Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Women artists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Wiki Ed "Editing Women's Studies" Brochure: Feedback requested[edit]

Hello all, Wiki Ed will be distributing a brochure to Women's Studies courses in the USA and Canada that edit Wikipedia as part of their classroom assignments. It will also be available on-wiki and as a pdf for anyone to read or use. I'm hoping to get some feedback on the brochure's contents -- if anyone has some time to review it, I've uploaded a Wiki draft here. We're looking to have it ready to print by March 3, so feedback would be most useful before then. Thanks everyone!

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing women engravers[edit]

There's new Category:Women engravers, and it would be great if anyone would go through existing subcategories (by nation, by century) of Category:Engravers to identify women & add them to the category. Only Category:21st-century engravers has been covered (yielding 4 women out of 19). :) --doncram 23:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Categories, List-articles, and Navigation templates needed[edit]

Hi, I find my way here though because I am interested in architects, have started a number of women architect articles, and discussion at Talk:List of women architects pointed me here, about where article requests should be kept.

But I hope you don't mind my suggesting here that it might be good to set up more structure, in categories and list-articles and navigation templates. There's a great guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which explains how these are complementary. For many women artist categories there can be a corresponding list-article which lists all the articles in the category, plus redlinks where articles are needed. And plus "black-links" to mention women artists who are somewhat notable but don't obviously need articles, e.g. a notable woman architect who is a principal of a notable architectural firm and is covered well enough in the firm's article.

This structure would serve to link between women artist articles, and increase ways readers could navigate to and between them, and I think it would invite/facilitate more development. For each of the major creative professional types covered by this WikiProject and listed on the main page, I think there could/should be a corresponding category and perhaps subcategories, and also there could/should be a corresponding list-article (or a section within a bigger list-article).

I wrote too much more out, sorry, so collapsed the above. Watch Draft:List of woman artists, to become List of women artists, sometime soon. Comments welcome. Cheers, --doncram 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you doncram. I agree that the project would benefit from more structure and that it would facilitate more involvement. I know that there has been a similar drive to create matching lists for categories over at WikiProject Women writers. In the past I've been reluctant to create gender-based categories as they tend to be brought to CfD quite a bit. I hope that category intersection is implemented someday, but that might be rather far off. gobonobo + c 15:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's a really overwhelming list of stuff. At this point I'm pretty burnt out on developing categories, especially since I created/categorized most of the women artists on Wikipedia after I created the project :) I did enough work in a one month period that it probably takes some people a year to do. I think it's a great idea for people to help with these things, just be forewarned - yes, many of them could be nominated for deletion, which is something I ran into. I'm actually a fan of having women artists in a gendered and non-gendered category - as a researcher and a curator, it makes my job easier when I can just click on "Women painters" :). I love the idea of a nav template. I also don't think we should categorize things under "visual" or "non-visual" arts. I'd rather just leave them all be as their own special selves. Seriously, I strongly advise against that. Because many things can be crossover - I know video artists who would consider their work visual art and basketweavers who would say they are not visual artists but craftswomen. We should avoid getting too meta about things, it just makes it less fun and too nit picky. Also, we do have a TON of people writing content about women artists, so I don't think participation is a problem at all. The only thing is that only hardcore Wikipedians care about categories and stuff like this - most people don't. :) Thanks for the interest and think it's great to see things evolve, as long as it doesn't get "too meta." Missvain (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, upon consideration, I agree fully about not splitting categories of women by "visual" vs. "non-visual" artists, and I won't do that...it would seem artificial or too "meta" or something like that. However I notice and like how the artist article is nice in its intro about defining "artist" primarily as regards visual-type arts, separate from entertainers, musicians, dancers, and other performance artists, and also separate from writers though "artist" can be used in such contexts also. This wikiproject is self-defined to be about visual-type artists plus some of the other types. It is self-defined to cover performance art (of the interdisciplinary kind?) but not other performing artists (not musicians, not dancers). It is self-defined to cover experimental film artists but not other film artists? It does not cover writers, who are covered by WikiProject Women writers. I personally think it's fine for this Wikiproject to define its scope how it has been defined so far, or however this group likes, even if the chosen scope doesn't match up very neatly with trees of categories or trees of lists of artists in mainspace.
For mainspace lists, though, I'd like for List of women artists to be defined as primarily about artists of the visual arts types, subsuming lists of sculptors, painters, engravers, etc. But disjoint from List of women musicians (redlink?), List of women dancers (redlink?), List of female performing artists (redlink?), List of women architects, List of women writers. Am "drafting" Draft:List of women artists that way, anyhow. Happy to discuss that list's scope here and/or at Draft talk:List of women artists. --doncram 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Lists such as List of women musicians are clearly out of the question because they would be so long as to be meaningless. I created List of women architects, for example, because there is plenty of debate and study about why so few women remain in architecture (therefore the women who achieve great success in the field are particularly worthy of note). There has to be a sensible approach, rather than creating articles/lists/categories just for the sake of it. Sionk (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all for your thoughts. Gobonobo's link to proposal at Wikipedia:Category intersection is interesting and is either sobering or encouraging: if the MediaWiki software were changed, then all the categorizing and cross-categorizing would be easy/done, but maybe it won't happen anytime soon. Missvain, thanks. I have never been a great fan of categories and honestly don't really care about them. I do like lists and have been active in developing lists about historic sites, churches, and other places, but not about people. For places, any list can be organized and split out as needed by geographical/political boundaries: split by country, by state, by county, etc., and there's seldom disagreement about how to do that. And it seems not too hard to keep lists nearly all-inclusive of new articles in the corresponding categories. For people, it seems there'd be many ways to split first, then second, and there'd be disagreements and duplication and it would be very hard to keep lists updated. I see List of women dancers lists about 80 United States dancers of all kinds, while a category for American ballerinas alone has more than 200, and I'm not motivated to get involved in updating the list....looks hard and not very useful. The "Wikipedia:Category intersection" project seems very well tailored to addressing the cross-categorizations of persons by gender by nation by occupation etc., very elegantly.
Sionk, I see your point about the List of women architects, although there's no intro to the list-article reflecting anything about what you say (and there should be). I see there's well-developed Women in architecture article which addresses that, and it should certainly be summarized and linked in the list's intro. (BTW, I just raised a question at Talk:Women in architecture.)
Not sure where to go now, maybe will not develop Draft:List of woman artists further, now. Thanks again. --doncram 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Draughtsmen, Drawers (artists), Drawing artists?[edit]

