This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
I continue to hold the view that the section below "List of works" should be titled "Acclaimed works" (or something along those lines) and link to the Picasso works which have been reasonably praised by art critics, rather than imply that it includes all "Paintings and sculpture" and link to any painting with its own page. People who want to know of Boy with a Pipe, for example, can go to the page for his Rose Period or for his 1901-1910 works; it is not of general interest since the painting is hardly, if ever, considered a major work. Since Picasso was highly prolific, it can only be preferable to interested readers for there to be a section of the template that serves to point out which works, out of the hundreds he produced, are acclaimed. AndrewOne (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
is the correct title for that section primarily because that is what is in that section; nor does it imply that those are all or his only paintings and sculpture. We could also include online paintings and sculpture although that is neither accurate or essential. Frankly acclaimed works is an overblown exaggeration that is not needed - this is the Picasso template - Picasso and his work is acclaimed - we do not need to underscore the fact that all of his work is acclaimed - as you earlier pointed out when you objected to Major works - all of his works are not necessarily major works. The paintings and sculptures listed in the template are simply links to separate articles about those works...Modernist (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To arbitrarily determine that certain paintings are acclaimed and certain paintings aren't acclaimed is total POV that does not work on wikipedia. Garçon à la pipe is an important painting and it belongs along with every other Picasso currently linked in the template...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Modernist. No need to express the point of view that some of Picasso's works are acclaimed (which works are acclaimed, or which works are more acclaimed than others). Better simply to list the paintings and sculpture with a link to the relevant articles. There is no implication that all his works are listed (he produced thousands, not hundreds). Coldcreation (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section title seems fine, and should be expanded to include every work that has a page on Wikipedia. If need be we could add section folding for the works. There seems no need to exclude any pages, or to choose some over others. Spacing seems the only problem, and if it gets too large, then a fold for the paintings and sculptures could work well. Randy Kryn15:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the debate concerning the section's title appears to be settled, I would like to add something concerning Boy with a Pipe: Sotheby's is not an art critic but a multinational corporation that had a conflict of interest in extolling the painting. There is an article by Blake Gopnik of The Washington Post cited on the painting's page, and this is a far superior source of critical reception to the painting. AndrewOne (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact alone that Boy with a Pipe attained $104 million would qualify the painting as being a 'significant Picasso work': no matter which auction house was responsible for the publication and sale. Coldcreation (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I simply meant "significant" in the sense of critics' opinion of its artistic merit and/or influence on later art – which is discussed here: [2]. One may believe that a painting's being sold for a certain amount of money automatically makes it a significant work, and that's a viewpoint one could defend. (I simply had a different definition of "significant" in mind.) Concerning your second comment, Associated Press was quoting the statement by Sotheby's that it is "one of the most beautiful of the artist’s Rose Period paintings". AndrewOne (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and nice work, I've added Diana Picasso to the section. Templates don't usually contain 'youngest' or 'oldest' when listing family, but they do list them chronologically in order of birth. The family tree idea is up to you, and if it contains a great deal more than already presented may be an interesting one. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it absurd to have so many lists of works for one, separated chronologically? It sounds reasonable to have separate lists for one's films and books and speeches and discography and paintings for example. These are separated by kind. But several lists separated by time only . . . why not merge them all and make one good, searchable list?
I didn't revert anything related to this. I'm a cubist at heart. Not a square. But seriously, I haven't touched anything concerning Picasso or related subjects for several years. Don't tell me there's another el socko at work. What article was affected? Allreet (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the template's edit history and saw my name. What's disturbing is that I didn't know this template existed. I've never seen it and certainly didn't touch it. I'll contact admin to look into this and you're welcome to do the same. Allreet (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet, right, just checked the editor on this template and it's another capital I. I logged on and found another 19 reverts (he's reverted maybe hundreds of my edits over the past months), but I thought his Allreet socks were all found, so pinged you. My apologies for not checking further. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
