Talk:List of female bass guitarists

Additions to be made

Kathy Valentine of the go-go's. I'm not very computer literate, so I don't want to risk adding it myself.

just thought of another one: suzie quatro

These have been added. Cheers. GentlemanGhost 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rhonda Smith (Prince, Jeff Beck) must surely be a worthy addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.146.20 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nik West and Lianne La Havas should be added too, plus probably many others. 17/9/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.17.73 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Article re-name

I've moved the original article from the unencyclopedic "women" bassists to female bassists to fall in line with other split gender lists on Wikipedia. Peter Fleet 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another addtion

I don't really know how to edit stuff on here, but Lisa Umbarger formerly of the Toadies should be added Jaxion08 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Hi. The criteria says: "Only add names here if the guitarist has her own article on Wikipedia, please." Unfortunately, articles of female bassists who have their own WP entries are also removed. That's not very helpful for the world wide, international WP community. Or change the criteria to: "Only add names here if the guitarist has her own article on ENGLISH Wikipedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idagene (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I think it may well be permissible for each list to have its own criteria. So -- simply as an FYI -- the notability requirement at wp:LISTPEOPLE allows not only the inclusion of persons who have a wp article (the apparent test here), but also those persons who have appropriate refs reflecting that they are notable and are in the class of people reflected on the list. Thus, if the person lacked a wp article, but had refs showing that they could, they could be reflected. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

Hi. IMHO the images are IMHO excellent additions, and there are not too many of them. Our best lists of people do typically have images. Often, in a number sufficient so that their aggregate height approaches that of the list itself.

Furthermore, I do agree that in general, left-right staggering is preferred with images in wp articles. And it is generally better form for the image to be set up so that the person in it faces inward, to the center of the page.

However, when it comes to lists -- such as this list of images -- the rubric that left-right placement is superior runs into an exception. The exception is reflected I believe in practice -- if one looks through our better lists, such as lists of people, they list the images along the right. That is because I think we want to be able to skim down a column of those listed, and placing images on the left interferes with that. See, for example, our FL-rated List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants and FL-rated List of major opera composers.

