A fact from Cyclist (painting) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 July2021(check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists 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.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is new enough, long enough, QPQ has been done. The picture is the Russian equivalent of public domain, or similar, from 1913. The hook is cited and interesting. The number 3 ref is using an external link to google books in the body of the article, it needs to be put in standard format, the external link should be in the references section with its usual formatting. Other than that, this is fine. Desertarun (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
> Furthermore, art historian Paul Smethurst interprets the finger as a suggestion of "Soviet state control and suppression" against the freedom of mobility.
A painting truly ahead of its time?
Yeah I was confused about this as well. It's probably not an issue with the source, since Smethurst is a professor in art history, so it is definitely my linking it incorrectly to the Soviet Union. Now that I look at it again, it's likely referring to the pre-Revolution Soviet (council), so I'll change the link to that. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Art history professors, well-educated though they may be, are not above making (admittedly embarrassing) errors. If you follow the link to the source, it is quite clear from the original text that Smethurst is simply confused about the timeline of Russian history; not only were the pre-Revolution soviets not nearly powerful enough to enact "control and suppression", but they were also disbanded in 1905, eight years before the painting's completion, and brought back in February of 1917. Thus it is only reasonable to remove that tidbit from the text before it propagates further. Vadim Galimov (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Oppose That part of the policy ends "The names of less well-known artists may not be suitable disambiguation terms.", which I think applies here. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I have misgivings about MOS:ART/DAB as it's currently written. Disambiguating by artform (when there aren't multiple artworks of the same title with articles) would avoid any subjective decisions about whether an artist is or isn't well-known enough. It would be more in the spirit of WP:NCDAB, which says to disambiguate by "the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible)". (Once there are several paintings of the same title with articles, disambiguation by a proper noun – the artist's name – is necessary.) MOS:ART/DAB's concern that "The names of less well-known artists may not be suitable disambiguation terms" would then cease to be a problem for these works with more generic disambiguators. It would also sidestep the question of what to do with unknown artists in these cases, like the Battle of Orsha (unknown) mentioned by MOS:ART/DAB which is now at the title Battle of Orsha (painting), paintings by the workshop of an artist, etc. Ham II (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=link}
