Talk:List of American artists

List of American Artists proposal

I would like to create a simple "List of American Artists" page. In the past, administrators have deleted attempts to maintain such a page, due to lack of structure (see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American artists). There are in fact dozens of lists on Wikipedia that list artists by nationality, and the absesce of a list for American artists seems to me to be an oversight. There is a "category" of American Artists, but there is no structure at all to this page, outside of listing artists alphabetically -- irresepective of dates and media. After a couple of attempts to create a better structured "list" page, I've had some exchanges with administrator Tyrenius, who suggested that a better structured list could be approved, and that I should seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. I've written out a page, and am outlining my ideas here, and requesting input.

Among the concerns are that the quantity of artists could get out of hand, not only because of "non-notable entries," but also because the term "artist" can be seen as very broad. I would like to create a page simply dedicated to "fine artists" in the "visual arts," as described below.

The header would be as follows:

List of American artists

This is a list of historically recognized American "fine artists" known for the creation of artworks that are primarily visual in nature, such as painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking, installation art, avant-garde performance art, and experimental film.

Click edit to see important hidden comment.

I'm new to this -- why is this comment "hidden"? Can anyone tell me what it means for some comments to be hidden and others not hidden? (Trackway 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Did you pick this up from somewhere? If you put the <! etc before & after text it is only seen when editing. Johnbod 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the tag used and how it works, but I'm unclear WHY it's used in this type of case ... why a comment needs to be visible only when editing, as opposed to being visible to the discussants generally? Trackway

Artist classification

All the artists I intend to list initially are already represented in individual Wikipedia pages, an example I would hope others making entries would follow. Also, the list would be divided up into specific periods, as follows:

American Artists born before 1800
American Artists born 1800–1899
American Artists born 1900–1929
American Artists born 1930–1959
American Artists born 1960–1989

An example of how the list would appear would be as follows:

American Artists born 1900–1929

A

Ansel Easton Adams (1902-1984), photographer
Walter Inglis Anderson (1903-1965), painter
Ida Applebroog (1929-), painter

... and so forth

List division

Tyrenius suggested the possibility of dividing the 20th century into 4 periods; after some experimenting, I came to feel that dividing the century into 3 periods reflects the "generations" of artists in a much more traditionally "historical" way, in that it tends to keep artists together who are generally considered to be contemporaries of one another.

I'm looking for input from those interested. I can put up the page as described above at any time.

Thanks!

(Trackway 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's shaping up. My main concern is with contemporary artists. Such a list is a magnet for non-notables to add their own name. Also there are more viable articles on recent artists also, so I think the 20th century needs thinking about carefully. Maybe 1900-1950, 1950-1975, 1975-. This is only a suggestion. Also what needs consideration is whether it would be better to have separate lists for painters, sculptors, printmakers (we have one) etc. I have no fixed view, apart from the need for such things to be talked through with other editors. Tyrenius 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This way of dividing up the 20th century is possible, but it seems to me that the divisions I propose better reflect periods of style and mutual influence among generations, and read as less arbitrary; I'm not sure why. Maybe the periodicity of the wars and the Great Depression created a structure. Dividing the artists up by "media" makes some sense prior to the impact of the Surrealists and others of the avant-garde, but as older media-specific artistic practices diminished through the late 50s into the 60s and 70s and 80s, such strict divisions make much less sense anymore, except in a relatively narrow range of cases -- so many artists skipped around through all media, throughout the world; and today, sticking with one medium is close to non-existent, in avant-garde practices. It seems to me the list would be vastly more useful if it reflected such historical realities by listing the artists together by "period" rather than media. Regarding an avalanche of "non-notable contemporary artists" being added to the list: which artists are non-notable, of course, is always a matter of opinion and debate; but if the list of the latter part of the 20th century should become too lengthy, it would be relatively easy to create a second page for 1970 forward, I suppose, when the time comes. Trackway the oldest is Mozart

