Talk:List of women architects

A couple of issues
This is an excellent initiative and will certainly help to encourage coverage of female architects. Two problems for the time being: I note that the list is built essentially on articles in Category:Women architects. Unfortunately this has not been used systematically. In the case of Denmark, for example, there are several articles which needed to be added (see the revised list). The other problem is that the list does not include red links, i.e. the names of female architects who deserve English WP articles, including some of those included in the other language Wikipedias but not yet in English. Again to take Denmark as an example, I would emphasise the need to include Eva Koppel (1916-2006), Karen Clemmensen ((1917-2001), Ragna Grubb (1903-1961) and Hanne Kjærholm (1930-2009) for a start. I know that some lists are restricted to existing articles but in this case I think it would be useful to include red links too, adding these names to the list for Denmark. Any views on this? Should they be included in chronological order with the blue links or should there be a separate section for the red links? (See also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture.) - Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a start, at least :) The list was actually based on the few female architects on the general List of architects. I knew of an additional few missing individuals, such as Anne Tyng, and added them.
 * Red links are abolutely fine in my view. There are subject areas on Wikipedia that lack coverage and, like you say, I think the contribution of women to most major professions is one of them. However, I would argue that any redlinks need to cite references to demonstrate some sort of 'notability'. Sionk (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sionk for your hard work. Against my normal practice, I'll try to start with short stubs rather than red links. I'll try to get back to them a.s.a.p. and produce at least articles of Start class. There are of course dozens of famous women architects around the globe who deserve to be added to the list. But one step at a time. Do you know of any women Wikipedians interested in architecture who could be alerted to the challenge? - Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is at least one woman listed in the members of the WP Architecture Project. Then again, not every female architecture aficionado is necessarily a champion of other female architects. Personally, my (female) first year architecture tutor was quietly influential on my interests. She is now Head of Architecture at a major British university and probably should have a WP article too!
 * I'm normally a 'redlinker', but the only problem with redlinks in list articles is ending up with a page like this one, which are worse than useless. From what I see of the policy on redlinking, in lists they are discouraged. Sionk (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your views on this and will not redlink but rather add names as I develop articles. I'm still a bit confused about Elekhh's views on the list. See the WP Architecture talk page. - Ipigott (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Red links
The list now contains a substantial number of red links. Would it be a good idea, as Elekhh suggests on the WP Architecture talk page, to create a development page for these at, for example WikiProject Architecture/List of female architects? Are there any that could be quickly transformed into stubs? - Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already created a few new articles for redlinks that have sufficient information available. But the many redlinked names in the USA list seem to come from a single source. I'm wondering whether sufficient sources will be available to ever create articles about all of these. All the same, SarahStierch has done a great job finding the sources and I see she has already started creating articles too, so we are probably worrying about this prematurely! Sionk (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarah has indeed been doing some excellent work. About half of the 20 or so new articles she has written over the past couple of days contain a fair amount of detail. In my opinion, they could be upgraded to "start", especially as many of them appear to include most of the essential facts. I'll try to help out with the red links too. - Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A large number of uncited redlinks have appeared for Germany in particular. I see Ipigott has weeded out some of them, which is good. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't cite itself and many German WP articles are unsourced. Personally I'd be inclined to give the redlinks a period of 'grace' to see whether (sourced) articles are written in English. But in-depth sources for some of them are hard to find! Sionk (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List by country, chronologically or alphabetically?
This argument has been raging on the Wikiproject Architecture Talk page. I originally listed the architects by nationality because this seems to be a more meaningful way of presenting the information - for example it is possible to see the geographical spread, 'firsts' for each geographical area. There are a small number of prominent architects that have been born, educated and lived for a time in one country, but known better for their work in another country. Some of these, for example Zaha Hadid and Denise Scott Brown, I've listed twice. But there are very few of them. To list chronologically I think would be a mistake. Almost no women architects were active before the 20th century. Would two long lists by century (20th/21st) be meaningful or navigable? Listing by century is okay for lists that cover a considerable historical period, but I believe we need to 'think out of the box' here. Alternative suggestions more than welcome! Sionk (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The list seems to be coming along very nicely the way it is. I agree there is little point in undertaking a chronological listing. Still some serious gaps, though. I'll see what can be done about Germany which is not even listed! - Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed another problem with chronological listing, which is occurring in the general List of architects. Quite a large number of architects are being listed twice because they have been active in more than one century. Sionk (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Table
Another option would be to use a table with multiple, sortable fields. By clicking on the field you want it to sort by, you can change the order of items in the list. Click on "Name", and it'll sort alphabetically by last name (I've inserted hidden sort keys to make this work); click on "Dates" and it will sort chronologically by birth date, etc. In this example I've put continents in front of countries so that the present order we have is preserved. Note that the first click sorts it by ascending order, the second by descending order.

