Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.234.100.60 (talk) at 18:40, 22 May 2017 (→Spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Visual arts C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Untitled

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. Anon2

Too many spam external links. Relevant links needed. -anon April 06

Change in intro

I changed the intro from technique to method. Simple terms better. Smilegood

Spelling

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.--Greatestrowerever 11:14, 1 July 2007 (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. Johnbod 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. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-07-31 18:54 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cultural Freedom, but I don't agree. Look, there is an Englisch School (see article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Watercolor_painting#English_school ), but there (so far) isn't an American School of watercolo(u)r (although we surely find excellent artists of aquarelle in Canada and the US) ... so I think the article should be http://en.wikipedia.org/Watercolour_painting . All the famous societies wrote an write colour instead of color: "the Society of Painters in Water Colours (1804, now known as the Royal Watercolour Society), and the New Water Colour Society (1832, now known as the Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colours). (A Scottish Society of Painters in Water Colour was founded in 1878, now known as the Royal Scottish Society of Painters in Watercolour.)" 91.61.192.30 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You do realize his comment was 8 years ago? It seems that in 2003 we had 2 articles - one for each spelling - which were merged when about equal size and quality. I think that makes the "priority" argument under WP:ENGVAR questionable (does it matter which was begun first?). Personally, I'd support a move to "watercolur" as it is so much more a British than an American medium. Anyone else? Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for your claim that it is so much more a British than an American medium, and can provide proof that there are say...more Brits painting in watercolors today than Americans, then by all means be bold and make the edit. You'll only find cheap watercolor sets by the truckload in U.S. public schools, variety stores, etc. And we all know that the United States has never done anything that the Brits didn't do first. Right? Especially when Brits write "history".

Large portions of text need citations

There are several entire sections without any citation whatsoever. Some of the text seems to be stating subjective opinion as fact (i.e. the superiority of one type of brush over another).I know little about the artform, so I can't tell what is or isn't likely to be common knowledge or likely to be supported by references. however, that goes to the point that if what is written here is assumed to be common knowledge, it's not very common. There needs to be a pretty decent overhaul of this text with citations...as it stands this reads like someone's book report on watercolors rather than an encyclopedic entry. I wouldn't know where to start, but someone must have some experience in this field, and could add a reference or two. I don't want to start galumphing through erasing uncited text as an uninformed reader. But something needs to be done here.204.65.34.238 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• C-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles