Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts/Archive1

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

Let's get this party started

Ok, now that we've signed up, what can we do to start fostering a relationship between the all the arts on Wikipedia? What can we do to improve articles? Should we all introduce ourselves first? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, who is maintaining the portal? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I mostly work on art articles, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts shows no signs of life I thought setting this up might be a good idea. I was also disappointed with the lack of support for some articles in COTW and AID which I thought might benefit from the attention of an arts project. As far as I can see, nobody's maintaining the portal regularly, other than Cyberjunkie occasionally changing the format. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! Well, I'm a theatre person and spend much of time working on articles relating to it. I also help maintain Portal:Theatre and I created WikiProject Theatre and WikiProject Elizabethan theatre. Well, I just got back from a walk and while walking I thought about some things this Project might work on. Here are some ideas:
  • First I think we need to redo the Project page. I jazzed up the page for WikiProject Theatre, just to make it more visually appealing; we're artists aren't we? In addition, we need to have a scope and mission statement as well as ways to help the project.
  • Since we encompass such a large area, I think trying to work on individual articles might be difficult. Perhaps the purpose could be to enhance co-operation between projects and portals, certainly maintenance of all arts related portals, and perhaps an arts article collaboration (only if there is enough interest in this Project).
  • One project this group might consider should be sorting out arts related catagories. Certainly working on a general arrangement of them and then working downwards. Being that they are so related, perhaps creating a model category for arts related fields and then working to bring other arts related categories in line with that.
Just some ideas in stream-of-conciousness order. On the re-design of the project page, I have very little time now, but I may be able to tackle it shortly and redesign it if you like. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Two more thoughts. Perhaps we might send some spies over to WikiProject Science and find out what they're doing to create attention. We also might consider an arts related assessment of arts coverage as a whole. Taken it piece by piece and looking at how the arts of covered. Of course we need people in all the arts disciplines to really be able to do this well. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, absolutely yes to all of the above. I must confess that other than an arts COTW (a long way down the line from now, you're right) and looking after the portal I had only the haziest idea of how this project could actually improve individual articles, but your category suggestion sounds like a good place to start – an orderly list of categories on the portal à la Portal:Science will look impressive. In fact, the whole idea of this project as I envisaged it was of stealing all of the Science project's best ideas, so I'm glad you caught on to that!
The only new suggestion I have to add is that we perhaps formulate a sort of standard "Come and join the Arts Portal!" message and paste it on all of the related project/portal talk pages. Granted, some of them are a bit dead, but surely loads of people who joined and then forgot all about them still have those pages on their watchlists. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So, how should categorization go? Has a categorization scheme already been invented by historians or sociologists to categorize the arts and artistic endeavor? I'm going to search for one, but if anyone knows of a book or web site that discusses such a scheme, let us know!

--Tony(blah blah blah)(look what I can do!) 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, certain categories can be applied to every art category, such as "Theatre by country", "Dance by country", "Visual arts by country", "Literature by country" and so forth. The same could go for categorizing artistic movements, artists, etc. The purpose of the categorization would be to structure these in a consistant manner. In addition, there are some issues that might be best addressed here (i.e. an issue I have still yet to resolve in terms of theatre categories: should theatre be classified by country or by culture? This also affects the naming of the category ("Theatre in Italy" vs. "Italian theatre")). This is certainly a decision that would apply to all arts categories. Another issue arises with the use of British vs. English and then further what about Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish? What about artists, etc. under colonial rule? (i.e. Indians under British rule? classified as British, Indian or both?) Note, however, that I have noted and appreciated your sarcasm. :-) Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I had a bash at what you might call a "categorization scheme" on Portal:Arts/Categories. I put theatre, music etc. under "Performing arts" and architecture, painting etc. under "Visual arts" (no surpises there). Literature and poetry I decided to class as "Liberal arts", although the term is a bit problematic as in the classical sense it would mean grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. And of course you could argue the case for poetry being one of the "performing arts". This scheme hasn't actually been applied to the categories yet – I'll wait for some feedback from the project as to whether everything's in the right place before I go ahead with the changes. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Arts-related percentages

I just did a few calculations. Of Featured articles, arts-related articles comprise roughly 20%, while they comprise 19% of Good articles. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag for WikiProjects

I just whipped this up! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Arts
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage.

