This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
I intend to convert this list to a table. The list is currently separated into sections by letter of last name, which is great for finding an artist when you already know who you are looking for, but I personally would find more utility if I could also sort artists by historical era (at least by proxy of each artist's lifetime). A tabular list, with sortable columns, seems useful to readers with various goals. I will use regex to simply convert the formatting, leaving the content alone. Does anyone have any objections or suggestions? — HTGS (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a table format would be an improvement - if anything it would overcomplicate matters and make the list harder to edit. I think the existing simple list format is far better.14GTR (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what you mean by “overcomplicate matters”? Do you mean it’s harder to read the source code? — HTGS (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's harder to both edit and add to the page and also to find what you are looking for.14GTR (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see that it would be that hard to edit, nor do I think ease of editing is a high priority. I monitor other, similarly sized tables, and they get just as many additions from newbies, if not more than non-tabular lists.
I also don’t understand how it would be harder to find anything. The list would still have the same information, in fundamentally the same form. In my opinion the list would actually be easier to read, with columns delineating names from dates and other info, rather than dashes and other marks. As I said in my opening post, looking up artists by their surname is only useful for a very specific set of readers. — HTGS (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is what the table would look like immediately after conversion: User:HTGS/table_test (please ignore specifics of which names are copied; that table for demo only) — HTGS (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given feedback, I'm going to go ahead with the conversion, and we can put it all back in six months if the table format proves disruptive or just doesn't work out. — HTGS (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, converting to a table is not an improvement. Scrolling through a single table will make entries harder to find and/or correct. The templates required for a sortable table are not, IMHO, user friendly. If you are looking for artists of a similar historical era, artistic style or school of work then the Categories should be your guide.14GTR (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What, in your opinion, is this list for? Forgive me for grilling you, but I really struggle to understand why this page should be treated as the functional equivalent of a paper index, with section headings by letter, rather than almost any other divider system that would be more useful.
Are you opposed to table templates on most list articles, or just this one? — HTGS (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HTGS: I've just noticed this discussion. I'm wondering about instead taking an approach similar to that of List of Scottish artists where artists are sorted first by period (based on DOB) and then by last name. I feel this would be more helpful than the current list, and I'm not sold on any other fields being useful for sorting (e.g. if someone is listed as "Painter and sculptor" they won't show up with other sculptors on a list sorted by discipline A-Z). Interested in your thoughts? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did consider that option. I think I dismissed the idea because it wasn’t quite as quite as meaningful for a country as young as ours. But it would probably be a solid improvement for readers. I’m happy to move toward anything that functions as more than a simple index. — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True! I might try it on a sandbox page and see how it looks. Could also separate by discipline, but again I'm unsure how that would best work for multi-disciplinary artists (duplicate entries? Or picking the one they're most known for?). Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great list which I found very useful but I noticed two serious ommissions, Marianne Muggeridge and Don Driver. Sorry I am not up to editing it myself. 121.99.162.202 (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching those notable omissions. I have added them to the list. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
