I'm actually really glad this was brought up, because I too saw that recent article about the physical painting being lost and I actually had some beef with it.
On account of the general consensus being that "physical media" doesn't qualify as lost media, then I'd say that it shouldn't be allowed.
This goes directly back to my thing about the Mario RPG plushes of Mallow and Geno. I used to argue that Mallow was "lost media" because we don't know for sure if he's official, or where the 1 (or 2) plushes of him are....though I can understand how this is a bit of a stretch.
But then, there is an actual hunt for the rumored Geno plush, that we don't have any pictures for, yet because its a plush, still gets shunned.
So in the case of a physical lost painting, that's pretty much a Mallow case, much less a Geno, meaning I don't think it should be allowed.
But since this site is nice about things like that, I don't think anyone is going to be hardcore patrolling for painting/physical item articles, and if I wrote one on Geno I bet that would be able to stay if it was written well enough.
I also noticed the article had a "historical" tag on it, but before someone brings up that as a point, I would argue it's entirely subjective. Cause I don't care about lost physical paintings so I don't think it should be historical, just as a lot of people don't care about plush toys, even though Geno would be a huge and important find to the video game collecting scene.
TLDR: In accordance with the rules/consensus of the site, physical media shouldn't be allowed regardless of what it is.
I feel like it should be a similar case of all other lost media: as long as it's available somehow, then it's not lost. Only if it's somehow different from what is available/found then it should warrant an article.
I also noticed the article had a "historical" tag on it, but before someone brings up that as a point, I would argue it's entirely subjective. Cause I don't care about lost physical paintings so I don't think it should be historical, just as a lot of people don't care about plush toys, even though Geno would be a huge and important find to the video game collecting scene.
Most paintings do have historical significance though as many were painted during a specific era or in the case of the article on The Storm at the Sea of Galilee that was tied to a very famous art theft which going forward will have historical significance.
Post by Terry the Cat on Mar 15, 2018 18:41:15 GMT
Honestly, I don't see a problem with lost paintings getting articles on the wiki. You see a few already, like Hans Holbein's lost Henry VIII portrait.
I'm not sure if you can compare paintings to plushies, Radiant, but I get the point you're trying to make.
A lot of media becomes lost due to theft of some sort (ex. Foodfight, the original and probably better version). So I don't see a problem at all. I think someone on the Discord (can't remember if that was the OP) wanted to make an article on an art heist. That might be a problem. It would probably be a mess like the article on Georges Méliès' entire filmography.
My verdict: Yes, you can make lost painting articles, but don't bunch them together into a single article if it's not necessary.
The double standards on this site are crazy: if it was a digital painting (whatever that is), then it would be lost media, but since it's physical it isn't? Technically that's correct, but sometimes I wish the site wasn't so serious and it could just be the "Lost Things Wiki". Lost things that aren't media are few and far between anyway.
Half the site is articles on cancelled shows/games/etc., which I wouldn't technically call lost media either; of course it's lost... it doesn't exist! But that's lost in a whole different context.
♪ Good day, good day, I'm glad you came my way... ♪
The double standards on this site are crazy: if it was a digital painting (whatever that is), then it would be lost media, but since it's physical it isn't? Technically that's correct, but sometimes I wish the site wasn't so serious and it could just be the "Lost Things Wiki". Lost things that aren't media are few and far between anyway.
Half the site is articles on cancelled shows/games/etc., which I wouldn't technically call lost media either; of course it's lost... it doesn't exist! But that's lost in a whole different context.
Well that's why on the rules for cancelled media it makes sure to say the articles must be about any production materials that DO exist. Also, there are lost paintings (and photographs) that have articles on the wiki, so I'm not sure how it's a double standard.
If we have digital versions preserved of the painting, then no, that does not qualify. That's like saying a VHS recording of an movie doesn't qualify as found because we don't have the original negatives. It's still the media, and it can be reduplicated infinitely, so by our definitions it isn't lost.
That's not to say the topic isn't interesting or important. I'm sure it's a very famous art theft. It's just not what the site is about by definition.
The double standards on this site are crazy: if it was a digital painting (whatever that is), then it would be lost media, but since it's physical it isn't? Technically that's correct, but sometimes I wish the site wasn't so serious and it could just be the "Lost Things Wiki". Lost things that aren't media are few and far between anyway.
Your example makes no sense. Our definition of lost is whether the media is available to the general public. Keep in mind, we mean the MEDIA itself, not specific copies of it. To fix your logic for you, the equivalent of this happening with digital paintings would be if the artist's original upload of it was taken down but mirrors of it still circulated - and like physical paintings where digital versions exist, we wouldn't count that as lost.
It's quite a interesting case whether art is lost media or not, specifically if art itself is media. If paintings are not media then could animation be media if they are simply a sequence of drawings put together? At the same time if a copy of this painting is online would it exactly be lost even if the original isn't with us any longer, much in the way that something isn't lost if it's found on a vhs tape recording? This is the case where the line gets a little iffy, same as articles on live shows like that Sonic one. Is it a physical object or media in general? One could argue either way.
