Template talk:Pablo Picasso

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 Spain 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

Some material based on previous template Template:Picasso works:

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]

By the way, one does not usually speak of "acclaimed" paintings. Artists are acclaimed. Coldcreation (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, do you have any sources for Boy with a Pipe being a significant Picasso work? If so, please mention them here. AndrewOne (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Try common sense, read: WP:UCS!!!!...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility is not appreciated. Once again, please include a source for Boy with a Pipe being one of Picasso's important works. AndrewOne (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like nonsense!!! Try this [1]...Modernist (talk) 14:45, 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 Kryn 15:06, 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]

Furthermore, the article linked above came from The Associated Press, not a public auction house. Coldcreation (talk) 06:25, 29 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]

Hello. IMO the Family section can do with a few improvements:

• Should "Diana Widmaier Picasso (granddaughter)" be added to it?
• Could "youngest" be added to the daughter and son parantheses to clarify they aren't his only children?
• Would Template:Picasso family tree be a worthwhile endeavour, that might also be linked to in that same section?

TY. -- 46.97.13.26 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2018 (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?

Hello Allreet, why are you reverting me on obviously good edits? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to be more specific? Allreet (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso's written works is not on this navbox anywhere, so I thought 'List of works' would be a good fit, which you've reverted twice now. Allreet, Picasso was not a very good writer but of some interest. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hey, that's okay. I am going to report this, though I have a busy day so it might not be until tonight. Allreet (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]