Template talk:Vincent van Gogh

Template designs for the discerning

New template

New template (no picture)

Original template

Long template

I just figured out how to do this!! Stay tuned!! Dafoeberezin3494 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's my first choice!! Dafoeberezin3494 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is your favourite template?

New

The new template is bulky and the top blue band imbalanced and too big. Last choice. Tyrenius 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --RPD 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New (no picture)

This is graphically smart, but increases the size for less information (the picture is lacking) and is slightly less user-friendly as the titles are in one box and the links appear as a bulk of text, not clearly separated. Third choice. Tyrenius 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so inspiring. --RPD 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Original

My own feeling is that the original is the most attractive and user-friendly with the bold text easily showing where to look for subjects and a nice image. First choice. Tyrenius 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, second choice. Simply does not fill the screen. --RPD 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Long

If more links are added the long version would be best as it allows a lot of links without increasing the depth. First choice if more links added. Tyrenius 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My first choice, but I would prefer another image - the former Whitney Self-Portrait, now in Washington. --RPD 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dafoeberezin3494 has just decided on this and I'm happy with it too, so, unless Stumps objects, it looks as though we have our template, which will go nicely at the bottom of each page. I'll give it a test run. I suggest we have some fun and change the picture from time to time. Well done Dafoeberezin3494 on getting the text sorted — it's so simple once you know how! Tyrenius 02:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately a test drive revealed that the template is too wide and sticks out beyond the normal width of the page, so I have shortened it. This is on a low res screen on IE6, so fairly widely used (I don't know if that makes any difference to the result though). Tyrenius 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've aligned it with the categories box underneath, and this works with images in articles as well. Tyrenius 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I too like this one. Stumps 05:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New template design

This is the best idea I have to make it more compact, I don't think I can get the picture in without making the title bar way too big. I made this by studying other templates; I haven't seen one yet that will let me do that. But I would vote for this as my first choice. Dafoeberezin3494 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dafoeberezin3494's first choice now changed to long template — see above. Tyrenius 03:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine tuning template

If you remove bar from Gauguin, "Post" pops up onto it. I think we will have to have a bar between each link for consistency. Also if more links get added or the image gets changed to a different width, the links will move around and it won't matter. Also is there any particular order for the paintings? Tyrenius 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

49 em seems to be the right width: it aligns with categories box, and also with edge of images in the articles. See The Potato Eaters. Tyrenius 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What setting is your computer on? Post doesn't go up to the next line on mine. If you need to do that on yours I can live with that. The paintings were ordered so they all fit on four lines. Dafoeberezin3494 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Now on my computer the paintings go on to a fifth line! I don't know much about computers, but I'm on Mozilla Firefox in 800x600 resolution. Dafoeberezin3494 03:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. That explains it. Different browsers are interpreting the data differently, so it's a question of what browser to optimise for. On your browser with 50em does the template line up with the edge of the category box and the edge of images? Check it on The Potato Eaters.

I checked a random tracker to get some usage statistics. IE 5 and 6 (Internet Explorer) were 80% of users (they will both read similarly I think) and Mozilla Firefox didn't register at all, so it must have a low user base. For screen resolution, 1024x768 was 50%, 800x600 was 30%, 1280x1024 was 10%. I'm using IE6 and 800x600, and I suggest we use IE as a default, as this will be how the majority of people will see it. There may be a style guide for this, but I haven't come across it. Oh, I see you've adjusted it, since I started writing this - nice work. It looks fine on my screen. Just wait till RPD starts another article on VG! Tyrenius 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just have a look on my user page, there are several more now, indeed. --RPD 04:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list any new articles below, so that periodically they can be added to the template.Tyrenius 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I got confused by the template: I wanted to go from "Starry Night" to the main van Gogh article, but didn't understand that "The Artist" linked to "Vincent van Gogh." I wonder if anyone else ever has this problem, or if I'm the only doofus. Perhaps we could link the words "Vincent van Gogh in the top of the template as well. —ScouterSig 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It has now been done. Dafoeberezin3494 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

New articles for template

Please list any new Van Gogh articles here. Once they're added to the template, please mark them as such. Tyrenius 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Voilà, the articles I recently started (and not yet included):

Groups or series by Vincent van Gogh: Flowering Orchards - Vincent van Gogh's Décoration for the Yellow House in Arles - The Wheat Field - Copies after Millet, and others - Vincent van Gogh's Double-squares and Squares from Auvers

Paintings by Vincent van Gogh: Portrait of Paul-Eugène Milliet - At Eternity's Gate - Daubigny's Garden - Les Arènes - The Town Hall at Auvers - View of Arles, Flowering Orchards - Ivy, two paintings by Vincent van Gogh

But I vaguely remember that there are more which already existed, and I have slightly expanded. I'll check it. --RPD 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, we might need to do separate Vincent van Gogh and Van Gogh Paintings templates. Just a thought. Nonetheless, great work in creating these articles, RPD! Dafoeberezin3494 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant work. I think we're OK on template size. Check this one out: Template:World War II! Also note the width is specified as 100%, which means it is flexible according to browser and screen size (this will mean bars between all links, if we adopt this). Tyrenius 16:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope to have completed my work - it's a rather long list, and I think it is the best to expand my previous list (including the items lacking). At the same time I would propose a separation in the template: between majour groups and series on one side - and single paintings (or pairs, completed by preliminary work and repetitions) on the other side.