A category for lost non-media could probably be made for interesting cases like the plushes and art, but it might get ugly really fast with random stuff. That's up to site admins to decide, there are definitely some interesting articles that could be made
Petition to rename the Lost Media Wiki into the random shows I remember from Treehouse TV forum
If we have digital versions preserved of the painting, then no, that does not qualify. That's like saying a VHS recording of an movie doesn't qualify as found because we don't have the original negatives. It's still the media, and it can be reduplicated infinitely, so by our definitions it isn't lost.
I do have another question in regards to missing artwork that has not been recovered. In Czarist Russia, it was common to give Fabergé eggs which were specifically designed as a gift for a person. A few of them have gone missing during the Russian Revolution, would that count as media or more of a lost decoration?
Also in case I didn't make it clear, this isn't about whether artwork is media or not. It is, and we have articles on it. The painting in question doesn't qualify NOT because it's a painting, but instead because it's already been preserved digitally.
I do have another question in regards to missing artwork that has not been recovered. In Czarist Russia, it was common to give Fabergé eggs which were specifically designed as a gift for a person. A few of them have gone missing during the Russian Revolution, would that count as media or more of a lost decoration?
Half the site is articles on cancelled shows/games/etc., which I wouldn't technically call lost media either; of course it's lost... it doesn't exist! But that's lost in a whole different context.
You're forgetting the fact that wiki's Rules, guidlines and tips explicitly says this about cancelled media: "Articles on cancelled media should specifically talk about the production materials that are lost, such as shot scenes of a cancelled film/TV show or prototypes of a cancelled game. If there isn't sufficient proof that something was shot/developed for the cancelled media, then an article shouldn't be made on it."
While that fact may be true, even the wiki has limits on what should be acceptable to be considered as lost media, like if the cancelled TV show/video game had no production whatsoever but has concept arts be readily available online, then it's not lost media. Things like the Ice Climbers being cut out of Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS would be by definition not "lost" media by any means because there is no way to actually play as them in the game without modding it.
I still agree that articles on cancelled media should only be made if there is sufficent proof that footage was shot for it or prototypes of the cancelled video game are known to exist, but still haven't been leaked to the public.
Last Edit: Mar 16, 2018 15:54:53 GMT by Happy Brian
Despite the frustrations of normal day life we go through, the best thing to do about it is still being happy for our friends and family.
Half the site is articles on cancelled shows/games/etc., which I wouldn't technically call lost media either; of course it's lost... it doesn't exist! But that's lost in a whole different context.
You're forgetting the fact that wiki's Rules, guidlines and tips explicitly says this about cancelled media: "Articles on cancelled media should specifically talk about the production materials that are lost, such as shot scenes of a cancelled film/TV show or prototypes of a cancelled game. If there isn't sufficient proof that something was shot/developed for the cancelled media, then an article shouldn't be made on it."
While that fact may be true, even the wiki has limits on what should be acceptable to be considered as lost media, like if the cancelled TV show/video game had no production whatsoever but has concept arts be readily available online, then it's not lost media. Things like the Ice Climbers being cut out of Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS would be by definition not "lost" media by any means because there is no way to actually play as them in the game without modding it.
I still agree that articles on cancelled media should only be made if there is sufficent proof that footage was shot for it or prototypes of the cancelled video game are known to exist, but still haven't been leaked to the public.
I agree with this and the site's rules are correct, but we still have articles that just serve as some footnote of a game's development over an actual search; I'm just going to pull a random article out of my ass - so for this, the whole purpose of the article would be to locate a prototype/screenshots that we aren't even sure exist? To me, a lot of these were just created to document a cancelled game or to be like "oohhhh... spooky... lost media".
The Ice Climbers thing is my favorite example, and gladly it appears that the article has been removed from the site; were we going to sneak into HAL Labs and try to find a build we're assuming has the Ice Climbers on it? "Lost media that is lost but impractical to find".
♪ Good day, good day, I'm glad you came my way... ♪
You're forgetting the fact that wiki's Rules, guidlines and tips explicitly says this about cancelled media: "Articles on cancelled media should specifically talk about the production materials that are lost, such as shot scenes of a cancelled film/TV show or prototypes of a cancelled game. If there isn't sufficient proof that something was shot/developed for the cancelled media, then an article shouldn't be made on it."
While that fact may be true, even the wiki has limits on what should be acceptable to be considered as lost media, like if the cancelled TV show/video game had no production whatsoever but has concept arts be readily available online, then it's not lost media. Things like the Ice Climbers being cut out of Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS would be by definition not "lost" media by any means because there is no way to actually play as them in the game without modding it.
I still agree that articles on cancelled media should only be made if there is sufficent proof that footage was shot for it or prototypes of the cancelled video game are known to exist, but still haven't been leaked to the public.
I agree with this and the site's rules are correct, but we still have articles that just serve as some footnote of a game's development over an actual search; I'm just going to pull a random article out of my ass - so for this, the whole purpose of the article would be to locate a prototype/screenshots that we aren't even sure exist? To me, a lot of these were just created to document a cancelled game or to be like "oohhhh... spooky... lost media".
In cases like Mario Paint 64, while it is unclear what does exist and where in the production the game was cancelled (or at least to me, as I'm not extremely familiar with video games in general), there is a likelihood that at minimum some sort of mock-up or concept art does exist, so it could be said that we are looking for that, even to just get the feel for what the game would have been like. Yes, with video games (as well as animation) it is difficult to find anything that wasn't completed, but I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable to say that we'd like to have something to see what could have been.