I like the idea of the list being divided as suggested by the proposal. Although overall I am in favor of the distinctions between major disciplines like Painting, Sculpture, Printmaking, Video-film, Illustration, Commercial art. Modernist 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed after visiting dozens and dozens of Wikipedia pages for American artists -- especially those from the 1970s forward -- that over half of them seem to be described as working in two or more disciplines -- usually more. If all of these artists were to be listed in all the separate disciplines they work in, the list would be unbearably longer. And I'm not speaking only of "painters" who do "prints" on the side, as a secondary or supplemental activity; I'm speaking of artists who truly jump from discipline to discipline and treat each with equal significance. It makes the most sense to me to list such an artist as (for instance) "painter, sculptor, photographer, installation artist" rather than to list that same artist four times under four different categories of disciplines. Especially since the "meaning" of the artist's work as a whole may be significantly tied to the way they jump from discipline to discipline. Trackway

I agree - you could use abbreviations listed every so often to make entering easier. I would have eg: "painter, printmaker" (or "pt, prnt") & then a word of two for style: Pop Art, Hudson Valley School or whatever. Johnbod 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I think abbreviations look ugly. Why not multi-media or some such term, or if there is a note primary discipline, then "painting and multi-media" for example. Tyrenius 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if there is a more primary media, it should be listed first. In my experience, though, the term "multimedia artist" tends to suggest an artist who creates single works using a number of different media (like video and sculpture and performance all at once) -- as opposed to an artist who regularly creates different works in different media ... Trackway 06:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of printmakers

I got this one up recently, which no one has yet tried to delete. Tyrenius in particular saw it without the urge to delete. Of course it's far smaller, & is able to add value in ways categories can't by mentioning the different techniques. The categories attempted this with very poor results. You might find a similar approach works. I would do completely seperate lists by period, as you have so many people. Best of luck - I won't be able help I'm afraid. Johnbod 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing the List into Separate Pages

I'm trying to combine various bit of advice I read here ... I'm wondering if this solution might work to keep things orderly: making different pages for different periods; I think this is maybe what Johnbod is suggesting? This would be easier to follow, I think. It could reduce the problem of any one page becoming too long, and might not necessitate having to separate the pages at a later date. I'm imagining a page could look like this:

American Artists born 1930–1959

This is a list of historically recognized American fine artists known for the creation of artworks that are primarily visual in nature, including traditional media such as painting, sculpture, photography, and printmaking, as well as more recent genres, including installation art, performance art, body art, conceptual art, and video art.

NOTE TO EDITORS: add names in alphabetical order, and please include biographical dates and the media most notably associated with each individual artist. Do not add your own name to this list.

A

Vito Acconci (1940-), conceptual artist, installation artist, performance artist, filmmaker
Laurie Anderson (1947-), experimental performance artist, musician
Carl Andre (1935-), minimalist sculptor
Eleanor Antin (1935-), performance artist, filmmaker, installation artist
Michael Asher (1943-), conceptual artist, installation artist
Julie Ault (1957-), collaborative artist, curator
Alice Aycock (1946-), sculptor

. . . etc., etc.

There would be a MAIN page with the title List of American Artists that wouldn't have a list of names, it would just have links to the others ...

Does this make sense?

Trackway 06:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to check out Category:Lists of artists for some comparisons. List of painters by name seems to be one of the longest. I think it should start on one page like List of British artists and be split later if necessary. Intro should be tweaked to maybe:

including traditional media such as painting, sculpture, photography, and printmaking, as well as more recent genres, including installation art, performance art, body art, conceptual art and video art.