• Groups or series by Vincent van Gogh: Flowering Orchards - Vincent van Gogh's Décoration for the Yellow House in Arles - The Wheat Field - Copies after Millet, and others - Vincent van Gogh's Double-squares and Squares from Auvers - Auvers size 30 canvases
• Paintings by Vincent van Gogh: Portrait of Paul-Eugène Milliet - At Eternity's Gate - Daubigny's Garden - Les Arènes - The Town Hall at Auvers - View of Arles, Flowering Orchards - Ivy, two paintings by Vincent van Gogh - Les Alyscamps - L'Arlésienne (painting) - Falling Autumn Leaves - Peasant Woman Against a Background of Wheat - Portrait of Adeline Ravoux - Portrait of Eugene Boch - Starry Night over the Rhone

I'm not very happy with the split of the portraits. Probably one entry summarising all of them would be sufficient (and allow to include other portrait studies). While others, like the Roulin Familly, definitely need to be discussed separately. But I think this is simply a matter of appropriate links. RPD 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for reorganisation

based on the template Warsaw Uprising

A template like this could accompany all majour essays on Van Gogh at the top of the page (!!!). All contributions on Van Gogh could then supply a second template (without images, givings a full inventory of related articles)

Object I was playing around with it, but considering this template is on some extremely short articles for individual paintings (Thatched Cottages by a Hill for example) the template would take up too much room IMO. Dafoeberezin3494 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not think of short, but of long articles, and their it could help the reader to select the information he requires: some lines on the main page, or an exhaustive statement on a subpage. The template at the end is, I feel, not really helpful with major (longer) articles.--RPD 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The current small template at the bottom of the page makes sense for articles on paintings where the primary visual space needs to be devoted to the artworks under discussion, and we are short of horizontal space. For longer essentially textual articles something like this might indeed be more useful. But I've also been thinking that maybe a spearate template for the paintings themselves might be useful, as no doubt the number of such articles will continue to grow, and then if we have only one all-purpose template the sheer number of links to paintings will drown out the biographical lniks. Stumps 06:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Alright. I have a problem with this template's colours. First of all, I'm not going to hide the fact that I think they're hideous—they might have been Van Gogh's "favourite colours" (as I saw written somewhere) but I highly doubt that he preferred anything close to these particular shades, as they are frankly not that great.

Either way, it doesn't particularly matter what the shades are, as the colours are distracting, non-standard, and are arbitrarily decorative, which WP:NAV discourages against. While WP:NAV is technically an essay, and not a policy or official guideline, it makes a very valid point. I would just change it myself, but I've seen that previous attempts to change the colour have been reverted.

At any rate, these non-standard colours are simply a color of the bikeshed argument, and I think if we want to make the template look nice, a photo on the side would be just fine, and the template would be a lot easier to read.

Please comment. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not arbitrary, as you have pointed out, since they relate to the subject. Quite possibly different shades would be appropriate. Perhaps we could try some out on this page. Any suggestions? "Non standard", as you put it, is widespread throughout wikipedia and serves a good purpose in cohering the various articles where the same template appears. I note that these colours have been on the template since August 2006, and yours is only the second complaint. The "standard" template seems rather insipid in the context. I have posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Whatever is done, or not done, it would be good to get a consensus for it. Ty 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If every template used colours that were "related to the subject", we'd have a mish-mash of templates in hundreds of different shades, because you'd be able to justify almost any non-standard change. However, we have standard templates for a reason. This template shouldn't be blue and orange any more than United States templates should be red, white and blue or the U2 template should be black and red. I think that the vast majority of the templates on Wikipedia are standard and cohesive with each other, and there doesn't seem to be a very compelling reason for this one template to be blue and orange. I think that the template should be insipid—it's not meant to be pretty, that's what the artwork is for.

At any rate, we shouldn't waste our time arguing over this minor detail. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mish-mash" is one view. "Pleasing variety" is another. There are plenty of templates where editors have chosen a colour they feel is conducive to the subject, and I think that's a good thing. There was no dispute from the many editors who have worked on the subject. It's only arisen because you brought it up. Ty 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any quarrel with the colors, its blue with orange - not really a problem...Modernist (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Family

Uh...his brother, his sister in law, his cousin and his great grand nephew are all relatives..and relevant...Modernist (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a good case. Ty 05:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, family is family...Modernist (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's irrefutable. Ty 07:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose to add Wil van Gogh, Vincent's minor sister - one of the first Dutch feminists. Since a while, I collect notes relating to her in my sandbox. My first trial to establish an entry was removed, but if you think it's worthwhile, I'll reinsert and expand my remarks. --rpd (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you make an entry about her? I don't know anything about her and she sounds interesting, thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no sign of any article on Wil van Gogh having been created or deleted, though. Ty 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Paintings

Shouldn't the list of paintings be organized chronologically of alphabetically? – Editør (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No portal, no portal link

The Vincent van Gogh portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Meadows near Rijswijk and the Schenkweg

Meadows near Rijswijk and the Schenkweg is a single watercolour painting and belongs in the Other Works section of the template and not in Groups of Works Hochithecreator (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Only Oil paintings should be under paintings, any watercolours should be moved to Other Works Hochithecreator (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Watercolor paintings seem to make the bar and are listed on templates as 'Paintings' (far as I know). For what can be done with watercolor see the masterpiece Love's Messenger. 'Other works' here probably should contain sketches, drawings, and the like, and not paintings. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Hochithecreator, would you object to moving the watercolors now listed in 'Other' into 'Paintings' in their individual years? We could ping other art project editors if you'd like to have further editorial input. I'm pretty convinced that watercolor paintings are considered paintings on Wikipedia and should be listed so on templates, but I could be wrong and if there is dispute then other voices would clarify one way or another. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Watercolours were originally placed in the other works section before I started on Van Gogh so I'm just following on from that; and Oil and watercolour are separated on the list of works page. But if other people are ok with moving them to individual years in the paintings section then I'm willing to go along with that. Hochithecreator (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a decided issue or a gray area. Will ping Modernist, Coldcreation, Johnbod to start, they know the rules and regs better than I. Glad you brought the point up, it's a good one. There are plenty of watercolors on templates listed as paintings, and the title of the watercolor painting article was what I was going by. Thanks Hochithecreator, and good to see editors working on art pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fiddly issue. Watercolours obviously are paintings, but in the case of Western ones (not eg Chinese ones) are sometimes grouped with drawings, as they usually are physically in museums for conservation reasons. There's no real right or wrong answer, but you should try to make it clear how you are handling them (maybe eg saying "oil paintings" not just "paintings"). Can they have their own section? Can't "other works" usefully be split into them+drawings? In categories I'd usually put them with the paintings for sure. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Drawings and more elaborate watercolor paintings should probably be separate, and in this case the section head 'Other' could be replaced with two new sections, 'Drawings' and 'Watercolors' if that's a good way to go. Many of van Goghs watercolors are among his earliest works, so a year following each one seems the best way to classify the section along chronological order. The difference between some watercolors and the watercolor and tempera Love's Messenger is striking, as that seems a full and recognizable masterwork painting to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO I would like to see watercolors included as paintings in general; however here we should indicate and differentiate between oil paintings and works on paper...Modernist (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, Wikipedia should follow the example of museums and major auction houses and separate out works on canvas or panel (i.e. Oil, tempera, acrylic, etc.) from works on paper such as watercolours, drawings or prints. I like Randy Kryn's idea that Other works be changed to either Drawings and watercolours or Works on paper. Hochithecreator (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My personal preference would be for Works on paper. Although none of Van Gogh's prints have their own page at the moment it would leave open the possibility of future pages to be created for them. Hochithecreator (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod's "Watercolors" and "Drawings" (two separate sections) seems better to me as upon viewing the pages there is a big difference between the "feel" of the two. Many watercolors are easily seen as 'paintings' while drawings are, well, drawings. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Since looks like a consensus discussion, a ping to Theramin in order. The {{Pablo Picasso}} template seems to be well-ordered for different forms. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I can agree with separate watercolor sections and drawing sections and oil painting sections...Modernist (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Plainly a watercolor painting is a painting (that is, the application of a medium to a matrix to create an image) just as much as an oil painting or tempera painting or ink wash painting or encaustic painting or fresco painting, or even a cave painting. Categorising an artist's works by medium is one possible choice, and for what it is worth, in this case I agree, it makes sense to separate the watercolours and drawings out into their own special boxes. Should we label the big one "Oil paintings" though, not just "Paintings"?

And while I am here, do we really need that prominent yellow bar at the bottom, with just " Book", or can we merge that in somewhere else? What is so special about " Book"? Theramin (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Added 'Oil' to 'paintings' per your suggestion, it fits nicely, and at least removed the green icon from the bottom (I don't understand why bottom items each get an icon, and remove them when I can). Haven't ever opened up one of the 'Book' links, so don't know exactly what those are about. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Paintings, watercolours and drawings

In accord with the consensus reached above, I have separated out watercolours and drawings into two different sections. Hochithecreator (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)