Talk:List of works by Vincent van Gogh

List

I tagged this for cleanup. I'd do it if I had more knowledge of Van Gogh works. --Son (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Worth trying to complete locations and to insert images where possible because the unique ability to sort the columns makes this list more usable than any other resource on the web.Tombinc (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

TOTALLY disagree @Tombinc: The best-to-search (and, may be, most known amongst chatters) list of ~2038 vG items is likely to be http://www.vangoghgallery.com/catalog/ which VERY probably "borrowed" their data from the.best.reseached (and VGM-endorsed) site http://www.vggallery.com/

Unfortunately, vangoghgallery.com cheats about F- numbers, replacing "F_None" by the ID of the letter, in case of letter sketches. It is therefore not reliable for serious research. Besides, they would not answer questions, unless via chat.

[w.] 17:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I will edit as much as I can, beginning with the 1887 works. Along with those already listed, the following page is a valuable resource:

http://www.impressionistsgallery.co.uk/artists/Artists/ghi/Van%20Gogh/1886%201888%203.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimino (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have ALL of the known ones?

Hi,

I do feel too tired to count that list down to its end. For sure, vG was more a draftsman than a painter. He created ~900 paintings and ~1100 drawings (plus some 10% more, catalogue raisonnées list ~2200).

Therefore, I'm SOMEWHAT reluctant to edit such list as thisone. It would be better, IMNSVHO, for a so-called "online encyclopedia", to refer to THE online archive on vG and to restrain our efforts to an encyclopedic [however partial] view of this genius. [w.] 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple identical entries

What's with all those multiple identical entries? "Garden of Saint-Paul Hospital, The" has five. "Head of a Peasant Woman with Dark Cap" has 19. Why? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears some of that has been cleaned up. I'm overhauling the page, and duplicate entries have all been sourced. For instance, there are multiple versions of "Head of a Woman (1885)", including several at the Van Gogh and Kröller-Müller museums. I've included entries for all versions I could source. Unsourced duplicates I have deleted, and can be added back if someone can source it. --Chimino (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for what to keep in the list of works?

I took a stab at identifying F numbers for all the 1881 and 1882 works in the list, which led me to alternate titles - and was then able to more successfully find images for the works. There are some cases where I was still unable to find images.

Since this is a partial list of works, is there an opinion about what to keep in the list if we cannot find information or images for the work. For instance, I wonder: 1) how helpful is it to a reader to see lines for works of art without an image?and 2) doesn't it make the list look sloppy if it has incomplete info?

It seems like others are working on towards the same goal of cleaning up the list. YEAH!!! Since many museums and sources reference the Fnumber - and it's sometimes in the image information (yeah!!): If it's possible to add the F numbers, too, that really helps link the right image to the right painting, location, etc. Just a thought.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding the F numbers makes sense; I will from now on, if I can...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool - and I'll keep working my way through the list.

Do you have any thoughts about showing incomplete info, especially when no image can be found, such as "In Church" and "Orphan Man with Top Hat"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that at this point we should show incomplete information; because we can fill it in as more information becomes available...Modernist (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2c: When I undertook an initial overhaul of the listing a few months back, I decided to add only oil paintings to the listing (other than his short series of statuettes) and make verification of date & location the priority. Someone above wrote they didn't want the listing to compete with vangoghgallery.com and similar online galleries of his work, and I tend to agree. I think the available pictures from existing (and newly created) articles should of course be added to the list, but as WP is an encyclopedia, I feel information should take precedence over image. The F-numbers you've added only further serve that purpose; great work there.--Chimino (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both Modernist and Chimino, what both of you say makes sense. I'll just keep moving along with the list and very happy to be working with you Chimino on this! Great to know you're working on dates/locations (which I just update on a case by case basis). What do you think of removing the "?" or replacing it with a tag line of some sort?

Eventually I'd like to see everything - prints, drawings, sculpture, and paintings on paper and canvas added to this list...Modernist (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple of updates: 1) Where I find images for works not in the list (drawings, watercolors), I've started adding those, 2) I replaced the "?" with extra spaces (to easily ID in edit mode where the missing images are - for the works I've been through so far and been unable to find an image. I made the changes all in one edit for reversion if that goes against a described style guideline. More images and F#s to come. --CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This list List of works by Caspar David Friedrich differentiates paintings from drawings, watercolors and prints by creating two separate sections. However I am skeptical about that style working here because of the enormous numbers of works of Van Gogh that we have to deal with...Modernist (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. I'm not adding a ton of new rows - just when I find images for a topic. As an FYI, the list already had other works other than oil paintings - usually with higher F#s (which made it hard for me in the beginning to find the listing on one of the sites 'cause I was just looking for paintings). When I started to add the images for 1881-1883 I was putting a comment after the F number to differentiate the two, but then it started to look messy so I took it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the newer works I don't seem so far to be finding drawings. Do you think it would be better to remove anything that's not a painting? And would "painting" include oil and watercolor?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think watercolors should be added with the proviso that they are watercolors on paper. Since most are oil on canvas they do not need identification as such. Don't remove drawings - after a while we may simply gather them together in a separate section...Modernist (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

To help locate works, I sorted the rows by Year and then F number. If an F number couldn't be found, it's at the bottom of the list for that year (but I may have resolved all/most of them for 1881 and 1882 now). Does that make sense?

Thanks to those who started and worked on this list - want to bring in the last few images?

For anyone who may see this, I think that most of the paintings now have F#s and images on this list - and there's some drawings and watercolors, too. I cannot imagine what it took to start this list since there seems to be multiple lists with differences between them. So, I left a few open spots for anyone who worked on this in the beginning that may wish to add some of the last images. (Find on ?) If there's no ? in the image spot it just means I looked for an image and I couldn't find one.

I'll pick at it from time to time, but it must have been such an undertaking to get this started, I thought maybe the folks how were instrumental in getting this set up would like to help bring it home (concluded). And, thanks to all the hard work to do that (I don't know that I could have.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you may know this, but the easiest way I found to find images on WP commons is to use "van Gogh" and numerical values for the F#.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazing job - well done...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional image of back of houses

Placing additional image of back of houses, which has no verifying # with the image here til I sort out the correct time period. I know I've worked with the image, so I'm pretty sure it's a duplicate.

| || Houses Seen from the Back,||1886||Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it was from Holland \ Belgium period, #260. Easier to find once I got out of Paris.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Forum for changes / standards / etc.?

I wasn't sure the best place to put this, so I'm taking a stab and putting it here.

There seems to be a bubbling up of interest about the Van Gogh articles (yeah!!). And yet it's getting a bit confusing for me to address things on a one-off basis without a sense of priority or strategy/standards (known to me anyway). Is there a way in which we can start a discussion forum (or maybe I just need to know where to find info) about:

- Painting naming conventions - and if there could be a discussion before renaming an article if the person renaming the article isn't also finding and changing the associated links. This would be very helpful because there are different naming conventions for the VVG article and it would be good to have a set approach, especially for naming a group of works (parenthetical series, series of paintings, paintings) or names of works based upon a place (include VvG name, painting, etc.)

I moved this question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Naming_articles_of_a_series_of_paintings

- Under what circumstances to merge articles that were established as separate articles. For instance, Falling Autumn Leaves (two paired painting) and Les Alyscamps (another pair) had been set up as two different articles, although they are part of the same scene. I can see, since there's cross-referencing back and forth between the articles that it might make sense to combine them, but at what level of priority? Is it assumed that I'd be the one doing it?

- I would like to tackle the Portraits by Vincent van Gogh article, to which I've been adding content, but it might be good to have a good example or approach for how to lay the information out.

- Criteria for removing a work previously identified as a VvG work.

Great enthusiasm and it pays when I remind myself that passion in a subject can lead to the best synergized outcome. It's just hard at the moment.

Could this page, or another place, be a place to address and prioritize requests? Thanks so much!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Strategy for developing articles

Over the past several months I have been working on articles about Vincent van Gogh's works. In that time, it seemed interesting to group works by place, subject, etc. so that:

1) there's a place to go to for information about the paintings and general context and

2) hopefully there's enough info and references so that someone who wants to would be able to get a start on individual articles. If not, though, there are about 20 something articles, that cover more than 250 works.

More of an FYI than any anything else, but putting this out there for people who might not understand why "grouped articles" are getting created. And, to see if there's any concerns about the way it's being done (naming conventions, etc.) before even more get created (and may later need tweaking). Kind of like the "forum" question I created just about this, are there any thoughts or concerns? What would be the best way to discuss them?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope...you're doing great. Pretty soon we may be referring to the works by their CH number :) --Chimino (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chimino, thanks for weighing in!!!