Tyrenius 01:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I had in mind, although I was thinking of longer periods, even for the 20th century. But yes. Johnbod 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest maintenance problem concerns contemporary artists who don't reach WP:N adding their own names, and this is more likely to be younger ones born since 1960, so it's useful to keep this as it has been proposed in one section. Tyrenius 04:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius and Johnbod,

So you both are suggesting to keep the list all on one page, as originally proposed? I've looked at other pages, and one of the things that occurs to me is that if the different periods are listed as different SECTIONS, then not only is the page bound to become lengthy -- and thus harder to negotiate and maintain -- but if the artist names were to be made into alphabetical subsections (like the Painters page), the automatically-generated TOC box becomes hugely lengthy; and it seems that a compact TOC can't be created to alphabetize more one section (unless there is a clever TOC template that I haven't been able to locate). Maybe this is a non issue, but I thought I'd mention it.

I totally see the point, and I agree with you both that the list of post-1960s artists could become lengthy -- but this is connected to why I like dividing the list up into more than one page it could likely STAY that way, WITHOUT having to split it up later -- because, I figure, splitting it later would play havoc with all the pages that had trustingly linked to the original page.

I suppose having more than one page uses more memory? But there's a certain convenience, also, and more room to add things. And having the infobox in the upper right with the links makes it easy to negotiate to any of the other pages, as desired. I could easily combine everything before the 20th century into one page.

I'm pleased to put it up either way, if approved -- I just wanted to present my thoughts.

I like Tyrenius's introductory sentance better than the one I proposed ...

Still hoping for a consensus,

Trackway 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have agreement that in principle the list(s) can be made. It's just a question of the exact form. It seems that it will be ordered by periods. I propose that artists should be listed by date of birth, not alphabetically, i.e. to use the model of List of British artists. This solves my main concern, as contemporary artists would be at the end of the list and hence easily monitored. Perhaps two articles List of American artists (pre 1900) and List of American artists (post 1900), the latter to include artists born in 1900. Tyrenius 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tyrenius,

Dividing the lists into List of American artists (pre 1900) and List of American artists (post 1900) seems like a good, reasonable solution.

In thinking about the ordering on the individual pages: on Wikipedia there are 38 active "Lists of Artists by Nationality" pages; of these, 20 of the Visual Artist lists are arranged alphabetically, for easy searching, which seems to be the norm; whereas only two out of the 38 (British and French) are arranged by order of birth (the rest are haphazard). In order to find a particular artist in the British and French lists, one has to scroll up and down, searching the numbers, until one finds him/her, guessing at the birth year. However, on the alphabetically ordered lists, when one knows an artist's name, one only needs to scroll directly to it. I really don't understand why ordering by birth year has any real advantages, since practically no one has memorized the birth years of artists. If the page is divided into generational (30 year) "periods," all the young, contemporary, potentially WP:Ns wind up in the same section at the bottom of the page anyhow, so I don't fully understand why it really matters, in the end? I find negotiating the birth-year-ordered lists cold and unfriendly -- I vote for alphabetizing the artists, it's easier on the mind and eye, easier to search and negotiate, and less dry and technocratic, I think. And in line with the vast majority of the other Lists of Artists by Nationality pages.

Trackway 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the name of an artist, then you don't need the list anyway. You can just put the name in the search box. Furthermore there are categories, which basically simply provide lists in alphabetical order. These are some of the point in the AfD. The one thing that the list can usefully do is to put artists in date order. It then becomes easy to see which artists are in the same generation etc. This is one thing that justifies having the list at all. The alphabetical ordering is one reason I nominated the list for AfD in the first place. It makes it redundant. It was a test case to sound community response. Others may well go the same way. Tyrenius 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you say this now, as your earlier suggestion on this discussion page for a "NOTE TO EDITORS" (your "hidden comment") was that it should say "add names in alphabetical order, and please include biographical dates and the media most notably associated with each artist." Since then, I've been creating and editing the list offline according to your suggestion, by time periods, media, AND alphabetically, hoping to create the best of all three worlds, and to eventually put it up online. Now you've changed!

In response to my suggestion that alphabetized lists are "easier on the mind and eye, easier to search and negotiate," you now say:

<< If you know the name of an artist, then you don't need the list anyway.