This is just a small example, but you get the idea. Everyone gets their way.  Litho  derm  23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interesting suggestion and all the trouble you've taken to provide a few examples. Unfirtunately I'm not very good myself at manipulating tables. Perhaps we'll find another enthusiast willing to take it on. - Ipigott (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if enough people like the idea, I'd be willing to take it on. I just don't want to extend myself without consensus and have all my work reverted - that's why I provided examples. Alternatively, alphabetization could be the default order.

This is another example with continents and nations split into two different fields... Litho  derm  05:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I find tables difficult to edit, which may hinder people adding things to the list easily and correctly. After all, this is an incomplete list, so we want to encourage aditors to add to it. The list is already better organised and more informative than almost every other list of architects, and time may be better spent improving the other lists. However, if someone wants to table-ise this list I'm not going to revert it or be obstructive. I can see a few advantages to it (sorting etc.), so it won't be the end of the world. Sionk (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, Sionk. The list is still developing quite rapidly and is likely to undergo more changes in March when the women's campaign officially begins. So I suggest we keep it the way it is for now and reconsider tabulation when things have settled down a bit. But thanks once again, Lithoderm, for your useful suggestions and your willingness to take the job on yourself. - Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More work needed on United States biographies
While most of the rest of the world has now been covered pretty well, there are still over 40 names under the United States which need to be upgraded from red links. All of them have at least a basic reference which should facilitate writing stubs for a start. Perhaps the job can be completed by the end of March, Women's History month? - Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But the redlinks are mainly deceased architects, not into self-promotion any longer, so creating stubs based on their biogs in an authoritative book will probably be fine, I guess. The list is barely a month old, so there's no great hurry. Having just done an exercise in removing inline refs for bluelinked names, I can see a substantial number have had articles written up during the last 3 weeks! Sionk (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is also a question of what Elekhh calles wikibias. The Americans seem to be far more concerned with historical state-by-state biographies and archives than the rest of the world with the result that they have dozens of pioneers for just one or two in other countries. My own feeling is that if the names occur in only one book on the history of women in architecture, then they are probably not really worthwhile. If, however, they are more widely reported or referenced, then they should be included. If no one objects, we could proceed along these lines in a few days time. As they stand, the red links are something of a distraction as there are many far more important female architects who deserve to be included on the list and are nowhere to be found on Wikipedia yet. - Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, there is also a bias against coverage of women (and non-blokey subjects) on Wikipedia (and in society). The Allaback book seems to be quite well researched and authoritative, so I wouldn't automatically discount it because it is American. I suppose the difficulty we face is persuading the average dis-interested Wikipedian that simply being a female architect before the 1920's is a notable thing. We'd need several authoritative sources to convince them of that!
 * Unfortunately I don't have the time or inclination to go through all the USA redlinks at the moment. I prefer to broaden the coverage of non-American subjects too. As I've said several times already, my choice would be to leave the redlinks to encourage someone to develop new stub articles. It may feel like longer, but they've only been there for a few weeks :) Sionk (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, let's leave them there for the time being. I must say I already had to remove one or two as the names had been confused. Others were variations on names for which there were already articles. Sometimes the references in the Allaback book are not too clear either. I think Sarah must have taken quite a few from the index without going any further. I do not have the book myself - although it may well be worthwhile trying to get a copy - and some sections are missing from the Google version. In any case, if you think these red links are worthwhile with the references they have, then many, many more red links could be added for much more famous contemporary women architects. Personally, though, I think lists should be primarily for people to link to real Wikipedia articles rather than references which are often difficult to understand. So I'll continue to write a few more articles in preparation for Women in architecture which should also be coming fairly soon. - Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, if the entries for the women are missing from the Google Books preview then they should probably be the first redlinks to get zapped. Judging by the "Retrieved 4 February 2012", the editor used the online version as a source. All the same, the book should be a good source for your new Women in architecture article! Sionk (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations & history
An interesting infographic about Women in Architecture (in the US) http://www.archdaily.com/216844/infographic-women-in-architecture/ might be of interest for those working on the article. Maybe a short intro tackling history/chronology might benefit this article. The idea of a sortable table seems a good one, now that the article seems stabilised. -- ELEKHHT 07:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

