Talk:List of female archivists

Overlap
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)
 * 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:


 * That list is also organized "A–F," "G–M," "N–R," and "S–Z." Thoughts? Historyday01 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * See also Women as theological figures.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's true. Pages like that would make sense as well. Historyday01 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 'Suitably linked' (eg to appropriate archive websites and archivist biographies). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, those sources should be used. Historyday01 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)