  • Such a pretty little tag, I'm considering rewording it as almost a sort of party invitation – I've never seen that done before. Perhaps with the header ==An Invitation to all members of this Project/Portal== ... but before I go ahead with that I wonder whether, for brevity's sake, this should be made a template, or whether that would fall foul of the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion squad. Having the message this template is being considered for deletion above the invitation won't reflect very well on the project. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and re-word it as you wish. I didn't create this as a template as I don't see it being used very much. Certainly once the project gets off the ground we may consider making this a template, but as it stands I think just inserting the code will work just as well. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope

Why are television-, film- and radio-related WikiProjects currently excluded from this list? They're no more or less "artistic" than sculpture, comics, or music. Also, what about other, non-theatrical performing arts, like dance and perhaps stage magic? -Silence 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion all of those should be included. I didn't even consider Magic, but it certainly does qualify. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. They're all currently listed under "Arts" in Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects, anyway. -Silence 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Dance was duly added and I'll do Magic next. Film I'm willing to add, but I don't know about Buffy, Digimon or Star Wars: it seems to me that there are plenty of fans to keep these projects in the pink of health, and they neither need help like Theatre or Visual arts nor can they help us, as a big project like Music potentially could with related aspects of the arts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but do those pop culture topics really need what Project Arts is intended to offer as much as ones of the kind already on the list? HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any need to add series-specific projects here. I was suggesting that we add WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, not that we add WikiProject Star Wars or WikiProject Doctor Who or anything of the sort; why would we have to include those just to include "Film" and "Television", when we don't have to include "WikiProject Harry Potter" or "WikiProject Middle-earth" just to list "Novels" here, nor "WikiProject The Beatles" to list "Music" and "Musicians" here? That level of detail is unnecessary, as it should be covered on WikiProject Television, Music, Film, etc. instead, if anywhere. -Silence 19:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's perfectly fine by me, then! HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

We have been increasing our activity from the end of last year and have recruited a number of new members. We are progressing through Wikipedias diet of article on Novel (of whatever level of elitism) and striving for increased quality and consistency. The consistency is more difficult to acheive as Novels come in all shapes and styles and articles that pre-exist are more difficult to bring to consistency. Anyway all the best. I have joined up as a contact between these projects. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! We're certainly glad to have a representative of WikiProject Novels! I just glanced at the project and I'm particularly impressed with the categorization project. This is something we may have to steal for this project. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