Category:Draughtsmen is the current category for artists who draw. We should have a non-diffusing subcategory for the women there, but what would it be named? Category:Draughtswomen seems obvious, but could create confusion when subjects are placed in both categories. Perhaps the whole tree should be renamed Category:Drafters? gobonobo + c 18:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no clue. I don't know anything about drafting and what proper terminology is. Perhaps social media or the article about "Drafting" can help solve that dilemma. Missvain (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Weird. I totally assumed that "draughtsmen" in the context of artists meant draftspersons, i.e. those who draw building plans, standing at drafting tables in architectural firms. Or there is draughts, some Victorian-era game or something, so it could mean players of that game. "Draughtsmen" is not common English, at least not in the U.S., and is not going to be understood by most readers to mean artists whose medium is drawing. I wouldn't want to help coin "draughtswomen" as a term that is only clearly meaning female persons but not clear about what the "draughts" part is about. "Sketch artists" doesn't work...one can sketch in paint or pastel etc. "Drawers", no... but there's a Commons:Category:Drawers (artists), oddly. I tend to think "Drawing artists" (and "female drawing artists"?) would be best...google search provides a lot of proper hits on "drawing artists". Deciding this is a matter for a Categories For Discussion (wp:CFD) discussion in wikipedia and connecting to the Commons category too. With considerations here including that draughtsmen is defective both for ambiguity about draughts, and also considering it uses "men" perhaps unnecessarily, rather than gender-neutral options like "person" or "artist". --doncram 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That category is fraught with problems. Draughtsman redirects to Drafter on Wikipedia, which is certainly my understanding of what a draughtsman/draftsman is. The article Drafter (which should be the main article for the category) is clear the name does not extend to anyone who picks up a pencil. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Drafter article is very clear that way, it's about technical drawing, not art. It has a hatnote For visual artist who specializes in artistic drawings, see drawing. And drawing article is very clear in the opposite direction, that anyone using a pencil to draw is a draftsman / draughtsman, completely contradicting Drafter! Browsing around i find my way to Wiktionary's definition of draughtsman (plural draughtsmen):
  1. A person skilled at drawing engineering or architectural plans.
  2. (obsolete) A book illustrator.
  3. A piece in the game of draughts (checkers).
  4. (obsolete) One who drinks drams; a tippler.
So I learn a draughtsman is not a checkers-like-game-player, but rather a checker piece in the game. Hmm, I tend to think only "drawing artist" is clear, but it is not in common use. English language simply seems to lack a good word or term; I wonder if / expect that other languages might do a lot better. That's all for me on this. Thanks Gobonobo, Missvain, Sionk for your comments. cheers, --doncram 04:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Women artists to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks User:Mr.Z-man!! -- Missvain (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Attention called to Dora Maar article[edit]

I completed a first pass re-write of the Dora Maar article, which suffered on many levels, including a complete lack of citations, repeated appearance of (apparent) factual statements out of chronological order, a one sentence lede that completely ignored the many facets of her long life, a lack of any references to her works, a lack of references to her appearances in art, and the presence of an unnecessary info box on Pablo Picasso (containing only 4 relevant wikilinks to Dora Maar images).