I'm wondering if there are guidelines for naming groups of paintings. I've seen and used a number of variations (paintings, series of paintings, Van Gogh paintings), but it's probably good to get a consistent approach. I recently created an article based on the title on the List of Works that ended 1888 Van Gogh painting Portrait of the Artist's Mother (1888 Van Gogh painting)‎ but that seems pretty long (and hard to search for in Wikipedia to get to this article). Have you run across any direction about naming groups of paintings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved this question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Naming_articles_of_a_series_of_paintings--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the approach for creating articles, this seems in alignment with the WP:VAMOS which discourages short articles, instead writing articles that may include multiple works than a lot of small articles. Whew! (Just closing the loop on this)--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

As a bit of an update (for those who like me are still finding their way at times): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts is the place to run these questions by.

Specifically regarding naming conventions, 1) For works by Van Gogh that need to be distinguished from the subject or other artist's work, place "(Van Gogh)" at the end of the title, see WP:VAMOS 2) For an article about a series of works, use "(Van Gogh series)". See VA discussion of naming conventions.

I'll work on the rest of the items above one-at-a-time and post the resolution here too, so it's not left dangling.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

F numbers

What are F numbers (or catalogue numbers)? Who allocated each painting a number? Are there paintings by van Gogh without F numbers? Perhaps an explanation with a citation should be included in the introduction to the list. Aa77zz (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've partly answered my own question: I followed the link to "Jacob Baart de la Faille" in the Cataloguers section in the template at the bottom of the page. I still think the intro at the top of the article should mention the catalogue raisonné. Aa77zz (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Work not listed in this article

Image:Vincent Willem van Gogh 052.jpg|Houses in Auvers(1890). Musée d'Orsay, Paris. See Auvers size 30 canvases where it appears. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Rue à Auvers-sur-Oise, 1890. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Rue a Auver-sur-Oise Wikimedia at the The Bridgeman Art Library 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wheatfield with Crows

This list omits "Wheatfield with Crows." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.209.112 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is included, look harder...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplication

F801 and F812 look exactly the same. I think someone uploaded the same file for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, the same images was used twice. According to Commons it's F801, so I removed it at F812. Multichill (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Many works are included on a user page of van Gogh works that are not included here

Hello. I see that there are many works included on User:Jane023/Paintings by Van Gogh Jane023's list which are not included here, such as one beautiful one in the windmill on Montmartre series and in the Montmarte series in general. I'm not conversant with the official list and numbers on this page, or on her full list, but other editors who are may want to take a look at her excellently well-kept and updated user page. Nice work Jane023! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha! User:Multichill that I was talking about on my talk page has already found this page I see. To be clear, User:Jane023/Paintings by Van Gogh is just my local version of this Wikidata page d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Vincent van Gogh. All credit for that list goes to Multichill and a few others. Jane (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool coding and completion-list interests by one and all. There is also a list kept by user:Spinster, and they have at least one (the only one I checked) not on either your list or this visible page list, so Spinster's list somehow includes extra pieces (maybe because the one I linked to is a drawing and not a painting?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad you like it! You can use these as a template to create your own userspace lists by the way. The difference between my list and User:Spinster's list is that mine only lists paintings and the other lists everything (including drawings etc) but filters out the "painting series" and "artwork series" items (these are generally just pointers to the items in each series). To look at the queries used, you can click edit on the list and see the query that begins with the word "Select". Jane (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's all work on Wikidata. On d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Vincent van Gogh you'll find the lists too, here with the catalog codes in a separate column. Work is not done yet, we might still have some missing ones or drawings/watercolours showing up in the main list. I have Van Gogh: Alle schilderijen (all paintings) here. It contains the F and JH numbers. I'm checking against that book, but it's quite tedious to do. Multichill (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I checked the Wikidata list against the book and added some missing paintings. The Wikidata list should be complete nowMultichill (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like quite a job and a good project. Nice work. van Gogh would buy you a drink up on Montmartre if he were counting in Euros these days. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of works by Vincent van Gogh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110620180300/http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2491374.ece/New_painting_by_Van_Gogh_discovered to http://vorige.nrc.nl/international/article2491374.ece/New_painting_by_Van_Gogh_discovered

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

the Netherlands

The name of the article is Netherlands. Do we really need the "the" in all 90 instances in the table?? We don't generally insist on the United Kingdom everywhere? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Paintings with dagger (†)

Hi everybody!

I noticed that some paintings are marked with a dagger, I don't understand its meaning and I could not find a reference to it within the descriptions (but maybe I did not look carefully enough!). Can you please tell me what does it mean and if it could be useful to make a reference to it somewhere in the article (in the case it is not already mentioned)? FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi FilBen--although it's not noted in the article (which it should be), the common association I can see with three of those paintings (Irises, Self-Portrait without Beard, Dr. Gachet) was they were all sold for a record-breaking price at the time they were last auctioned, and may be on a list of most expensive paintings ever sold. --Chimino (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chimino! Thanks for answering, I could try to insert a reference to the dagger within the article. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 13:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Every single painting?

