User talk:Spinster
|
|
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.
Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;
If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 18:38, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Hallo Spinster, nog een laat welkom als Nederlandstalige hier op de Engelse wikipedia en veel plezier gewenst. Ellywa 07:58, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi Spinster ! I have started out on the Hasselblad Award, and - because they are this years winner - on Bernd and Hilla Becher. Feel free to continue !! P G Henning 21:02, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Artist categories
Hi Spinster,
Nice to see someone else working on categorising artists. I take it that with your new category, Category:Contemporary artists, you are thinking of artists working in contemporary art as opposed to living artists or currently active artists. In which case it might be a good idea to move some of the other arts categories to be sub categories. eg;
Or were you looking at Category:Contemporary artists as being on the line of artistic periods alongside Category:Renaissance art, in which case I guess categories relating to the medium should be kept orthoganal to categories relating to the period. Any thoughts? -- Solipsist 13:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Solipsist,
- I see the Category:Contemporary artists as suitable for artists who fit into the description on the page about contemporary art; i.e. artists whose current work is not quite modern anymore. The definition of contemporary art will change in the future, and so will the related categories, but I don't see that as a problem.
- Subcategories are of course very useful, the ones you mention are excellent examples. I think artists can belong to several categories and subcategories at the same time, such as Louise Bourgeois who has a long and diverse and still very active career. Spinster 14:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Looking at that further, the classifications: modern art = 19thC - 1970 and contemporary art = 1970 - present, suggests that we should treat Category:Contemporary artists as a period (perhaps moving it to Category:Contemporary art) and keep the working media categories (Category:Painters, Category:Sculptors, Category:Installation artists etc.) independent of the periods. Then by necessity, all Category:Video artists would have to be in Category:Contemporary art, but that wouldn't be true of Category:Painters. We would then need a few more period categories - Category:Baroque art, Category:Romantic art, Category:Prehistoric art as per Art history -- Solipsist 15:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- So, how about maintaining parallel period and artist categories... such as
- Category:Modern art for general articles and Category:Modern artists for people
- Category:Renaissance art and Category:Renaissance artists
- etcetera?
- Especially for more recent periods, I find it pretty valuable to maintain separate categories of artists, because this seems quite useful to me from a user's point of view. And indeed, media (and movement: Category:Conceptual artists) categories are independent from this system, though they can overlap and intersect in various ways with the periods.
- Actually, I see these categories as rather flexible tools myself... shouldn't be too rigid, as long as users can find their way in them. Spinster 15:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I think we are converging on the same answer. A word of caution (if you haven't already come across it), the last time I looked it wasn't trivial to move a category. So you might need to get a sysops help if you want to move Category:Contemporary artists to Category:Contemporary art. Of course this is one of the obstacles to categories being flexible, which I think is a laudable aim.
- That just leaves worrying about how to incoporate nationalities. On the whole I'm inclined to ignore them for the moment, but someone has made a start by following the pattern in other categories and creating Category:Dutch painters (half of whom I suspect are Flemish, but that doesn't seem to be troubling any one except me...) -- Solipsist 17:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- So, how about maintaining parallel period and artist categories... such as
- Nationalities: I've also seen artists who are generically categorized under "people of country X", like Constantin Brancusi under Category:Romanian people. It makes sense to maintain Category:Flemish painters, but not that much to create Category:Romanian sculptors (yet?). So I think both systems can be used with common sense. Ah, and check Category talk:Dutch painters, you successfully triggered some patriottic feelings here ;D -- Spinster 18:21, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Picking up further discussion at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 20:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Architecture and Architectural History
I'm trying to add some more depth to the History page (which was just a page of links) as well as to the Architecture page, which seems to be a rather dry discussion of form, function and aesthetics, any suggestions? Would like to entertain the role Architecture plays in ordering society. I see you're a fan dutch modernism, how about adding that dutch spin?
Dutch Wikipedia symposium in Rotterdam (27/11/2004)
Hi,
As a personal initiative I want to mention to you http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Symposium/Najaar_2004
There have been some voices that Dutch-speaking Belgian wikipedians might be underrepresented at that venue, so I took the liberty to post this message on the talk page of all people I found on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Belgium.
If this doesn't apply to you (e.g. while French-speaking, or not interested in Dutch wikipedia,...) simply ignore this message.
--Francis Schonken 09:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hoi Francis, though I'm mostly active (and then, not even very much ;-) at the English Wikipedia, this sounds like an excellent initiative. So I'll try to be there, and will advertize it a bit more. - Spinster 20:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)