The lede is now extended, the Picasso box removed (Maar works moved into a text list in a new section of text), and the first real citation—eminent Caws biographer article in The Guardian—added and used to rewrite the Section on her early life.

The article remains with section tags (most sections unsourced), inline tags regarding repeated statements of unsourced opinions, and article tags calling for citations and move away from essay to encyclopedic.

I ask participation of persons interested in woman poets and visual artists—Maar is a photographer, painter, and poet—to have a look at the sources for this artist and begin to rewrite the long stretches of unsourced prose with accurate, sourced biography for this important artist, fascinating individual, and artistic muse.

Reading knowledge of French and Croatian would help immensely, but even art and art historical experience and fundamental copyediting skills would be very valuable; for instance, I created a stub of a section on Maar's appearances in Picasso's works, wherein each needs name, description, and date (a process which I have only begun). As well, and critically, there is a paucity of references to her work and collections, and this research must be done, and added with sources.

Cheers, and good luck, I will look in. (But please do not remove tags until substantial section by section progress is made; readers, esp. mobile readers, deserve the warning that all is not right, yet, with the article.)

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelda Ramos[edit]

Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Redlinks from Wikidata[edit]

I was really happy to stumble upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Redlinks from Wikidata and wondered how we could get a similar list for WP:WikiProject Women writers. Is the list auto-generated or did someone do the research one article at a time? I am somewhat facile with Wikidata but not enough to understand how to develop this list. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad you like it - I created one for you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Redlinks from Wikidata. Basically, you go to autolist here and make a query for all female authors with this text: (no quotes) "CLAIM[21:6581072] and claim[106:(TREE[482980][][279])]". Next, you download the result as a text file and open it in notepad (or other editor of choice that doesn't mess up special characters). Next you dump that into a spreadsheet and filter for the Q numbers without enwiki sitelinks, but including a label and a description (I only included the top part for artists as there are way more of them than writers). Next, you create a new view of the filtered data with the wikimarkup and dump that into excel2wiki to get the table. Note you can set your language in autolist to download something other than English to get other language labels and descriptions too. Hope it helps, Jane (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Jane, this is awesome. Thank you so much. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bechdel test[edit]

The scope of this project was broadened to include films that pass the Bechdel test. While I think there are too few films that pass the test, I worry that including all of them could imbalance the project. gobonobo + c 17:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? In what way? Jane (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jane023: While films that pass the Bechdel test will have at least two women actors, many of those films were directed, produced, and written by men. This project already disincludes articles for actors themselves, so it puts us in a situation where we wouldn't have an article for an actor like Audrey Hepburn but we would have an article for a biopic about her. Apart from that, there are currently 5,662 articles within the scope of this project. Assuming we have articles for most of the 3,390 passing films listed at bechdeltest.com, they would comprise a large percentage of this project. gobonobo + c 08:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have long since stopped worrying about compiling the numbers. We have bots for that. I am also not worried that we will be flooded with thousands of articles about films made by men that pass the Bechdel test. I am however very interested in accumulating such articles for the -pedia, and if this becomes a problematic area where the number of articles floods our discussion page, well, then it would be time for a new project. The film industry is ruled by mostly rich white men and women artists working within that industry deal with it, so we can too. Jane (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

looking for those interested in our project[edit]

hi wiki women artist community

my name is lori brown (usa) and with justine clark (australia) and eleanor chapman (germany), we have applied for a grant to write more women architects and designers into wikipedia. your own project has been integral to our thinking as well as helping us focus our grant proposal. we welcome comments and support for our project. in our own countries, we hosted wiki writing parties on march 8, international women's day, as a way to begin these efforts. some of these intersected with yours as well as i posted our nyc event on your page.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wikipedia we look forward to hearing from you. Loriannbrown (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)loriannbrown

Discussion notice[edit]

There is a discussion at meta, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting, that may be of interest to members of the project. Lightbreather (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of potential interest[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female visual artists from Vancouver. I don't personally feel strongly one way or the other about this one, but thought it could use more input. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Danielle Monet Morse[edit]

This abandoned draft was up for speedy deletion because it hadn't been edited in six months. I removed the tag to buy another six months in case anyone here is interested in improving it -- seems like a potentially viable article on first glance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) to be moved to Columbia University performance art controversy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)