Talk:The arts

This  level-1 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Anthropology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Culture Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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 arts

This article 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.

There is a request, submitted by Sdkb, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Level-1 vital article".

Does ceramic engineering include glass or not?

Discussion from user Johnbod's talkpage: [1] Please provide a source, Tom B (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No the issue is: "is glass (the normal stuff) a ceramic?" Take your pick. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you'll need to provide reliable reference or not, Tom B (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. It would have been a lot easier to do it yourself. Now can I enjoy the holidays? Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it would not have been a lot easier, Tom B (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion: replace Pushkin with Banksy as an example of artists being free spirits

While some of behaviours of Pushkin may be considered as being free spirit, he was also a loyal subject of the tsar, who granted him a personal censorship license and a position in the court. He also wrote poems and stories that praised the glory, history, and culture of Russia, and sometimes defended its interests against foreign enemies.

Reference: https://www.prlib.ru/en/news/658859

It would be much better to illustrate artists being free spirits using Banksy. Suggested replacement is

Banksy, a graffiti artist who is constantly in conflict with the authorities, is considered a "free spirit" due to his work.

Merlin.anthwares (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestion: add "of" in "the architecture natural things"

Under the section "Architecture", second paragraph, there's a list of stuff the term can relate to.
Namely:

The term can be used to connote the implied architecture of abstract things such as music or mathematics, the architecture natural things, such as geological formations, the structure of biological cells, or human-made things such as software.  

After the second comma, "the architecture natural things" should be "the architecture of natural things".
I'd edit it myself if I knew how to do the relevant procedures required to not have it insta-reverted by a safety bot. 157.92.14.69 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That whole bit may belong at architecture, but not here, imo. I'll take it out. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)