List is attracting wider attention
An editor has highlighted (at WikiProject Architecture) these articles which discuss women architects, Wikipedia and this list article:

http://places.designobserver.com/feature/unforgetting-women-architects-from-pritzker-to-wikipedia/37912/ mentions this list directly, pointing out how many notable women architects are still missing from it;

http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/unforgetting-women-architects.aspx (June 2013) invites its readers to nominate women architects to write-up on Wikipedia.

All good points and excellent initiatives! Sionk (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Move to List of women architects?
The term female has (to me at least) a negative connotation. In categories at Wikipedia it is usually applied to the so-called less desirable occupations (example Category: Female prostitutes‎). This has been a recurring topic for discussion in the area dedicated to nomination of categories for deletion, and to be fair there are many who disagree with my point (as well as those who support it). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Good, I was also thinking this list-article should be moved to List of women architects.  The corresponding categories are already named that way: Category:Women architects, Category:American women architects, etc.  To me,  "List of women architects" just sounds more professional.  Could you please follow instructions and open a wp:RM requested move for this?  (Also, I'm not familiar with the wp:CFD discussions you suggest have happened, but if you could share a link or two that could possibly be helpful, for context, though not really needed.)  Or, hmm, maybe you should just wp:BEBOLD and move the article without a long RM discussion, if no one objects here within a short time (like 24 hours).  I don't think it should be controversial.  -- do  ncr  am  17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything negative in being female. But I've no strong leanings either way. Like Doncram says, the upper levels of the category tree suggest "women" is the more preferred usage. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ':I cannot remember off hand, but I have seen this topic come up many times, either when someone wants to move a category from Female to Women or vice verce. Wiki-search (which I think is broken right now) brought up this Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_27 which I have not looked at recently and don't know how representative this is
 * I will try to remember to check here again in 24 hours, but I can't even remember important birthdays from day to day, let alone wiki-chores. Any time-management tricks would be appreciated, where it is on-topic of course :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to remember to check here again in 24 hours, but I can't even remember important birthdays from day to day, let alone wiki-chores. Any time-management tricks would be appreciated, where it is on-topic of course :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

proposal for treatment of redlinks and removed items
One or more editors have removed redlink items from the list. I and perhaps others would prefer to keep them. But management of a list-article could be done either way. To me and perhaps others, removal seems unnecessary: per Wikipedia guideline wp:redlinks, redlinks serve a useful purpose and help wikipedia grow. Especially with some focus on developing this list and coverage of women architects in Wikipedia, it seems unfortunate, as well-meaning new and experienced editors will find their good-faith additions removed, undermining momentum and perhaps causing mis-perception that expanded coverage is not welcome. Many list-articles do include redlinks. See wp:LISTN and wp:LSC about types of list-articles. On the other hand, some other list-articles have been managed with a rule like some want here, that only items having a wikipedia article already can be included (i.e. no redlinks). And that has proven useful in practice sometimes, in limiting non-encyclopedic mainspace material and appropriately conveying that such will not be accepted, perhaps saving time of all parties. The definition of list-item inclusion rule for any one list-article can be set by consensus of editors, and can be changed by new consensus. I myself have created a number of women architect articles but only recently began contributing directly to this list-article. I'd like to respect editors who have been managing this list-article and not fight unpleasantly about what a new inclusion rule consensus should be.

