Talk:List of 20th-century women artists: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Imagery: re deletions
Line 43: Line 43:
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Your]] interpretation of NFCC#8, ''no valid article-specific NFCC rationale'' - is dead wrong and verges on vandalism. The policy states ''Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.'' These paintings precisely need to be
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Your]] interpretation of NFCC#8, ''no valid article-specific NFCC rationale'' - is dead wrong and verges on vandalism. The policy states ''Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.'' These paintings precisely need to be
'''seen''' to increase readers understanding of the topic. Don't do it again. The images are of important works by important artists, who played an important part in the visual arts of the 20th century and in case you don't know - this is an article about the visual arts of the 20th century. Visual art needs to be seen - please read [[WP:NFCC]] more carefully...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
'''seen''' to increase readers understanding of the topic. Don't do it again. The images are of important works by important artists, who played an important part in the visual arts of the 20th century and in case you don't know - this is an article about the visual arts of the 20th century. Visual art needs to be seen - please read [[WP:NFCC]] more carefully...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
*Modernist, first, strike your accusation that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is vandalizing the page. His edits are so incredibly far from any definition of the word vandalism that your comment is laughable. Second, NFCC #8 is violated even in instances where an image is used in an article about the painter ''unless'' the painting is the subject of critical commentary in the article. Randomly throwing up some non-free images in a list article is a huge violation of NFCC #8. [[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:21, 14 April 2013

WikiProject iconVisual arts List‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Just begun, too tiny, please add what you can. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I suggest we limit the list to artists who already have their own Wikipedia page. No redlinks, please. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologia and Explanation

I started this page about a month ago, and it looks like it's been basically me working on it, so I figured I'd explain my rationales. Feel free to disagree.

1. This is a list of women artists worldwide who produced significant visual art during the twentieth century. It is not a list of artists born in the twentieth century. I am going back and forth about artists whose last works predate 1905 or whose first works postdate 1995, although I have not yet run across someone who meets those criteria. It is also for this reason that I have eliminated the subheadings for artists born after 1970; if I find one such who started producing significant work around or before 1995, I will probably include her.

2. This list is for fine and applied visual arts as they are generally understood: painting, printmaking, illustration, sculpture, architecture, textiles, murals, stained glass, photography, and so forth. I am inclined to be inclusive as regards illustrators, puppetmakers, cartoonists, and other women usually considered only on the margins of fine art, as long as they have produced significant or influential work. I have also included filmmakers and fashion designers if they are closely aligned to the fine arts world. It is not a list for musicians, composers, actors, puppeteers, dancers, singers, or other people generally considered performers (although it does include what are called "performance artists", as that is a specialized category of the fine arts world), nor for novelists or poets -- unless such persons also happen to be visual artists as defined above. I'm going back and forth about fashion designers (unless they have really obvious connections to the fine arts world). I realize this is an arbitrary division, but it's one the world has handed us.

3. Everyone on this list is a woman. If I run across a transgendered artist or one who identifies as a woman (I haven't yet, as far as I know) who otherwise meets the criteria here, I will include her.

4. This list is taken from already existing Wikipedia articles. No redlinks, please. If there is an artist who should be on this list and she hasn't got a Wikipedia entry, write up her entry first and then link to it here.

5. If the Wikipedia article does not include a birthdate, I have not listed the artist here. This may be too extreme a position, I don't know.

6. I have some criteria about how significant an artist has to be to be included, but this is very open to interpretation and disagreement. The criteria are: Inclusion in a written history of art published by a recognized book publisher; or in articles in recognized art periodicals or newspapers or journals; or whose work is in the collection of accredited museums; or whose work is in major collections; or who has received grants or awards from governments or other recognized entities; or who is recognized by peers in the field as having importance.

7. References will be checked, significance will be considered. A badly-written Wikipedia article will not disqualify an artist, but an unreferenced puff piece full of opinion and advertising words probably will.

Thanks, if anyone ever reads this, and as I said, feel free to disagree. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and One or Two More Things

I've tried to be inclusive worldwide, but part of the nature of the English-Language Wikipedia is that it's mighty USA-centered. As a result, this list is skewed towards US artists. Hopefully this will change. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As regards #6 above, criteria for significance-- Exhibits in a vanity gallery or publication or credentials from a vanity press do not count. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date order

I think it would be better if birth date order was kept throughout and alphabetical only employed for those artists with the same birth year. Ty 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I have already added Mona Hatoum. But this should be added too, it is surprising they aren't in the list yet. They are all in wiki already

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacigon (talkcontribs) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery

Visual art needs to be seen; stop vandalizing images...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting valid and important images

Your interpretation of NFCC#8, no valid article-specific NFCC rationale - is dead wrong and verges on vandalism. The policy states Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. These paintings precisely need to be seen to increase readers understanding of the topic. Don't do it again. The images are of important works by important artists, who played an important part in the visual arts of the 20th century and in case you don't know - this is an article about the visual arts of the 20th century. Visual art needs to be seen - please read WP:NFCC more carefully...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Modernist, first, strike your accusation that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is vandalizing the page. His edits are so incredibly far from any definition of the word vandalism that your comment is laughable. Second, NFCC #8 is violated even in instances where an image is used in an article about the painter unless the painting is the subject of critical commentary in the article. Randomly throwing up some non-free images in a list article is a huge violation of NFCC #8. Ryan Vesey 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]