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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
There is a partial overlap with List of archivists - should the two lists be merged? (Or divided alphabetically if sufficient numbers.) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Jackiespeel, I'm counting 58 female archivists on this list, so I think it has enough basis to be a separate list from the List of archivists page. I would actually argue the lead to this article should be expanded to make clear it applies to ALL women, including non-binary women and trans women, for instance, in case someone wants to add such individuals to this list in the future. Also, if there can be a List of female librarians then why not have a list of female archivists? However, I would support organizing the list alphabetically. Maybe it could be modeled on List of gay characters in television page, which has this at the top:
Go to:A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |
That list is also organized "A–F," "G–M," "N–R," and "S–Z." Thoughts? Historyday01 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such usage could imply that the normal expectation for archivists, librarians etc is male' - possibly women can be put on both lists. (See also the comment at Talk:List of female mystics)
As in other cases - the listing is somewhat in the order in which the persons are 'found' (and people lacking confidence in manipulating tables, which are easy to disrupt).
Perhaps an introductory section about how archival services (or whatever) were opened up to women would be useful (and theoretical equivalent articles on 'archivists in (particular specialisation/country etc).
The issue is how to balance 'neutrality/treating everybody equally' and 'providing a range of points of access to information/allowing users to follow particular lines of interest and subcategories of a larger listing.' (I am in favour of this latter.) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean that it could convey that the normal expectation is for archivists and librarians are male, but I wouldn't see an issue with moving the entries for women onto that list too, while maintaining this list, if that makes sense. I can see how that female mystics page is relevant, except no action was taken on that comment, which was posted in 2011. I think an introductory section about how archival services are open to women and perhaps citing the recent A*CENSUS (which notes that women are the majority of archivists) would be good. I would argue that this page, on its own, has enough of a basis and relevance to remain is own page. I'd also support adding a reference column too, which would ensure that people aren't adding people who aren't archivists to the list. Historyday01 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of a 'List of all (notable) X' (archivists, librarians, whatever) page, with secondary/See Also pages 'List of (category Y) Xs' - also having a link from (WP page on Y)' with a suitable introduction ('women were allowed into profession X from..., the vast majority of non-notable X are .../often come from profession Z, the specific subgroup of (category Y) Xs began in (date) ...' would probably cover most situations, and would increase accessibility/inclusivity/WP neutrality. (Persons might thus appear on more than one list - 'UK and engineering and female' etc). 14:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I'll write up and introduction and add it in the next couple days, whenever I have time. Historyday01 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are a number of 'List of archives in (country)' pages there is a case for matching 'List of notable (country) archivists' pages (or combined and sub-sectioned pages where there are presently only few entries), with 'See also' to each other. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Pages like that would make sense as well. Historyday01 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And eg 'List of theatre archives and theatre archivists' (there being various examples on WP and available elsewhere - so linked if insufficiently notable for WP as such). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Suitably linked' (eg to appropriate archive websites and archivist biographies). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, those sources should be used. Historyday01 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More in the sense that 'some people/archives' will be presently too obscure for WP/require translation etc and the link might be more appropriate than a WP article. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
