Commons talk:Illustrating Women and Girls, Filling the Gaps

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Questions about the projects[edit]

We need to explore Category:Quality images of people, Category:Valued images of people and Category:Featured pictures of people. Apart from that, I've already got some questions about the project. We may lose some precious time to list them in a gallery, and it might become huge very quickly. Therefore, I think we should create categories like Category:Quality images of women, which we could mention on the Wikiproject page.
I was also wondering how we could split famous and anonymous women. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done it for Category:Featured pictures of women (156 files so far). The easiest... ;oP Yann (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I filled up Category:Valued images of women: 197 files so far. Yann (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about my suggestion to separate files showing anonymous women and files showing famous women ? Don't you think it may be better than having them in the same category ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue would be to define "anonymous"... Yann (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could leave "anonymous" women in the main categories and just created subcats such as Category:Quality images of female personalities. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this would relevant. First, again, how do we define who is a "personality"? We would need to discuss notability criteria, which is a whole can of worms. And I don't see any use searching for general personalities among hundreds of images. There could be interesting more precise categories: professions, nationalities, etc., but such things should be done with Catscan. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's relevant since it's not the same in terms of use : a picture of a "famous" woman can be linked to a biography on Wikipedia.
Maybe we could only determine a subcat with files concerning women who have a Wikipedia article ?
Or, easier, just something like Category:Quality images of identified females (which would indeed admit non famous women, but at least they would be identified) and Category:Quality images of unidentified females . --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this could a useful criteria for a category. Feel free to create it. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsia Hassani at UOG[edit]

Hi there. I have received a mail from the UOG in Geneva giving us authorization to photograph Shamsia Hassani's work. It is a piece of street rt but inside the cafeteria. I would like to have a decent photo published during Art+Feminism next week 8for the moment we used an I phone, no really a "quality" image). So can anyone help with this? Of course the art piece is in Geneva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nattes à chat (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will take care of the photo, but we need a permission from the artist, as it is inside the building. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Salomon[edit]

Can anyone tell me if we can use the pics of Charlotte Salomon's artwork published on Commons? I dont understand the subtil details of the license specification. See here: Category:Charlotte_Salomon. --Nattes à chat (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Nattes à chat,
Oui, ses oeuvres sont dans le domaine public, car elle est décédée il y a plus de 70 ans. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

@Yann: Can this be added as one of the objectives of the project? I've been going through Category:Female writers, and there's a lot of work to be done separating by country. I've been adding more detailed categories for each writer too. We also need categories like Category:Female novelists, and that would need to be sorted by country. Then you have all the other occupations - painters, doctors, scientists, athletes, etc. I think categorization should be a big part of this new project, and making it an objective would point out the need for work in that area. The good thing is that just about anyone can do category work. Daphne Lantier 00:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a good start of Category:Female novelists. I hadn't realized how much work needs to be done with categorization. I enjoy the work, and I hope this project can attract a few more people who like category sorting. @Yann: Would you object to adding "To encourage proper categorization of images into related categories like those found in Women by country by occupation"? This is something that anyone can do, whereas image taking/finding/uploading can be more involved. Many images come from Flickr or Panoramio and need categories. Daphne Lantier 07:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure! Thanks for your help, although I think that narrow categories should rather be done with Catscan. Yann (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have to try Catscan at some point. My basic method is to copy a category over and over just changing the country names and then to populate them with cat-a-lot. I use the copycat method since I'm not at all advanced with computers... I don't know where to put my suggested objective, as I just realized it reads like a sub-objective of the third objective we already have. Suggestions are welcome. Direct mentions of things that people can do seems like a good idea; giving people options and ideas of what kind of work they'd like best. In Category:Media needing categories there are thousands of high quality portraits and other images of women writers, teachers, athletes, politicians, and more. Many of these images can be added to articles on various language wikis. I'm sure there are many other things editors can do. Daphne Lantier 09:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women or females ?[edit]

