| Revision as of 20:47, 17 June 2008 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,347 edits →Split article: cmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:50, 1 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,300,347 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (92 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Visual arts|class=start}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| ⚫ | Any particular reason why the link to handprint.com was removed? It's a non-commercial comprehensive description of watercolour materials and techniques. I've added it again: if there's a good reason to remove it please do. |
||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Visual arts }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo=old(90d) | |||
| | archive=Talk:Watercolor painting/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter=1 | |||
| | maxarchivesize=100K | |||
| | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}} | |||
| | minthreadsleft=4 | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive=1 | |||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | == External links == | ||
| Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. | |||
| -anon April 06 | |||
| Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == List of painters would be good == | |||
| ⚫ | Any particular reason why the link to handprint.com was removed? It's a non-commercial comprehensive description of watercolour materials and techniques. I've added it again: if there's a good reason to remove it please do. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| - ideally grouped by date &/or nationality | |||
| ] 17:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Change in intro== | == Change in intro == | ||
| I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. ] | I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. ] (]) 11:01, 17 February 2007 | ||
| == French pronunciation of "aquarelle" == | |||
| == Format == | |||
| The page lists the french pronunciation of "aquarelle" as /akarel/. That's not the right pronunciation, or at least I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that. The pronunciation I'd use, and the one wiktionary lists, is /akwarel/: https://fr.wiktionary.org/aquarelle <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I've tried to make the Format better and put in a ''See also'' section to make it easier for users to find information on the wikipedia. I will try and get back to work at this page again sometime. ] 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Melayu == | ||
| Why is this page called watercolor, it is not an american article, surely it should be spelled in the correct as opposed to the american manner, that is, Watercolour.--] 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Solid Watercolor paint set and pigment ] (]) 11:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| It was apparently begun in American spelling, and is not on a specifically Brit subject, so those are the rules. Of course W-colour redirects. ] 12:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It was begun in the correct (that is American, also Shakespearean) spelling. No reason to change it to the incorrect Commonwealth variant, created by the Norman upperclass to make things less Latin, and more French. --] ] 2007-07-31 18:54 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==revisions== | |||
| i have substantially edited, corrected, augmented and fact checked this uneven and incomplete article, and added several references. random typos or lapses may remain. with the visual arts project in mind, i have tried concisely to describe the important techniques or technical issues in a way that the reader can accurately visualize and understand. i have also explicitly addressed several misconceptions that have been handed down from the 19th century. i regret that i do not have the wikipedia expertise to integrate the article into other aspects of wikipedia or harmonize it entirely with wiki style, but i hope a wiki guru will offer the charity of his or her assistance. i believe this is now the best single document reference on watercolor painting available from any source on the web. | |||
| ] 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)bruce macevoy | |||
| : Thanks Bruce. Your website, (handprint) is a truly remarkable achievement for which I am very grateful. Your website is better than this article because it contains advice and original research which are not suitable here. I expect that over time this article will attract editors because of the quality of the contribution you have made to it and will become a highlight of Misplaced Pages. Thanks again ] 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is a really well written, interesting read, with a lot of useful information. There is a lot to laud as good, but I have two criticisms. It is meant constructively, to point room for improvement. I am not going to be editing this article, so take of it what you will: | |||
| ::* Tone. (See ]). Much of the writing seems to be written in an informal way that good in a magazine article or instruction guide (maybe ]!), but isn't a factually precise style suitable for an encyclopedia. There are subjective statements like "the best art papers are designated archival," questionable statements like "most watercolorists prize brushes from kolinsky (Russian or Chinese) sable", and speculation like "watercolors seem poised to enter yet another 'golden age'." (It's not really a fact that water colors seem poised to do this, it's someone's opinion. From ]: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," and "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating 'some people believe...' as is common in political debates. A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is.") | |||
| ::* Source citation. (See ] and ]). With so many references, and no footnotes with page numbers, it would be difficult to verify any individual fact. I think it would benefit from inline citations, when a particular book is only used for a relatively small amount of information. From ]: "Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements." Unfortunately, I think only Macevoy would be able to do this at this point, and it would be a lot of work. | |||
| ::-] 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Palettes?== | |||
| "In the 19th century a six paint 'split primary' palette became popular and is still advocated by older painters." I have trouble believing that this claim of an age bias is a verifiable fact. As mentioned above, I'm not going to get 20 books to find the exact source, but it sounds like a non-neutral point of view (see ]). | |||
| I never heard of "the hexachrome palette" before, and the only google mentions of the term are to 90 derivatives of this wikipedia article, plus a couple mentions about Pantone's ](tm) process. Can anyone verify that this is currently the predominant approach worldwide, and that the terminology is standard? | |||
| Also, are the specific colors listed part of the definition of those palettes, or just examples? I think the split primary is a general palette (two of each primary), not a specific one. | |||
| only turns up one corroborating source, handprint.com, and a spanish copy of handprint.com, which I gather from the above discussion is by the same author here. If the colors are just examples, clarification would be helpful. | |||
| -] 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Paint Lightfastness == | |||
| The Paint Lightfastness section seems to have a number of factual errors (and / or lack of references) | |||
| It's got PY40 Aureolin as "should never be used under any circumstances" whereas that pigment is ASTM rated II and article goes on to say "painters should only use paints that have a lightfastness rating of I or II under the testing standards published the American Society of Testing and Materials (now ASTM International)." ! I've seen one particular artist on web advising against Aureolin but don't think its generally accepted fact that there is a problem with it. | |||
| "and paints premixed with a white pigment, including paints marketed under the names naples yellow,..." | |||
| where does evidence for that come from - seeing as most whites (except flake white) are ASTM I - problems only arise if you mix with a fugitive yellow! | |||
| How about using Michael Wilcox "Guide to the Finest Watercolour Paints" ISBN UK 0 89134 4098 for this? | |||
| It lists lightfastness ASTM and his research for all pigments and for specific manufacturers paints. | |||
| I'm considering making changes to this, but would like other peoples comments... -] (]) 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == External |
||
| I've culled the external links section, which seemed to have accumulated a lot of individual artists sites. I don't think artist 'x' demonstrating method 'y' (or trying to sell pictures of same) are relevant links for this article. If anyone disagrees please discuss here: -] (]) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Split article== | |||
| The article is very long and I wonder if it is worth splitting into two smaller articles "history of watercolour painting" and "Techniques of water colour painting"? ] (]) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :hmm, its 63kb which is a bit large according to ] in the probably should be divided category, just. "History of watercolour painting" sounds like a good idea, I'd beware of "Techniques of..." though the article's already a bit ']' ish. Watercolour materials maybe? Oil painting is split ] and ] -] (]) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, but I think it's ok for now. The hisory, nearly all from EB, badly neglects early periods though. ] (]) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:50, 1 March 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watercolor painting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
External links
Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.114.54 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason why the link to handprint.com was removed? It's a non-commercial comprehensive description of watercolour materials and techniques. I've added it again: if there's a good reason to remove it please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.94.250 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Change in intro
I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. Smilegood (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2007
French pronunciation of "aquarelle"
The page lists the french pronunciation of "aquarelle" as /akarel/. That's not the right pronunciation, or at least I've never heard anyone pronounce it like that. The pronunciation I'd use, and the one wiktionary lists, is /akwarel/: https://fr.wiktionary.org/aquarelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.50.201 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Melayu
Solid Watercolor paint set and pigment 113.211.111.53 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories: