Wikipedia Diskussion:Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kunstwissenschaften + Wikipedia/Provenance loves Wiki
Letzter Kommentar: vor 1 Jahr von Jane023 in Abschnitt Reason for few articles about paintings
Titel
BearbeitenHallo Achim, ich würde auch "provenance" verschieben, da "provenience" zwar korrekt im Amerikanischen Englisch ist, sich als Fachbegriff aber eigentlich "provenanve (research)" etabliert hat. Viele Grüße --Julius1990 Disk. Werbung 08:45, 4. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- o.k. - muss noch nachschleifen und ergänzen, hoffe mal dass das heute klappt. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (Diskussion) 08:47, 4. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- Alles gut. Ich werde auch meine Augen drauf haben und helfen. Viele Grüße --Julius1990 Disk. Werbung 10:22, 4. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- Hach, jetzt überlege ich ich, ob wir nicht das "research" auch noch ergänzen sollten. Denn "Herkunft liebt Wiki" ist ja eigentlich nicht ganz, was wir meinen sondern die Provenienzforschung(s-Community), oder? Aber ich fange jetzt schon wieder mit overthinking an. Mach erst einmal ganz entspannt den ersten Aufschlag und dann können wir diese Details immer noch abklären. Viele Grüße --Julius1990 Disk. Werbung 10:24, 4. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
Was ist eigentlich am Deutschsprachigen "Provenienzforschung + Wikiversum" falsch gewesen? Muss es wirklich ein englischsprachiger Titel sein? --Auf Maloche (Diskussion) 10:09, 8. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- Falsch ist daran gar nichts - wir wollen das Arbeitstreffen allerdings auf englisch machen und auch Leute einladen, die nicht aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich sind. Der jetzige Namen entstand aus der Idee, den immer wieder etablierten Namen „Wiki loves ...“ mal umzudrehen. -- Achim Raschka (Diskussion) 10:27, 8. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- Okay, dann hoffe ich mal, dass die internationalen Gäste auch kommen.--Auf Maloche (Diskussion) 10:32, 8. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- Und es war ein Spiel mit dem ganzen "Wiki loves ..."-Dingen. Also knüpftes auch titelmäßig an das Wikiversum an. Viele Grüße --Julius1990 Disk. Werbung 12:07, 8. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
- Okay, dann hoffe ich mal, dass die internationalen Gäste auch kommen.--Auf Maloche (Diskussion) 10:32, 8. Sep. 2023 (CEST)
Reason for few articles about paintings
BearbeitenHello Achim, Thanks for creating this page, because I think it's a great idea. I have a question about the community however: I created this listeria list a few years ago: Benutzerin:Jane023/Gemälde per Sammlung because I was fascinated at the difference in number of articles about paintings across languages. Using the old interwiki links, you can see the difference with Dutch, English and French. I was surprised to see the lack of articles in German Wikipedia, even for top collections in Germany. Is there a problem with rules about articles & paintings? Just curious. Thanks in advance, Jane023 (Diskussion) 11:54, 2. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- Dear Jane023, I have the feeling that the list is not showing the real results: When I have a look into our category on paintings by century I see numbers of ~ 600 paintings of the 19th century, 440 paintings of the 20th century, 250 of the 16th century and another more than 200 of the 17th century - altogether we have more than 1750 pages categorized there. There is no problem with rules about articles (and lists) on paintings in the german Wikipedia - but there is a lot of concern about autogenerated content taken from Wikidata via Listeria or templates. Additionally there are only a few authors active in writing articles on paintings (or other artwork) and they prefer not to have stubs in here. Does this help? -- Achim Raschka (Diskussion) 12:15, 2. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- That list is not about absolute numbers, but shows the numbers of articles per collection. It is of course possible that most articles about paintings on German Wikipedia are not held in what are considered the top museums, but I find it surprising. I also am not referring to lists of paintings, but sheer numbers of Wikipedia articles about individual paintings. I am surprised to see the lack of articles about paintings held in the largest collections of Berlin and Munich, not to mention top collections such as those in London, Paris, and NYC. If you look at the other lists, it is normal that topping the list in English are museums in London and the USA, while topping the list in French is the department of paintings of the Louvre, etc. Though Munich and Berlin of course top the list, I would expect many more articles than 60 for Munich, for example. Jane023 (Diskussion) 09:38, 3. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- I'd say that this has to do with different Wikipedia cultures. While in other language versions stubs - even automatically created ones - are far more welcomed, the German Wikipedia has a somewhat higher standard in this regard. And I also think that each article about an artwork should be founded on scientific literature what raises the barrier that has to be overcome (which in turn means more time invested in research for the article, the writing process etc.) and not just recite the data sheet of an online collection of a museum. As well, I'd think that the German Wikipedia prioritizes differently, or at least it's my priority as an active editor in this field (and art historian) over the last 18 years: A good quality article about the artist or museum ranks in importance for our readers higher than articles about single artworks (which, if the context articles aren't good, are free-floating and thus not as useful as they could be). The limited (wo)menpower of the German Wikipedia in the art historical field alongside those cultural facturs thus determines the number of articles about artworks. And I also prefer a "proper" article over ten "stubs", if you'd ask me. --Julius1990 Disk. Werbung 13:13, 3. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- Thanks for your reply! Those are interesting insights, but I don't think they really matter for works in top museums. This is definitely not a quality issue, gendergap issue or even a cultural issue (lots of tourists but also locals make & improve Wikipedia articles about important paintings on loan in museums they visit). No, I am inclined to doubt my query for the German Wikipedia though. Jane023 (Diskussion) 11:15, 4. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- I believe it is a Wikidataproblem. Not that Wikidata is the problem, but that authors in the German language Wikipedia don't care much for Wikidata. I would imagine that all the paintings with a German language article in the the categories mentioned by Achim above are automatically assigned a Wikidata-Item, BUT, nobody cares to add the property "Sammlung (Collection)" or "Eigentümer (owner)" to these items. So when you generate your list, they are not found. We would need to initate some kind of Edit-a-thon to spice-up the Wikidata-items for all these paintings described in the German language Wikipedia. --Wuselig (Diskussion) 18:23, 3. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- Thanks for your reply. I agree that's true for lots of things still lacking items, but I doubt it's true for paintings in collections of top museums. Many German collections of top museums with decent websites have been fully indexed on Wikidata, complete with former owners and donors. You did give me an idea where to look though: I believe Germany is the same as most other countries in that the largest part of the collections of top museums are on permanent rotation in various locations, and it is these locations (palace buildings, old town halls, etc) that have not been properly included in Wikidata as parts of collections. I will check. Jane023 (Diskussion) 11:21, 4. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- I'd say that this has to do with different Wikipedia cultures. While in other language versions stubs - even automatically created ones - are far more welcomed, the German Wikipedia has a somewhat higher standard in this regard. And I also think that each article about an artwork should be founded on scientific literature what raises the barrier that has to be overcome (which in turn means more time invested in research for the article, the writing process etc.) and not just recite the data sheet of an online collection of a museum. As well, I'd think that the German Wikipedia prioritizes differently, or at least it's my priority as an active editor in this field (and art historian) over the last 18 years: A good quality article about the artist or museum ranks in importance for our readers higher than articles about single artworks (which, if the context articles aren't good, are free-floating and thus not as useful as they could be). The limited (wo)menpower of the German Wikipedia in the art historical field alongside those cultural facturs thus determines the number of articles about artworks. And I also prefer a "proper" article over ten "stubs", if you'd ask me. --Julius1990 Disk. Werbung 13:13, 3. Okt. 2023 (CEST)
- That list is not about absolute numbers, but shows the numbers of articles per collection. It is of course possible that most articles about paintings on German Wikipedia are not held in what are considered the top museums, but I find it surprising. I also am not referring to lists of paintings, but sheer numbers of Wikipedia articles about individual paintings. I am surprised to see the lack of articles about paintings held in the largest collections of Berlin and Munich, not to mention top collections such as those in London, Paris, and NYC. If you look at the other lists, it is normal that topping the list in English are museums in London and the USA, while topping the list in French is the department of paintings of the Louvre, etc. Though Munich and Berlin of course top the list, I would expect many more articles than 60 for Munich, for example. Jane023 (Diskussion) 09:38, 3. Okt. 2023 (CEST)