I want to correct the misunderstanding. I never meant to suggest that I thought one would only use a List of American artists when one wanted to find a specific artist ALREADY IN MIND; if that were the only reason for such a list, obviously it would be redundant to the normal "search" feature. But don't think this is what the "List" pages are about at all.

What I meant was that once one was already ON the "List" page, one could then scan it at will, in a free-associative way, like flipping through any encyclopedia, seeing who or what catches one's eye. When one searches this way, names come to mind spontaneously -- names forgotten, or names one has heard of and has a curiosity about but hadn't initially expected to research -- and then one looks for the name of that artist. Perhaps an artist whose name mightn't have come to mind prior to visiting the page and seeing the other names on the list, and making connections in one's mind. To me, this sort of scanning is the one of the PLEASURES of the list pages; one doesn't always use Wikipedia to look up specific things already thought of (hence the useful and enjoyable "Random article" feature). To my mind, alphabetization helps quite a bit in such a process, as you are seeking out names, not dates. Creative research often proceeds this way; one sees one name and one thinks, "Oh, that reminds me of so-and-so," so one scrolls to that name; or one sees the media designation "Earth art" listed next to Michael Heizer and one thinks, "Oh, I'd forgotten about Robert Smithson, I'll look him up," etc. Wikipedia can be about "creative" searching and scanning, not only just looking up what one has already thought of.

And while the category pages are of course alphabetized, they lack any periodization, birth dates, and media designations, so I see no redundancy there.

Trackway 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the technology provide for searching within a subsection of Wikipedia? Can one search only those articles found in the list, for instance? I don't believe that is possible. But if it were, one could search for 1950s junk sculpture lithography in order to find articles containing those search terms. In fact, articles could specifically be written to contain search terms. Or, a section at the bottom of the article could have a list of carefully chosen search terms. But I don't think such a search feature presently exists, does it? If so, then I think the list would be much more useful. And, of course, using that scheme, it could conceivably be possible to search for "Last name starts with = R," or "Date of birth = 1930 + or - ten years." And all of this could be done just within the list of "American artists." Bus stop 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with Trackway's comments above. Plus Tyrenius is perhaps lucky in never having a name on the "tip of the tongue"; normally a category list might do it, but in this case it would be so long. Johnbod 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also in general agree with Trackway as to the importance of being able to scan the list. However the issue of red ink is omnipresent in large lists. An interesting example is New York School where the red ink next to notable names clearly points to articles that hopefully and eventually will be written. I'd like the inclusion of red ink in certain cases, and I think the sub-divisions are very important, a good idea. Modernist 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list

There is already an alphabetical list at Category:American artists. I hadn't thought it through properly before. In order to recreate an article deleted per AfD, there has to be a substantial difference to the original. I think a justification is that there is no other source for a chronological list, and it would be useful to have one. Tyrenius 02:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried it out on my user page, I think it looks good -- let me know if anyone approves: User:Trackway/List of American artists

Trackway 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but seperating by year of B makes it harder to find people. Presumably the "graphic artist"s are mostly actually printmakers? If it was me, I'd just say "collages, installations" etc. Johnbod 03:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you know roughly how old they are and who their contemporaries are. That makes it much easier. As I keep on saying, there is already an alphabetical list at Category:American artists. Tyrenius 03:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, Yeah, I know what you mean, it's hard to devise a consistantly parallel way to describe the "media" (although I'm not fully certain that it's necessary). One could say "paintings, drawings, photographs," true -- but then one can't say "bodies, installations, conceptuals." And a "performance" could be something done by a musician, but a "performance artist" is something else again. And all artists make "installations" of their work, but that doesn't make them "installation artists." I'm still thinking about this. It seemed best to describe the "kind of artist" as opposed to the "kind of art," since the phrase comes right after the name of an artist; plus, this is the way most all of the artist pages on Wikipedia describe the artists, and I was generally always just trying to paraphrase the entries there, for the list. Regarding "Graphic Artist," when I used that term I was usually trying to describe someone especially known for prints AND drawings (like Vija Celmins, for instance), or prints AND book illustrations (as with Roger Tory Peterson). Trackway 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good and is very usable. I'd like to explore options for formatting, as it's unconventional at the moment. Let's work on it a bit to get it right, as it can be a model for other lists, hopefully. I suggest shorter time spans for headings, say every ten years? That gives 10 headings. Easy to access, easy for editing sections. Tyrenius 03:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the 10-year divisions; I like it, althought the TOC became so long it interfered with the spacing of the first heading, which I didn't like -- so I had to add a few line breaks (see: User:Trackway/List of American artists) ... If I could make the font in the TOC smaller the spacing problem would be solved, but I suspect there's no template for that ...