Could we simply compromise, for a defined period of time, at least? One way to compromise would be to agree to preserve the suggestion implicit in each existing red-link or new contribution of red-link or "black-link". By "black-link" I mean any list-item where a woman architect is being named, but without wikilink as no separate article is intended. An example could be a woman architect who is a principal of an architectural firm, where the firm has a Wikipedia article or seems to be notable enough to meet separate-article notability. List-articles can include items that are notable at a lower level of notability than justifies a separate wikipedia article. If each suggested woman architect item is recorded and kept alive, that respects the contribution and likely good knowledge of interested editors. The items may be preserved either in the list-article directly or in a development list here on the Talk page or in a Talk sub-page. A Talk subpage, perhaps Talk:List of female architects/Development list, currently a red-link, is NOT in mainspace and is allowed by all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please consider this proposal, intended for a period of time, at least:
 * Proposal part 1. Any existing or added red-link or black-link items be preserved, either in the list-article or here on Talk page or on a new Talk sub-page.


 * Proposal part 2. That any existing or added red-link item be kept directly in the list-article, if the item includes supporting footnote(s) with reliable source(s) that asserts or establishes notability at level usually required for Wikipedia-notability of the topic as a separate article. (Similar to wp:CSC's rule 1.) These items would be kept for the defined period, with the expectation that an article will be created, and can be removed after the period.


 * Proposal part 3. That any red-link item removed from the list-article be transferred immediately, with any footnotes or other information, to a development list here on the Talk page or in a Talk sub-page.


 * Proposal part 4. That the period of time be from now to June 30, 2015.


 * Proposal part 5. That any existing or added "black-link" item be kept directly in the list-article, if the item includes supporting footnote(s) with reliable source(s) that asserts or establishes notability, including at level less than required for Wikipedia-notability of the topic as a separate article. These items would be kept for the defined period, and can be removed after the period.

"Votes"
Please indicate SS = strong support, S = support, WS = weak support, WO = weak oppose, O = Oppose, SO = Strong Oppose for Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with only very brief indication why (and give any expanded explanation in Discussion instead):
 * 1 SS, 2 SS, 3 SS, 4 S, 5 WS, as proposer. I don't mind the period 4 being changed and I prefer but don't think it's essential to have 5. -- do  ncr  am  16:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why we need such an elaborate proposal, so I am just going to give my opinion as someone who has added a half dozen pages on women architects. I vote for whatever (1) keeps all blacklinks (2) moves all redlinks elsewhere, namely the list's Talk page and one or more "Requested articles" lists. I don't think it's all a bad thing to have red names on multiple potential to-do lists. I just think the main list page is better without them, since some may not ever get stable pages.Alafarge (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I put this forward as a proposal, hoping to keep discussion positive and help the list-article move forward. Perhaps this proposal is too elaborate?    I'd welcome discussion and/or changes to the proposal.  But i hope all could agree to the general principle in Part 1, and that 2, 3 could be accepted by all as reasonable implementation of 1.  sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  16:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's a bit hypocritical to demand people leave a brief replay when you have made a major essay of your proposal! However, WP:LISTPEOPLE is pretty clear that lists of people (particularly living people) require proof of their eligibility to a list. There are already several redlinks in this list article but they are supported by authoritative sources (or at least a source). I removed your entry because the person was living, with no proof of meeting WP:GNG (we don't list every male principal of an architecture firm so why do so with women?). Being a principal of a company is not proof (or even an indication) of notability.
 * However, the suggestion has already been made (on this Talk page above) that a subpage be created (part of WikiProject Architecture maybe?) where suggestions can be made for future articles. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal. It has also been raised at WikiProject Women artists (this would be my preferred location for a sub-page). There's also Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences where requests can be made. I tend to do a quick Google search before removing redlinks and, if they are clearly notable, I'll sometimes bookmark them or create a stub article myself. Sionk (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