I have a problem with the term "women" : strictly speaking, it means that we don't consider underage females. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably a cultural and language issue: I never heard the use of the word "female" when talking about human beings (except on Commons ;oS ). And strictly speaking, children are not included here (see the categories I created "Featured/Quality/Valued pictures of women/children"). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said only "children", but underage, ie less than 18yo. For instance, for my picture of Youna Dufournet, it's not correct to include her as a woman because she was only 17 at that time. And the goal of this project should not only highlight adults but also underage female persons like her. I think the purpose is to correct the male bias, so it's not only about women. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that she should be included. It is just that my definition of women is a bit different. ;oP We can have a different title.
I'd like to have opinions from others: @LaMèreVeille, Nattes à chat, and Anthere: What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually may have the same linguistic bias than Yann on this... For I... Women is a term which includes girls. And for me the term female is very sex related or animal related. When I created Wiki Loves Women for example, it was always with the idea in mind that girls were concerned. I would never have created Wiki Loves Females... that sounds very weird to me. But I can read that this may be a language issue. Would also hint that the definition of when a girl becomes a woman vary a lot depending on culture. We often tell a girl that she is now a women when she gets her periods for the first time. Or we tell her she is a women when she losts her hymen. I would not consider someone would become a women just because turning 18... so Youna is fine to me. Last, it feels that women is more respectful of gender choice than female might be. I would suggest keeping Illustrating Women. But will follow any choice retained. Anthere (talk)
At present, we're all French here. That's a pity because we all have that language bias (since "femelle" in French doesn't seem right when we speak about humains). It would be good to have the opinion of someone whose mother tongue is English. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are all French speakers here, but I have to remark that the English equivalent project is called Women in Red, and not Females in Red. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I am half British and I agree that female would probably be more correct even if it seems strange to the French speaking people... --Nattes à chat (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what about "Illustrating Women and Girls" ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Yann (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No more discussion. I moved the page. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about women in need of images[edit]

The link to the "Women in Red" project made me think it might be useful to make a list of existing wikipedia articles about women in need of photos, so that commons users can focus on supplying them. It could be compiled fairly easily from a simple seach for "wikipedia requested photographs" and "women". - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be useful. Yann (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo contest Art and Feminism[edit]

Hi, The Geneva group "Les Sans PagEs" has decided to organise a photo exhibition for the next Art & Feminism event in March 2018. This will take place in a public place (yes not decided) and will certainly receive some media coverage. We would like photographers from Wikimedia Commons to participate and submit candidates, among which 10 pictures will be selected for the exhibition. The objective is also to promote Wikimedia Commons and free content. Thanks for your input and suggestions. Yann (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann if you have a specific proposal you can propose a monthly challenge to get some 30-50 good pictures in that direction. We have uncommon themes including very generic one. We had "numbers", we can have "women" if we think, as a community, that fills a gap. It takes few months to approve a theme. Start now and by next February we are going to approve and run it if there's consensus--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use all the uploaded pictures but maybe we can say that the winner of the monthly competition will be "automatically" selected for the exhibition. The quality is good (check yourself), you could trust the output.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, like Alexmar983, I would also support "Art & Feminism" Commons:Photo challenge done some month before March 2018. What we would need is:
  1. Gallery of images that we already have on Commons that well represent what you would like to get. It can be broad or more narrow. (Can we assemble one right here in this discussion?)
  2. Create proposal at Commons_talk:Photo_challenge/themes, which consists mostly of a title, a gallery of example photos and some description of what is within and outside of the scope of the photo challenge. If photographing someone else's art than we also need to think about their copyrights
  3. Campaign to find wikipedians and possibly photographers outside of the wikipedia movement to contribute images. You can also ask them to vote for the challenge at the Commons_talk:Photo_challenge/themes page.
  4. Participate in monthly discussions at Commons talk:Photo challenge about next month challenge.
I will be happy to help with the process, but if it is going to happen someone needs to be actively championing it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see that Yann's idea is generating this discussion. i dont think i'd go for the general theme of "women", because it has to have something to do with Art+feminism. Furthermore the theme of Art+Feminism next year in Geneva might evolve around women's art in prison or camps. An example would be the paintings of Charlotte Salomon Category:Charlotte Salomon, the paintings of Category:Shamsia Hassani, or Aloïse Corbaz, or Debbie Cornwall. I would think it great if it was the occasion for women photographers to propose their own work for show as well... --Nattes à chat (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nattes à chat, so here is the challenge: it is a photo challenge and we should stay away from photographing other peoples work, because more often than not files will get deleted. Also photographing your own art can be deleted as out of scope, since most of us are not notable artists. You also can not restrict it to just women photographers. So if we want Challenge to be relevant to "Art & Feminism", it should be feminism as the subject. I agree that general theme of "women" is too broad, "feminism" might be too imprecise (unless we can clearly define what photographs related to "feminism" are). Maybe something like "Women in non-traditional roles", like few samples below. However that might also be very subjective, as what is or is not a "traditional role" can very a lot, and one's person choice can be insulting to others. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Illustrating_Women_and_Girls,_Filling_the_Gaps&oldid=239250820"