Trackway

I think the list is looking good, very nice work. Modernist 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the top of the page simpler. The TOC works fine in my browser. [1] Also suggestion for shortening dates in headings for ease of reading per no. 1 and 2 headings. Tyrenius 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. One question. I happened to notice the name Eric Bogosian. Should he be considered a visual artist? Bus stop 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, you're probably right to question it; but he did start out performing in New York's alternative galleries, as a performance artist, in the 80s, he collaborated with the artist Robert Longo, and others ... I added his name thinking of those times ... Trackway 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coding

I suggest comments under each section, and also add any more variants in new sections. Tyrenius 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades, small years

My main concern now is the coding for individual years and artists. At present it appears:

1900

Alice Neel (1900-1984), painter
Jack Tworkov (1900-1982), painter

1901

James Richmond Barthé (1901-1989), sculptor

I admit this does have an attractiveness to it, but it's quite unconventional wiki-wise by using "small" tags (though these only have to be done once to set up each year) and also "br" tags to force a line break. I think for ease of viewing, either for those hard of sight or using high res screens, "small" should be avoided. Tyrenius 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades, names with bullets, years bold

One possibility is:

1900

Alice Neel (1900-1984), painter
Jack Tworkov (1900-1982), painter

1901

James Richmond Barthé (1901-1989), sculptor

Tyrenius 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could work nicely, if the small font is a bad idea. But, you know, there are small fonts used very frequently as headings, throughout Wikipedia, in the infoboxes, in footnotes, and in all the sidebar menus (on every page) -- even in the Wikipedia:List guideline infobox. The smaller-font year-headings don't really need to be "read," exactly, just noticed as headings -- and, of course, the years are repeated just below every heading, in the actual artist entry, for those occasional viewers with poor eyesight (which includes me, by the way). If you really think the smaller font headings have an attractiveness as you say (and as do I), I hope you might consider it -- it's not out of character with the "look" of Wikipedia. And, after all, the visitors to this "visual art" page will all be sensitive to design!

Trackway 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have default settings in preferences and the main fonts all come up standard size for me in headings, infoboxes, footnotes and sidebar menus. I am using Internet Explorer with 600 x 800 screen. I don't think we can consider this "visual arts" page in isolation from every other list, and I don't think small is generally used. The extra fiddly coding is a disadvantage, especially for newer users. However, I agree the thumping bold throughout may not be desirable (non bold version added below). Tyrenius 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades, names with bullets, years plain

1900

Alice Neel (1900-1984), painter
Jack Tworkov (1900-1982), painter

1901

James Richmond Barthé (1901-1989), sculptor

This is currently my preferred version. Very simple to format for all users, minimal coding, easy to see, aesthetically acceptable, compatible with visual expectations on wiki. Tyrenius 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks OK to me Trackway 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades, names with bullets, small years

The small font idea could be combined with the simple bulleted list, and become:

1900

Alice Neel (1900-1984), painter
Jack Tworkov (1900-1982), painter

1901

James Richmond Barthé (1901-1989), sculptor

The small font in bold seems perfectly readable ... Trackway 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades, years and names with bullets

