstanding the nature of copyright - it can be perfectly legal to destroy a copyrighted work of art, it happens all the time. I go to a professional photographer and she takes my picture. She gives me a copy but retains the copyright. I go home, decide I don't like it and throw it away. Haukur 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Graffiti is anything but permanently installed. At best most graffiti, assuming it's not buffed off or painted over, will last roughly about 5 years before it starts to fade due to weathering. --duncan 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thats like arguing for earthquakes removing permanant installed massive structural art. Also fading doesnt remove the copyright, the work itself will last longer then 5 years, there is graf in new york city from the 80's, so I am not sure if you are arguing it will fade some, or that it will be gone all together, the latter being false in the 5 year period you propose. We could argue nothing is permanant, but we know that was not the point of the statement. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thats destroying the copy that she legally has the right to distribute, not the original. Destroy her pictures that she does not have copies of and see what happens.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine too, as far as I'm aware, as long as I've been given the pictures. In any case there just isn't anything in the law or Wikipedia policies saying: "If I can legally destroy it then it's in the public domain". Haukur 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When you present evidence of this work appearing in a private location, or a person considering it art, or even their art, then I guess we can have this conversation. However you do not know if a copyright is even acknowledged, further the medium isnt owned by the artist so that creates a whole new section, as I said, perhaps you should discuss this on the appropriate page, not here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to jump through hoops like that to prove that something is copyrighted. We assume it's copyrighted unless the image description page lays out clearly why it's not. I'm fine with a different forum for the discussion, what would you suggest? Haukur 12:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Who says so? I suggest you bring it up on the wikipedia commons direvative works page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A good suggestion, see you there. Haukur 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not plan to participate. have fun however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Surrender Hope, Dorothy graffiti outside the mormon temple?

I thought it was really interesting. Family Guy Guy 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to regain featured article status

Hi all, In the past three days, I've rewritten this article, added refs, and converted old refs to footnotes in an effort to bring this article back up to featured article status. If you can lend a hand, please do, and if you have any criticism, please voice it!

Thanks for your help,

Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Navigation template

Like all articles, the navigation template should be placed at the bottom of the page (and probably changed into a horizontal format). A suitable lead image illustrating graffiti should be in the top right corner - the . -- Solipsist 08:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue in internally linking pages in Wikipedia

On the list of street artists, the André (France) - Graffiti - Monsieur A. link goes to the André (Singer) article. I don't know where it should go, but I think this needs a quick fix. Thanks, 74.137.72.148 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.--duncan 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aviation graffiti

Can somebody who knows more about it than me have a look at the nose art page & see if there's a way to mention it here? Trekphiler 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)