Collections Management Systems Analysis

Abstract Art

The first Wikipedia article that I chose is “Abstract art”. I think it is important to look at this article because many of the sculptures in our collection could fall into this category. It is a fairly long article, but I doubt it covers every topic and issue encompassed by the term “abstract art”. It begins with an overview that includes a very brief history and a summarized definition. The first main section is about the history of abstract art and it is broken down into eight sub-sections which look at the subject through time and in different schools and media (including music). The next main section is about abstract art in the twenty-first century, followed by a gallery of images.

I like this article because I think the author did a good job of tackling a very large subject and compressing it into a very readable, informative article. There are numerous internal links as well as links to related subjects in the “see also” section. At the bottom there is a list of Western art movements by century with links to more articles, followed by the category links of “Art movements”, “modern art”, and “abstract art”. The “abstract art” category leads to sub-categories such as futurism, cubism, and abstract artists. It also leads to a few different pages on similar subjects. I think that if we were to use the category of “abstract art”, it would lead the viewer to another article with a lot of relevant information. However, there might be conflicting opinions within the class as to what should and should not be categorized as abstract art since it is not as clear-cut of a category as something like “outdoor sculptures in Indianapolis”, but I think that decision could be left up to the Art History Czar if there are problems.

Mississippian Culture

The second article I looked at was the “Mississippian Culture” article. I chose this one as a subject that does not have anything to do with our collection, but it is one with which I am familiar. It begins with an overview and then gives information based on five sections: cultural traits, chronology, contact with Europeans, known Mississippian chiefdoms, and related modern nations. It also has a lot of internal links and “see also” links.

This article is organized in a logical way and gives the readers a lot of ways to find more information. It has eight categories listed at the bottom, ranging from broad ones such as “civilizations” and “ancient peoples” to narrower ones such as “archaeological cultures of North America” and “mound builders”. It think this brings up an important issue for our articles – the categories that we assign them to can be very broad or very narrow and we should decide which ones (broad or narrow) would be more important and relevant before deciding on the specific categories. For example, is it more important that people find a link to other outdoor sculptures in Indianapolis, or that it is included in the broader category of “public art”? I think it would be possible to mix them, such as using both of the above categories, but we need to put limits on them somehow. Wikipedia is so expansive that we could end up with far too many categories if we do not use some type of parameters. The Wikipedia Category Czar should have a big role in this. As the SOS! Czar, I need to make sure that the categories in that database are carried over, so that could be our limit, but only if those categories actually exist in Wikipedia. I will need to look into that and work with the Wikipedia Category Czar on it.

Depew Memorial Fountain

The third article I chose is “Depew Memorial Fountain”. This is located in Indianapolis so I thought it would be useful to see what categories it was placed into. It is a short article and includes the sections “description”, “artists”, and “history”. This is different from the format that we have tentatively discussed in class (the one that would be like a condition report). Depending on how much information we can find for each sculpture, our Wikipedia articles may end up looking more like one or the other. Of course, the Wikipedia Article Template Czar should be in charge of developing the format, but it will probably need to be adapted to the individual articles.

The categories that this article on the Depew Memorial Fountain were placed into are: visitor attractions in Indianapolis, Indiana, buildings and structures in Indianapolis, outdoor sculptures in Indiana, outdoor sculptures in Indianapolis, public art, and monuments and memorials in Indiana. I think we should use the “outdoor sculptures in Indianapolis” category because there are not that many sculptures listed in that category right now despite the large number that exist. Similarly, I think the “outdoor sculptures in Indiana category” would be useful to readers too. As mentioned above, “public art” would certainly be a suitable category, but it may not be as useful to readers since it is so broad.

SIRIS Database

The SIRIS database is divided up into different catalogues based on subjects and types of objects. The art catalogue lets one browse by artist, title, subject, object type, and owner. The user can also search any of these categories, and search all the catalogues at once. This is a very efficient way to search such a large database. Each object entry has title, artist, medium, type, date, topic, credit line, object number, and data source sections. Each search can also be filtered. For example, one can start their search with “outdoor sculpture” and eventually refine it down to outdoor sculpture in Indianapolis. Other filters are based on topic, artist, and culture. When looking at a few records of sculptures on the IUPUI campus, I found that most of them were categorized as abstract. Their object type was given by their location (Outdoor Sculpture -- Indiana – Indianapolis Sculpture). This is straight and to the point, and I think the SIRIS catalogue system is very easy to use. Oddly enough, it is even easier to find something in particular if the user searches all the catalogues at once rather than just one because then they are able to filter their results by location, type of object, time period, etc.

Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy - Glory-June Greiff

The book by Glory-June Greiff gives information about outdoor sculptures in a long narrative form and divides them into subject categories such as memorials to war and peace, religious sculptures, and allegorical and aesthetic public sculptures. These seem more subjective and tailored to the sculptures she found. I do not think they will be suitable for our collection, but they do work well for the format of the book. It reads like a visitors’ guide, which we might consider as part of the educational component, but I think our collection is too different for Greiff’s categories to be relevant and useful. Ltalley09 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr (sculpture)

Hi. I've nominated Zephyr (sculpture), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, thanks! Ltalley09 (talk)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the image copyright. File:Zephyr Back.JPG is released in public on wiki, but it is "all rights reserved" on flickr. Are you the same person who put the photo on flickr? If yes, change flickr copyright to Public domain too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the copyright on flickr Ltalley09 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zephyr (sculpture)

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zephyr (sculpture), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

So Why 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr images

I removed the gallery because the sculpture is copyrighted. Because the sculpture is copyrighted, the photos are considered "non-free" and have to satisfy very strict criteria set out in WP:NFCC. Normally for a non-free work of art one image is sufficient, unless a second image shows some important detail that another image does not. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Zephyr Front.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zephyr Front.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Ltalley09! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

Feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eve RDavidson.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eve RDavidson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]