We need to study Wikipedia:List guideline and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Using the latter's example of List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize for Fiction results in:

1900
- Alice Neel (1900-1984), painter
- Jack Tworkov (1900-1982), painter

1901
- James Richmond Barthé (1901-1989), sculptor

I can't say I find it all that attractive, but it's very easy to format with just one or, for indent two, asterisk(s). Tyrenius 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the unattractiveness, it's like maybe too many bullets. I like the years in plain text as opposed to bold, though -- is there a coding to make the unordered bullet list you suggested at first with plain font? So there would be an indention, but no bold heading? Trackway 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read you correctly, I think you mean what I have now added above as "Decades, names with bullets, years plain". I will comment above on it.Tyrenius 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No decades, years as headings

It's possible to use a heading for each year as in Vincent van Gogh chronology with TOC in table form, rather than normal list form. That was level 2 heading which produces lines, but a level 3 heading wouldn't. In this case the ten year divisions wouldn't be needed as each year would have a TOC link.Tyrenius 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to do this, I'd go even smaller, to a level 5 heading -- the bold font is perfectly visible, and easy to distinguish from the plain font of the artist entries, and it's a lot more attractive. But, that said, I also have to mention that the Vincent van Gogh chronology has only only 36 years in the TOC -- imagine the size of a 100-year TOC! In my opinion, it would look awful, and for whatever slight ease it adds to a search, I don't think it's worth it (and I continue to believe that the page will mainly be used for creative free-association, rather than to find which artists were born in which "exact" year). A TOC divided into decades gets you pretty close to where you're going, I don't think it's a lot to expect that a visitor could scroll from there. Trackway 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think decade headings will suffice for ease of location. Tyrenius 02:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades, no years

We should consider if we need the years in, as there are section headings for decades. There could simply be a space instead, with no space between artists born in the same year. Not sure if it would work. Tyrenius 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would look something like this, you mean?

Born 1930-1939

John Baldessari (1931-), conceptual artist
Lee Bontecou (1931-), sculptor
Audrey Flack (1931-), painter
Malcolm Morley (1931-), painter
Robert Morris (1931-), sculptor, conceptual artist
Tom Wesselmann (1931-2004), painter, collage artist

Robert Bechtle (1932-), painter
James Lee Byars (1932-1997), installation artist, sculptor, performance artist

Dan Flavin (1933-1996), sculptor]]
Sam Gilliam (1933-), painter
Alison Knowles (1933-) Fluxus performance artist, sound artist, papermaker, printmaker
Yoko Ono (1933-) installation artist, sculptor, filmmaker
James Rosenquist (1933-), painter and muralist

Don Bachardy (1934-), portrait artist
Walter Darby Bannard (1934-), painter

It seems this could be done by putting in two spaces (I couldn't figure out how to simply add a single space). I can undersatnd the logic of it -- if it's done this way, new section dates don't have to be added when a previously unused year is added -- but I find it hard on the eyes, and a little confusing, when searching; and it could get fouled up easily, if contributors didn't follow or understand the system (i.e., one space won't work, etc.), unless specific directions were added; but the "year" headings act as directions in and of themselves, making entries easier ...

Trackway 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - not satisfactory. Tyrenius 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus coding

Do we agree on version #Decades, names with bullets, years plain as above? Tyrenius 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ... I tried it, it looks fine, see: List of American artists born 1900 and after

Trackway 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

This needs to be checked in WP:MOS. Should it be 1900-1984 or 1900-84? Tyrenius 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing it, this is not directly addressed in the WP:MOS. I checked out a page called History by period and the long versions are used, as in: "Edwardian period (United Kingdom, 1901 - 1910)" and "Cold War (Soviet Union and United States, as well their allied states, 1945-1989)" ... the linked pages also use this form. I think this long version looks more proper Trackway 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List titles