So -- I would suggest we keep all the images, but would suggest that move those that have been moved to the left side back to the right side.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the current left/right staggering looks absolutely horrible, and it would be my preference to see all images right aligned. This is mainly due to the fact that each of the sections are rather short and don't contain the images without a lot of overflow and spillage into other sections. The current view makes the formatting (and sections) appear broken and unruly, as the text does not flow naturally around the images. It's as if everything is fighting for elbow room. Staggering may work well with larger lists, but makes a real mess of this one, IMO.  -- WikHead (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are both right about the left/right staggering - there is not enought text to make it work properly. So I have undone my edit and made all of the pictures right-aligned. Peter Loader (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, for keeping an open mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the alphabetical sections have one picture, but not all of them. So I feel that there are not yet enough pictures and the article would benefit from adding a picture to each of the pictureless sections. Peter Loader (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A new point - I find it confusing when the picture for one section overruns into the next section so that the second section's picture does not start at the top of its section. (Section B's picture is not at the start of section B. The same thing happens for sections M, O, R, S, T, and Y.) I feel that the article would look better if each section's picture started at the top of its section. Any comments? Peter Loader (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are those on the image cleanup team who are likely to remove all images from this article as they have in the past with List of guitarists, List of lead guitarists, List of rhythm guitarists, and List of drummers... but at no point do I ever remember any of them being quite as image-intense as this one. Its counterpart List of bass guitarists (which I have worked rather extensively) does display a small handful of images, but they are used sparingly and spaced far between... and I'm guessing this is the reason why it hasn't been the subject of major image cleanup like the others. With this list, I'd suggest trimming the image count back a bit, and only displaying images in larger sections in effort to help minimise the sectional overlap. A common question that's often asked in these situations, is whether a particular image truly adds to the article, or if it's simply being used as a decoration.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on hundreds of lists across the Project, including hundreds of lists of people. From what I've seen, it is common for the better ones (as measured by overall editing/sourcing/presentation) to often have images along the right-hand column that run the same length as the text to their left. The way our FL-rated List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants begins; until it runs out of images. And the way our FL-rated List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office presents its images. There are different formats -- some lists use smaller images, and some use larger ones, and some enclose them within tables -- but generally from what I've seen the effort is to have the image if possible be to the right ... more or less ... of the name of the person in the image.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I fully agree that the current right-alignment works best. The two articles you've mentioned above are very clean in their layout, yet a slightly different ball of wax where table formatting is used. Smaller images in this article might provide a cleaner appearance, but I'm not sure that a reduction of default thumb size is the best solution. I personally enjoy images in articles, especially when they are well placed and take up whitespace slack... but in this case, particularly in the K and O sections, the images are actually creating whitespace and giving the appearance of a choppy list.  -- WikHead (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem with pictures overrunning into the next section. Only two of the sections had the relevant (and obscure) wikimarkup, and it was not commented. Now all section headings start below any picture in the preceeding section (not just two of them). So the article looks less unruly now. Then I saw the preceeding comment, so maybe we need to make the images a bit smaller too. Peter Loader (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though I dislike the whitespace, I fully agree that your most recent changes do indeed look a lot cleaner than previous recent versions. If we can't all agree that the number of images should be reduced, can we at least agree that no more images be added until the article fills out a bit?  -- WikHead (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually partial to having more images -- they would fill in more of the white space that currently exists between images, which I also prefer to have replaced with images. My view, for what it is worth. But I think that is consistent with the FLs I pointed to, so I don't see a need to restrict our images here in ways that those FLs were not restricted. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have more images too. Pictures are an important part of what makes this list better than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_bass_guitarists. Waiting until a section fills out would also discriminate against musicians like Suzi Quatro (who does not currently have a picture) since there are not many other potential entries for the "Q" section of the list.

Can we agree to have one picture per section, provided that it adds to the article, but only allow more than one in a section if the section's text comes further down the page than the existing picture. We could avoid simply using new pictures as a decoration by ensuring that they increase the number of countries shown to have performing female bass guitarists, and/or highlight a particularly notable guitarist, and/or show different aspects of bass playing from the other pictures, etc. Peter Loader (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

why list and not cat?

Why are we doing this as a list article, instead of as a category? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a Category:Female bass guitarists - but that does not prevent there being a list as well. This list, and other similar "list of female <whatevers>" were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female rock singers (2nd nomination) - the result was WP:SNOW keep. - Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iracema Trevisan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent large-scale additions

The large number of recent additions makes me think we need to review what the criteria for inclusion are in this list. The edits add a number of bassists who have no Wikipedia page of their own, but are vouched by a link to a band of which they are or have been a member. I certainly don't understand why most are described as "bass soloists". These changes need discussed here. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now that the edits ignore the comments advising editors. So is there a reason for ignoring this consensus? _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That was a long-standing vandal, who has repeatedly vandalized this article and List of bass guitarists - Arjayay (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

How about actually being a female bassist as a criteria for inclusion in this list?

Some of the additions appear to be desperate attempts to fill the list with construed content. While women like Meshell Ndegeocello or Tal Wilkenfeld are actually publicly known (and sourceable!) for playing bass, artists like Kate Nash or Sheryl Crow are publicly noted for being singers/songwriters and guitarists instead. The fact that a person who mainly plays guitar also plays bass on occasion is owed to the nature of the instrument but should not automatically qualify them to be included on a specified List of Bassists. Also, the current article makes it appears as if female bassists are limited to either being solo artists or playing in "Alternative" Bands, whether or not this is due to bias by the authors or by the music industry remains to be seen. -14:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 2003:CA:3F1F:6419:D4F6:7D73:3BB9:94BC (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)