New layout

I threw together a new layout for the mainpage. Now, it looks much better, methinks. Certainly not as sterile as it was. If anyone thinks the yellow is too bright, feel free to change the colours or let me know and I'll do it. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm damning with faint praise, but I can live with it. :) Hiding The wikipedian meme 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Better looking apart from the colours - please, please go for something more subtle. We do not want to put people off before they join. Also I suspect once underway fully the layout will need to change again to be more functinal. At present this is beginning to take on the sharacter of a Portal. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the redesign has flair! If it has to be changed – and I suppose Ganymead's (IMO marvellous) in-house style is something you either love or hate – let's at least keep it looking distinctive. Perhaps we should be taking our cue from some of the more aesthetically successful userpages. I see no reason why ours should look like every other WikiProject page. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, as long as the design isn't too esoteric. We don't want to alienate people with an élitist design that's hard to use. But I definitely like what's going on now with the design. Good work, Ganymead! -- T.o.n.y 18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. Feel free to tweak the design if y'all would like. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the current design looks bad: it has a lot of potential, at the least. But it would be hard to dispute descriptions like "garish" or "gaudy" at this point; the bright pastel colors are a bit off-putting. Also a serious issue is that the use of tables on pages like this does, in fact, scare off some users in practice, as it makes it significantly more troublesome to figure out where one has to edit in order to make changes occur on the page, such as the changes required to add oneself to the list of participants. I, for example, had to make 6 or 7 attempts in order to edit the right part of the page to tone down the glaring yellow color to a more reasonable and muted hue (though it was subsequently reverted for some reason..).
  • Remember that one of the key components of all fields of art is the ability to balance sound and silence, positive and negative: this page will look a lot healthier and more aesthetically pleasing when it's less cluttered and has a bit more subtlety and moderation in its presentation. There is a very thin line between a beautiful art gallery and a bloated mound of shinies; we should strongly resist the urge to bloat this page with shiny images, cutting off all room for the text to breathe. Rather than shoving a bunch of huge (albeit very well-chosen) images down our readers' throats, some tasteful, selective placements at carefully-chosen and well-balanced intervals along the page will ultimately be more effective, compelling, and inviting to new users. As examples, we don't really need a giant friggin' portrait of Beethoven to represent the musical aspect of the arts: a simple line of music notes would be more than enough, and would be easier to fit into the layout in a non-obtrusive way. We should also avoid redundancies: we have the image of the dancers both near the top of the page and near the bottom (it's also poorly-alligned near the bottom), when we probably only need it near the bottom, in our signature template, especially since there's already an image depicting "dance" very near the top of the page; nor are two illustrations of comics, and two illustrations of literature, really necessaary (if you're going to include an extra one left-hand column, why not balance things out better and take a load off the page by removing one from the right-hand column?). But, as I said, the layout has potential.
  • It will also probably look better when we don't have a cheesy Hallmark-esque quotation like "Art is the signature of civilizations." as our motto. :) Or lies like "Art means to dare — and to have been right." (Though I am, and long have been, fond of the "Art is useless" point. Wilde will be spared.) But I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :f -Silence 22:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, the art critics have appeared! Thank you for your critique. It should be pointed out that I'm not really a designer, i'm a thespian who has taken a few design courses. Basically, this design is the design I've used for the two theatre wikiprojects I've created as well as my own userpage. It was my intent only to "jazz up" this page and give it a bit of flair. I'm completely open to any suggestions as to how to make this page more presentable. Of course, any project member is encouraged to make any changes they wish! So, go at it. I'll take a look at it tomorrow and see what can be removed to let the "text breathe". Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera

Opera has also been an active area during the past few months. We have a long way to go before we can begin to rival the coverage of the main print resource (the New Grove Dictionary of Opera), however in the long term Wikipedia is better suited to developing an up-to-date performance history than a conventional encylopedia.

We have made some progress in developing an appropriate ‘project style’ based on Wikipedia policies, taking into account that we are using many terms and references in languages other than English. Categorization is disorganized and proliferated, perhaps it always will be on Wikipedia? It might be helpful if the Arts Project produced some guidelines. I see there is a Portal:Arts/Categories page and I may make some comments there.

Lastly I hope members here respect the work done by the individual projects and do not try to impose solutions on them. Advice will be much appreciated, but not peremptory editing! Best regards to all. - Kleinzach 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! We're glad to have your input here. One of the things I'd like to see this porject accomplish is a cleanup of arts-related categories. See below. Again, welcome! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorization project

As I have stated above, I think that one of the major goals of this WikiProject should be a top-down organization of arts related categories. Once this has been completed, there will still need to be reguilar maintenance of categories as articles are added. The goals of this should be:

  1. To better organize all arts related categories. Not only to aid those working on the categories but to make these categories easier for users of Wikipedia.
  2. To properly label art-related articles, this includes not only categorizing them correctly but given them proper stub tags, cleanup tags (a cleanup section for arts articles should probably be located here), no referecnes tags, or even deleting them if they're not found to be encyclopedic. Certainly this will also help to locate articles needing to be merged and renamed as well.
  3. To search out articles that need to be categorized and "corral" them in the proper categories.

Once categories begin to be more organized, we can better get an idea of what is missing and what areas need work.

Accomplishing this

WikiProject Novels has an ingenious chart detailing the categories, including those that have yet to be created. This could be helpful, certainly for the upper eschelons of the arts categories.

One of the first things that really needs attention is the fact that we have three major category headings for this area. They are: Category:The arts, Category:Arts and Category:Art. There was a discussion towards the end of 2004 here about naming. I think having three categories completely confuses the issue. My suggestion would be to combine these under Category:Arts and get rid of the other categories. Anyway, I digress...