To replace List of American artists, we have two lists, which need appropriate titles. Currently the earlier is List of American Artists 1700-1899. Are there no artists born prior to 1700? It might be safer to have List of American artists up to 1899 and List of American artists after 1900. Tyrenius 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we do that, could we then have a "List of American artists" page that simply has two links, one to each page? This might make it easier for contributers to create simple links on the individual pages, links to the simpler phrase, "List of American artists"

i.e.:

List of American artists

See:

List of American artists before 1900

List of American artists 1900 and after

----Trackway 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there I think. I want to get the titles write. At the moment, I think my suggestions above are neater, and the article explains that the dates refer to births. I suspect the 20th century one will have to be split at some point, so we should anticipate that. I'm not sure on the protocol of using List of American artists as a disambig page, as opposed to a redirect to say, the 20th century list. Tyrenius 02:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a redirect to 20th century is good; although it may annoy the antiquarians (just as a redirect to the "before 1900" might annoy the modernists). A special "disambiguation page" seems fairer, if it fits Wikipedia protocol; and this would certainly allow for a simple transition if and when the 20th century page needs to be split: all one would have to do is add a link onto the disambiguation page, leaving most of the links on the individual artist pages intact (of which there may be hundreds at that point, if your fears are substantiated). RE the titles, I'm not sure that List of American artists up to 1899 sounds too natural, to an American ear (speaking as one with an American ear) ... and "up to" is an English phrasing not immediately understandable to those for whom English is a second language (we have many of these folks in the U.S.). The titles List of American artists born 1899 and before and List of American artists born 1900 and after have the advantage of being complete grammatical descriptions that need no further analysis or investigation to understand ... but maybe List of American artists 1899 and before and List of American artists 1900 and after ? Or List of American artists before 1900 and List of American artists 1900 and after ? Trackway 03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American artists to 1899 + List of American artists after 1900? I think people will get the gist, especially when they look at the birth dates in the list! I'm now inclining to the disambig page, as it can also include List of Native American artists. Tyrenius 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "infobox" for "related pages" that is on upper right of both of my "draft" pages has the link to the List of Native American artists right near the top, and individual Native American artists can and will be included within the List of American artists itself (as some already are, on the draft page). And if there is a disambiguation page, the same infobox can easily go onto that page as well (draft). But to have a "List of Native American artists" listed next to a "List of American artists" -- as if they were to be considered somehow as separate groups (!) -- would be exceedingly inappropriate. Remember also that the list we've been discussing here is for visual arts and fine arts ... the List of Native American artists (which is a nice page) is more comprehensive than that -- including musicians, writers, craftspersons, and so on.

<< I think people will get the gist, especially when they look at the birth dates in the list!

Sure, but the list itself wouldn't appear on the disambiguation page, which is where the viewer would be as he/she decides which link to choose! What's your complaint exactly about List of American artists 1900 and after? Isn't this a bit more accurate than List of American artists after 1900? Since 1900 itself is not exactly after 1900??

I'm wondering, maybe you know ... does the possible page we're discussing, with the two links (draft), really need to be an official "disambiguation" page? Could it possibly just be like a little "links" page, like a separate TOC of some kind? Is this against protocol? Or, if it's best as a disambiguation page, does it have to actually be called a disambiguation page in the page title or heading? It's such an unwieldy term ... Trackway 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "after 1900" was neater (I guess one could argue that this use of 1900 is taken to be its inception on 1 Jan of that year...). I don't know precedents of this nature for disambig pages, so you'll have to do research on that. I will leave you to bring this to a conclusion, because of my own time constraints. When you restore the article, leave a note in the edit summary re. restoration per article talk page. Tyrenius 08:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tyrenius ... I've put it all up, three pages ... the first page is just the infobox and the two links, at: List of American artists. I used the wording I thought made the most sense for the titles, I think once it's up for a while it will seem perfectly normal. I hope it meets with everyone's approval. Thanks for all the help and advice. Trackway 05:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Martinez (painter) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eddie Martinez (painter). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]