woman architect items for development
Please suggest woman architects for inclusion into the list-article here. And in spirit of proposal in section above, please transfer items to here, if you feel it's necessary to remove them from the list-article. Please insert any discussion and add supporting information just below each item. Some/many can be included in the list-article after discussion/development. -- do ncr  am  17:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Elizabeth Grant (architect and anthropologist)" (Australia section) Recently added to the list-article, removed with comment "Australia: not sure there's any evidence she's an architect"
 * The Elizabeth Grant (anthropologist) section documents she has a Ph.D. in architecture and has focused on design of prisons more suitable for aborigines. Off-line links to her Ph.D. dissertation and publications, but this link online, from one reference gives the idea.  She was then lecturing in architecture.  She seems to be an academic, and it's not clear to me what works she has actually designed that have been built, but she's clearly trained in architecture and teaches it and has been studying/writing/advocating about it.  I think it's proper to include her in the list, maybe as:
 * Elizabeth Grant (anthropologist), Ph.D. in architecture, studies and advocates on design of prison environments
 * -- do ncr  am  12:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll admit that, although she is not an architect she probably fits the inclusion criteria of "notable women who are well known for their work in the field of architecture" (which is rather vague). If you added her back I wouldn't contest it. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lindy Atkin (b.1964) Queensland architect and founding co-director of Bark Design Architects in Noosa." (Australia) Recently added, then  removed with "Australia: removed unsourced redlink per WP:LISTPEOPLE)"


 * "Jane Greenwood (b. 1958), co-founder and principal of Kostow Greenwood Architects in New York City." (United States) Recently added, then removed with "there's nothing to discuss, unproven BLP redlinks need removing per WP:LISTPEOPLE".
 * Update: drafts are in development about Jane Greenwood (in a userspace draft) and about the firm (at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kostow Greenwood Architects), editing help welcomed. After the firm article is promoted to mainspace, I think a "black-link" item for Jane Greenwood would [likely] be justified, something like:
 * Jane Greenwood, co-founder and principal of Kostow Greenwood Architects in New York City
 * should could be okay, as long as the architecture firm article is in mainspace and covers Jane Greenwood well enough there [to establish adequate notability about her, beyond her just being a principal, per wp:LISTPEOPLE]. -- do ncr  am  17:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Marieke Botha, Bloemfontein Architect since 1994, own practice since 2007." (South Africa). Added August 2014 with "Architect from bloemfontein", then removed with "scant evidence of notability yet"


 * [Dr. Ar. Miss ILA LODHAVIA ]the first female architect to get Ph.D. in Law (Building Regulations) Having Sole Independent office Since 1975. Sthapatya shingar Sardarnagar Main Road, Rajkot 360001 (removed from list 9 March 2015, I can see nothing online to support her inclusion)

American women architects
I'm wondering whether the List of American women architects is asking to be split off and go its own way. It has been given a different format and its own intro. It's certainly long enough to warrant a split! Sionk (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a country
Should we put the Puerto Rican architects under U.S. because Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. ArchitectK (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico is a commonwealth aligned as a territory of the United States and whose citizens do not get to vote for the US legislators, nor do they have full protection under the US Constitution. It is a separate entity which issues its citizens of Puerto Rican citizenship, though they may also be US citizens. And the United Nations recognizes Puerto Rico as a self-governing state. It is legally a separate entity, if and until a referendum resolves its status. No different than British Commonwealth countries, which are treated as separate entities from Britain. SusunW (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point whether Beatriz del Cueto Lopez is Cuban, Puerto Rican or American. I'm struggling to find any sources about her. The peril of listing people by nationality I suppose. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally sympathize. Looks like you got all the ones from Spanish Wiki. Let me look. I'm in Mexico, sometimes I get different search results. SusunW (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm finding some publications. As with all women, names are the bane of my existence. If I use only her surname, I am finding hits: Beaztriz del Cueto hits publications, books, etc., , , , , , ,   Any of that help you?SusunW (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a news source about a major Puerto Rican architectural award, and revised her common name to aid future searches. She certainly seems established in Puerto Rico. Sionk (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of women architects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326015010/http://www.arvha.asso.fr/archi_fem/arvha_french/info_arvha/document_info/us-archi.html to http://www.arvha.asso.fr/archi_fem/arvha_french/info_arvha/document_info/us-archi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)