This is all just a suggestion. Should interest exist, I'll whip up a project subpage to work on this. As for me, it's 4:30 AM and I need sleep. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be one top level category. Hiding The wikipedian meme 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the three major category headings, Category:Arts can clearly go because this talk page is the only page on it. As for Category:Art, it's not Category:The arts that would make it redundant, but rather Category:Visual arts (although we need to move irrelevances like Anarchism and the arts from C:Art before we arrive at that hurdle).
I've been working on Portal:Arts/Categories (which I've based on its corresponding page on Portal:Science rather than the Novels project's chart) as a possible blueprint for the eventual arrangement of the categories, and probably the first thing you notice is how "Performing arts" is followed by "by country"; but "Visual arts" has "by region" and "Literature" "by nationality" – very confusing.
I would argue that the neatest way of resolving this would be for every subdivision of the arts to have a "by region" category, as with Category:Art by region, which has subcategories for African, Asian and Western art. This doesn't exactly solve the thorny question of nationality over culture over geographical location, but at least it circumvents it until you're well into the sub-subcategories. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png
Ok, I would argue keeping Category:Arts and merging everything there. As I see it, the name of Category:The arts is simply wrong. Naming conventions only allow articles like "the" to be used if the name of the category is a specific title. Certainly, both "arts" and "the arts" refers to the same exact thing, the article doesn't add anything in this context. As for Category:Art, while "art" is the commonly used term for visual arts, for our purposes being specific is the most useful thing. Of course, if we were to do away with that category, it would mean the renaming of a number of categories. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point about the unnecessary definite article, Ganymead – I was thinking only in terms of expediency, but you're right, "Arts" is preferable to "The arts". I also want to call everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, as suggestions have been made on that page in the past few days to:

  1. Delete Category:Arts (Currently most votes are in favour of deleting! Don't let them do this!)
  2. Merge Category:Visual arts with Category:Art
  3. Delete Category:Fine arts

We've made categorisation our main priority for this project, so I felt the need to draw your attention to these proposals. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 21:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I've voted accordingly. Hiding Talk 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have voted on the Category:Arts and Category:Fine arts to suspend the voting until this project can make a proposal. Merging Category:Visual arts with Category:Art, IMO, is ummmmmmm uninformed. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there are some ideas for Visual arts categorization at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_categories if anyone wants to use them. >>sparkit|TALK<< 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sparkit, and welcome. Thankyou for diving into this issue and bringing out attention to the CfD page. I've been away performing so I haven't been keeping up. It appears, so far, that consensus here is to move everything to Category:Arts and delete Category:Fine arts. Shall we conduct a straw poll? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with proposal. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the Portal

This morning (May the 1st) Portal:Arts didn't have a featured article or picture ready to feature! I knocked together Portal:Arts/Featured article/May, 2006 (the Abbey Theatre in Dublin) and Portal:Arts/Featured picture/May, 2006 (a Henry Moore sculpture) a few minutes ago but clearly there needs to be a voting process in place to decide which FAs/FPs appear on the Portal page. Another huge problem is that Portal:Art, linked to on hundreds of pages, still misleadingly redirects to Portal:Arts – amending all those links might be a job for a bot. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Major change being proposed on CfD

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 4

There's a proposal to remove the Arts from the Top 10! Can anyone think of an argument for the Arts being more than a subdivision of Culture? Again, something I really must call the whole project's attention to – this would change the whole architecture of Wikipedia, and I don't think in our favour. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have opposed it. Judging by the Category:Culture page, culture is not a well defined category. It's a mixture of social science items, arts and arts institutions, sport, philosophy, religion etc. even housing, humor and travel! It would be better to exclude the arts (which are reasonably well-defined) and stick to a proper anthropological/social science definition of culture, in my opinion. But then another of the top 10 is people! It's really not very impressive. - Kleinzach 22:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Further point. I would argue for the Arts as one of the three basic (traditional) categories alongside the Humanities (including history, geography, philosophy, languages etc.) and the Sciences (including technology). - Kleinzach 12:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Invalid argument, as the Humanities is not at the top level either. I will continue to support removing "Art" (and "Philosophy") from the Top 10, as its clearly an aspect of culture. If we include "Art" at the top level, we'll also have to include every other major sub-category of culture, like religion, fashion and ethnicity. -Silence 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Sciences are not there either, but that's not really the point. The Arts are fundamental because they represent creative aspirations. If you reduce them to a sub-category of culture, you treat them as an aspect of human behaviour. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say that Art is "clearly an aspect of culture"? Kleinzach 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I must say that I think proposals like the one to remove Arts and Philosophy from this category seem bent on imposing an impossibly rigid structure on Wikipedia, with no hope for flexibility. Arts and Philosophy deserve to be there simply because they are activities of the human mind (just like Mathematics and Science) that would otherwise be totally unrepresented in this category – not exactly a point that can be made for "ethnicity". (I would also approve of Economics and Religion being added for the same reason.) As we embark on our own categorisation saga, I hope we don't fall into the same trap of pedantry. Cheers to everyone for their spirited opposition so far. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Main Page#Proposed change to the top of the page subject list ("Culture" to replace "Arts")

