Template talk:Francis Bacon (artist)

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts 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 Ireland This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles United Kingdom This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles

@GB fan: Thanks for notifying me that the redirect pages for Head III, IV, and V were nominated for deletion. I've turned them into stubs, but another editor is harassing me on my talk page and won't let me link to those stubs in this navigation template. I've reverted several times but now I'm trying to avoid participating in an edit war. I guess I'll let others decide if the links belong in this template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am getting harassed also for declining the speedy deletion nominations they did on those three redirects. I am going to let others work on this at this point. ~ GB fan 18:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no worries. The editor's asking to be blocked... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel comfortable reverting this user's edits any longer, and fear being accused of edit warring, so I'm backing off, but still want to see these links restored. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words "I want my edits to stand, but dont care about defending them, and B fan if you could make it all go away that would be great." I see what I am up against here. The original dabs were redirects to the bio, later, sneakily turned into to micro subs as an escape hatch. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Bringing your attention to this discussion since you posted on my talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once this all clams down, I intend to work the links and bring them inline with WP:BRINT. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm moving on to other areas for now because of Ceoil's behavior. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly pointless for a navigation template to link to dozens of redirects to same article, not to mention giving the reader a misleading impression as to the scope of our coverage, and unhelpful to writers who might be looking for articles that need to be written. All of them should be unlinked or deleted from the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.216 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which entries are redirects? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this template would serve better as a list of works by the artist, as that all it is now, just in a navbox format. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of all redirects. Sorry, I didn't realize there were so many, and I thought this conversation was related to the above "Head" stubs. Redirects should not be displayed in navigation templates. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? You didn't realise what you were doing when you created these 40-odd redirects on 7 March? You just happened to make redirects from all of the redlinks in the template to the same article within a few minutes without realising it? So, why did you do that then?

Either these redirects should be deleted (the one-line stubs are almost as useless) or the links should be removed from the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.96 (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these redirects are worse than redlinks. They give the appearance we have information about these works. The ones I looked at have no information at all in the article. I am seriously thinking all of them should be deleted. Since you created most of them, deleting them would be easy if you say you want them deleted. ~ GB fan 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove redirects from the template myself, but the lock prevents me from being able to do so. However, stubs/articles should remain. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you just want to unlink them from the template? That doesn't solve the problem that they still link to an article that does not discuss them. Even changing the target to List of paintings by Francis Bacon does not help because they aren't discussed there either just listed. ~ GB fan 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying redirects (such as Figure Study I), but not stubs, should be removed from the template altogether. Navigation template entries should be Wikipedia articles, not plain text or redirects. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil's point is, I believe, that redlinks are invitations for editors to create articles: I fully subscribe to that opinion. Writing up short stubs to turn those links blue isn't very productive. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Why are there commas after so many of these entries? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They've been removed. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there are six links to paintings that simply don't exist in the template. I think these paintings might be of interest to some Wikipedians who might be interested in starting entries about them, but the way they appear doesn't seem to make sense, because they are empty. I decided to eliminate these six paintings from the templace, but I decided to list their names in here, for those eventually interested in starting entries on them:

• Wound for a Crucifixion (1933)
• Three Studies from the Human Head (1953)
• Two Figures Lying on a Bed with Attendants (1968)
• Three Studies for a Portrait of George Dyer (1964)
• Three Studies for Self Portrait (1973)
• Self-Portrait (1973)

Mistico Dois (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine whatever but see [1] above; the red links are there to give a representational overview of his output. I don't agree with your page move of the Micheal Leris portrait earlier today; there are two versions and your move confused the fact; please be more careful. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the title of the Portrait of Michel Leiris (1976) to indicate the date, since its the first portrait. I think there must be a vote to decide if these empty links should be in the template or not.Mistico Dois (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I moved the title of the Portrait of Michel Leiris (1976) to indicate the date" is bizarre logic, its incorrect but nobody is dead. I don't really care about the red links; there are more important things in life. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]