Does every one of his paintings merit an article? I came across quite a few like Three Figures near a Canal with Windmill which literally just say

"PAINTING is a MEDIUM painting created in 18XX by Vincent Van Gogh."

Really? I feel articles with no more content than that should be redirected to this list, we could even use {{anchor}} to direct them to the right entry. it just doesn't make sense to have such unhelpful, mostly unreferenced, one sentence stubs. Further, I couldn't find much sourcing that would allow the article to be expanded. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Split discussion

A split is long overdue. The article is currently at 282k bytes and is unnavigable to the general reader and I can't edit it without it crashing my computer which tells me that it's simply too long. This isn't the only issue that comes with it. It also has issues with data table accessibility and the fact there are thumbs in the table. In the split, introducing actual sources and not catalog numbers could be helpful too. Its van Gogh, there's gonna be sources. The other ones that aren't mentioned in the split template could stay as they are small enough to not need a split into a new article. Thank you,

Pinging editors with high edit count: @Hochithecreator, @CaroleHenson, @Modernist, @Remember, @Chimino, and @Ruedi33a. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m open to the idea. I’m presuming it should be split by date, but will leave the decision on which eras to consolidate to others.—Chimino (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A split might make it easier to navigate the article but it would make it a lot harder to try and find the articles in the first place, but I'm willing to follow the consensus Hochithecreator (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, once a split starts the numerous pages suggested here become less accessible and less viewed than before the split. This is an adequate article and location for Van Gogh's readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So we’re just throwing out WP:SPLITSIZE? The article is simply too long to be able to navigate and takes forever to load on mobile devices and some lower end devices. Which isn’t very accessible. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping, @Randy Kryn Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"Split size" is an opinion page, not a policy or guideline. The page seems fine as a topic. Splitting into over half-a-dozen pages loses both cohesiveness and topic definition, it spreads Van Goghs work in so many directions that none of them lands. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• An idea. Splitting into three pages may work (seven pages seems much too unwieldly and a division of Wikipedia's Van Gogh collection), Van Gogh's works before he moved to Paris, his works from his move to Paris to his death, and the rest. The 'List...' can go to a page clearly giving directions to all three, and the tops of all three should make clear their relationship and links to the other two. Cowboygilbert, does this make sense? This suggestion is only given if this page is really too much for "mobile" users to take in all at once (lists such as this are better viewed on laptops and desktops, and too much change to accommodate mobile use hurts, not helps, the encyclopedia). Does it really cause so many problems for mobile readers that it is unusable in its present form? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - not an especially 'high edit number' user, but do think splitting into multiple pages would be shame. Despite its length, its very easy to find as a whole and navigable. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you chimed in. I also find it navigable and a full listing in one place seems preferable to seven (or even three) separate pages. In similar cases, Monet's works are divided into two pages (his Waterlilys and the rest), and, as an extreme on the other end, Picasso's full list has nine, mainly because Picasso has so many paintings that each article contains mostly unlinked listings which are not pictured. Has this discussion been linked on the WP:WikiProject Visual arts talk page? That would be a good place to ask other editors if they'd like to comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Template for catalog/catalogue numbers

I have created Template:VVG Catalogue in preparation for the splits that I will be performing to be able to have a template to link to the collection instead of leaving it blanked/unsourced. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Updates to current locations

I'm new to this page so I wanted to post here before I made any edits to make sure I'm not missing anything.

I'm doing research on all of the Van Gogh paintings which are in permanent collections in the US & Canada. I think the locations for these five paintings are wrong in the article. I've cross-checked with the Brooks database and verified each of the paintings are listed in the collections at each museum's website. These paintings are in the US but not listed as such at this article

F466 'Rocks with Oak Tree'

Article says Otterlo, painting is at Museum of Fine Arts Houston [1]

F575a 'The Sower: Outskirts of Arles in the Background'

Article says Unknown, painting is at Hammer Museum, Los Angeles [2]

F477 'Portrait of the Artist's Mother'

Article says Private collection, painting is at Norton Simon Museum of Art [3]

F641 'Enclosed Wheat Field with Peasant'

Article says Private collection, painting is at Indianapolis Museum of Art (Newfields)[4]

F786 'Portrait of Adeline Ravoux'

Article says Private collection, painting is at Cleveland Museum of Art [5]

I think there are another 8 or 10 paintings listed as being at US museums that are actually somewhere else, but I want to do more research before I suggest any changes. Anson2995 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)