It's been suggested at the above section that the link to Arts at the top of the main page be removed also. Hiding Talk 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Names of movements

I've seen this discussed somewhere, but now I can't find it again. The case in point is Abstract expressionism. It is a title so it should be Abstract Expressionism, which is how it's usually put, as far as I can see. There needs to be a standardisation of capitalisation. I propose the article should be moved to Abstract Expressionism (which I've just discovered is a redirect) and the article text changed likewise. There are a lot of pages linked to it. Is there an easy way to change all these links to a new page? Tyrenius 09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where all capitalization of art movements is discussed, but I've found no consistency amongst resources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. Some research is here, User:Sparkit/capitalization. >>sparkit|TALK<< 14:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The general rule for naming here is to only capitalize if it is a proper name. Of course, are these proper names, ah, there's the rub. I would go with only capitalizing the first name. Though certainly with one word terms like Expressionism, Impressionism, Dadism, etc., the term should be capitalized to follow naming conventions. This is a good subject to bring up...certainly once we reach a decision we should consider submitting a policy proposal. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the naming conventions, I think there's a case to be made for capitalisation of all words bar those that are not conjunctions. Album titles do so and Opera has its own rules, and the page itself directs Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau (my emphasis). A proposal just needs to be written up on the naming conventions talk page, I can't see a problem with adopting it. We might also tackle the issue of disambiguation terms we'd prefer to use, for example artist or painter, work of art, painting or artwork, that sort of thing, for when titles clash, as in Guernica, Richard Wilson and David Wilkie. I've found this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, which seems to offer guidance, or at least a starting point for discussion. I found this guidance "Capitalize the first letter of places (America, the West), nationalities (Native Americans, Europeans) and art movements (Cubism) except when used as an adjective (The painting is cubist in style)." from Art History Writing Guidelines, Colorado State University, a pdf converted to html by google in this link. Hiding Talk 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be in favour of art movements being capitalised, because in lower case terms like romantic, mannerism etc. might not immediately be recognisable as art terms. I found the Art Bulletin style guide rather contradictory: "sharply delimited period titles are capitalized", but they put "quattrocento", as sharply delineated a period as you can get, in lower case. The Art Manual of Style page asks, "Which dictionary [to emulate]? What to do when dictionaries do not agree with one another?" I would say the Oxford Dictionary of Art, because it's the most consistent of the ones on Sparkit's list with its almost universal capitalisation.
One thing that struck me about that list is the rather arbitrary use of hyphens: the Oxford Dictionary of Art has Neoclassicism and Postimpressionism (the latter is a redirect to a redirect on Wikipedia, eventually ending up at Post-Impressionism) but also Neo-Plasticism, Neo-Impressionism etc. That's another thing we'll have to come to a consensus about for this policy proposal of ours. Neo-Plasticism and Neo-Impressionism are considerably less familiar or important developments for the other two, so are hyphens dropped for periods in the art historical mainstream? Neoclassicism with a hyphen would look very strange to me, although Postimpressionism without one looks rather odd as well. As the latter term was invented by Roger Fry, I would suggest that the standard be whichever form he used, if anyone has access to anything written by him on the subject. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) P.S.– I'd love to read this John Wayne and Art Nouveau article!