Jump to content

Talk:Artist-run space

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merger with Artist-run initiatives, 2007

[edit]
  • Support. There is certainly no need for both articles; which is merged with which I leave to others, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the Artist collective article and the associated category. There is a lot of overlap across all these. AllyD 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the term 'Artist-run space' excludes non-space based projects; 'Artist-run initiative' can include a much broader range of projects including web-based projects, publications and public projects. The article Artist collective may have crossovers, however an 'artist collective' usually refers to a collective creating collaborative artworks, rather than the Artist-run initiatives which facilitate broader projects such as galleries and publications.Maus23 10:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point; only if both articles covered what the other didn't would there be some (though not overwhelming) grounds for not merging them. As This article seems to concern a sub-set of what the other article covers, it should be merged. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles should not be merged as they should both refer to different cases. However they do need to be re-written in order to make it clear what they are and why they are different. I am starting to do this now. But these articles should not be merged simply because they have been badly clarified thus far. Thewombler 09:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Thewombler[reply]
  • Oppose, these articles should be about different things:

Article turning into a random directory service

[edit]

Shouldn't there be some requirement for an artist-run space to have some notability before it gets mentioened here? Many of the sections are becoming a random directory of galleries, with no reasoning, explanation or proof! It's not unreasonable, in my view, for notable spaces to be listed here, but they should either have a Wikipedia article about them, or be verifiable via an independent news/book source. Sionk (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and culled the growing unsourced lists and rearranged the article by country, which seems to make more sense. Sionk (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artist-run space. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artist-run space. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"in" verses "on" use ?

[edit]

When is it appropriate for the following sentence to have "in" instead of "on" when it involves a date?

"Since the opening in January 25, 2000, this very active artist-run space have organize more of 100 exhibitions."Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Events occur either on a specific date (e.g. "it happened on January 25th, 2000") or in a particular month (e.g. "it happened in January 2000"). There a few other problems with this sentence; here's how it should read:
"Since the opening in on January 25, 2000, this very active (WP:PEACOCK) artist-run space have has organize organized more of than 100 exhibitions."
Yunshui 雲水 13:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the use of "in" is incorrect? I originally changed it to "on" and another person reverted it as if it were incorrect. Why would someone do that if the change was correct?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artist-run space. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artist-run space. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Artist-run initiatives, 2020

[edit]
Some artist-run spaces are artist-run initiatives that are run by artist collectives, but these are different concepts. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is actually not clear and I'm not sure how to do it with a template at the top of the page... Given the correct distinction made above, but also the reality that artist-run initiative is a very infrequently used term, the general sameness of them being 'artist-run', the not great quality of the articles on wikipedia... I would like to propose making an Artist-run page with a well written amalgamation of all of the aforementioned pages. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reasonable case to merge Artist-run initiatives into Artist-run space, with a redirect. But Artist collective should not be merged with them. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also the parallel discussion at Talk:Artist-run initiative#Proposed merger with Artist-run space. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the weak consensus to merge Artist-run initiative and Artist-run space, but not other artist run articles, based on discussions here and elsewhere stretching back to 2007, I'll merge from Artist-run initiative. Formal reasons are overlap, context and short text. I think that other parts of the proposal would warrant a new discussion, as this is otherwise stale. Klbrain (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge UK article

[edit]

The article UK artist-run initiatives is too small to warrant a split and is better merged into the UK section given that it hasn't expanded beyond 3 paragraphs in the last 14 years. Klbrain (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: and @Joyous!:, I agree that the UK artist-run initiatives article's deficiencies would be better served by a merge-redirect to the broader context here. The question is what to merge: too much of that article is vague and unreferenced (for example the assertion of funding by "the Arts Council" misses specifics in London, in Scotland, etc. and the associated challenges), and the sole example is a hand-wave towards one example which is covered separately in the City Racing article. What about inserting "In the UK, artist-run initiatives tend to be smaller and less permanent than public and municipal organisations and can, for example, be established for the duration of an event or for the period of a lease on a property." and perhaps "Funding can involve various national and local institutions, as well as the National Lottery.", though I'd really like to see references for all of this. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: and @AllyD: I don't see a lot, actually. It might be closer to a redirect than an actual merge. Joyous! | Talk 15:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge is fine. Klbrain (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artist-run_space&oldid=1199049147"