Talk:List of graphic designers

Older comments
I deleted several obvious self promotions and added some trully notable designers. These kind of pages are obvious tests for wiki concept. Let's say that the standard for this page is that they are referenced / recognized / studied in graphic design education internationally (officially part of graphic design history). This does not include publications like commercial graphic design books and magazines, and does not include locally recognized people - only those who are respected outside their locality. &mdash; NikolaT 08:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, Maylett. That said, as soon as you get into any sort of ranking or weeding things may get frothy. As you said, who is to say who is "renowned" and who isn't? Are we talking about Mount Rushmore people only? Or is the point of this list to provide a reasonably comprehensive entry point to somebody taking an initial look at the graphic design field?

Of course, the list shouldn't devolve into the graphic design Yellow Pages. Is it feasible to divide the page into parts to divide acknowledged giants like Paul Rand from contemporary commercial powerhouse designers and from the new guard? &mdash; Graphic design friend 12:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The category title is "List of Graphic Designers." Period. This means all articles pertaining to individuals who practice(d) a graphic arts discipline in a formal application (occupation, career, profession, etc).--216.253.95.34 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Is a "list of renowned graphic designers" really a meaningful category? What are the criteria for being on this list? Who is to say who is "renowned" and who isn't. Although there are a few designers that most everyone would agree upon (especially those who have had a far-reaching or lasting impact), about half the designers mentioned seem to just be somebody whose work somebody else happens to like. Using this criteria, most every graphic designer in the world could be listed here. Anyway, I suspect that more than a few of the names are just people who have added themselves. &mdash; Maylett 16:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I suggest that we use the members list of Alliance Graphique Internationale members. Take a look at the AGI site, I think it is probably the most acurate list of living renowned graphic designers. It also includes a list of those that are no longer with us... – Novacodova 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for listing
I suggest we only list graphic designers who have wikipedia articles on them. If someone wants to put someone on the list, they must first create the wikipedia article if the article doesn't exist. What do you think? Oicumayberight 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. See my previous comment to this effect above.--216.253.95.34 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this list?
I prodded it but it was removed. Never the less I cannot see the point in having this list. What purpose does this list serve, and how does it serve it better than categories could? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the list appears to be expansion on graphic design by showing examples from notable designers. The articles should all include examples, but some don't. As you point out, it doesn't need to be an article. Maybe it should be nominate it for deletion. A category would suffice. It would also eliminate dead links and names without links. Oicumayberight 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion tag removed

 * A list and a category are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. But advantage should be taken of the list formatto add some informqtion, such as nationality or fdates. DGG (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag was correctly removed. Read Lists and the section Purposes of lists. The important one to read is: Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which makes very clear: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other." --BSTemple (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the goal, then the list should be a sortable table with the information included. In its current state, it's redundant and only invites users to put their name on this list without a supporting wikipedia article to prove notability. There are millions of amateur graphic designer just waiting to self promote on wikipedia. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Verifiability, Stand-alone lists esp. 5 Appropriate topics for lists - 5.1 Lists of people, which clearly states "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." Also look at WP:NOT.--BSTemple (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria for listing is understood, but the problem with the list has yet to be solved. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)