Talk:Art movements/Neoism
Add topicPast discussions: /Archive.
Could somebody either improve this page, or explain how it will be improved in the near future?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes
[edit source]Discussion of where the Neoism page should sit. Resolved at #Do we want Neoism to be level 3 subpage?
|
---|
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
|
Misplaced sub page
[edit source]Continued discussion of where the Neoism page should sit. Resolved at #Do we want Neoism to be level 3 subpage?
|
---|
I do not think that it is appropriate to place this page as a subpage of "Art movements/Avant-Garde" as it is equally a philosophical movement and likewise could be used educationally in terms of network theory and no doubt other examples might come to mind. I see similar problems have been created on other pages. This seems a bit weird when we already have a system of categories which can link pages. This seems very conterproductive as it imposes a particular taxonomy which can be very disruptive when developing learning environments which use other taxonomies. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's fork the resource.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Does anybody object if I archive this entire discussion so we can start from scratch?
[edit source]Related question -- does anybody know how to archive a Discussion?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is very unusual to archive a new talk page, so soon. To "start from scratch", use Add topic. People are not required to read the whole page, and will see the new subject header in Recent Changes, in watchlists, etc. Yes, I object. I'll describe archiving process.
- Normally, individual discussions will be closed by having Template:Archive top and the corresponding bottom template added to them when an issue has been resolved. And then, after a substantial delay to allow anyone to object to the closing, the archived sections will be blanked and added to an Archive subpage.
- Unresolved issues should not be hidden by collapse, and not by archiving, either, unless truly stale.
- I will uncollapse the section and review each discussion. Collapsing multiple sections borks the table of contents. I may use collapse in individual discussions where this will increase clarity. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer that we archive. How do we get others in on this decision without being accused of canvasing? Except for posting on the Colloquium, I am clueless.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've begun the process. If you think that any archived section should also be collapsed, please place the collapse templates entirely within the section, leaving the section header outside it, and using a neutral, informative summary in the template title as to the discussion. If it is totally off topic chat (as a little may have been), you can say that.
- Now, something to realize: it is very unusual to see the level of activity by multiple users on this resource that has shown up here.
- That whole flap about canvassing has done some obvious damage: look at the fear! At this stage, don't worry about canvassing. Consider this: two users working on this resource are meeting in real life, apparently. Aha! Off-wiki coordination! Show that on Wikipedia, ArbCom has been known to ban liberally. It is not a problem on Wikiversity, at this level. Suppose one of these users recruits several art professor friends to work on this and toss my work in the trash! So what? More expert participation, great! If Wikiversity policies are violated, by which I don't mean canvassing, then I know how to "escalate," a term which was obviously misunderstood. It means to gather wider participation! Normally, through neutral announcements, but if we want resources (and policies) to be developed by experts, when possible, we must allow free invitation. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer that we archive. How do we get others in on this decision without being accused of canvasing? Except for posting on the Colloquium, I am clueless.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Propose closure, process established. discussions are closed here with collapse. Any user may undo the collapse to re-open that particular discussion section. I have gone ahead and moved clearly closed discussions (my opinion) to an Archive subpage. Those were done with individual secion edits, it should be possible to Undo them if someone objects. Normally, I'd wait 10 days. (This is fast archiving compared to the norm, but that's not a problem if nobody objects.) If not undone immediately, future discussion of the topic should be done with a new section here, and section links to the Archive page should be stable. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we want Neoism to be level 3 subpage?
[edit source]By level 3, I mean:
- Art movements
- Avant-Garde
- Neoism
Please be brief.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Support -- for now. The issue is not "level 3." Level has very little effect. The question is whether or not to classify art movements. If not, then Neoism could be moved up. However, this is what I had in mind: there are many art movements, the list on the page is quite limited. The overall study was explicitly "art movements," but the list showed a preference for the avant-garde. So I created a subpage for the avant-garde, and moved Neoism under that. That is, I have far more content in mind than has already appeared. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be best to stop and let the user intending to teach a real-world class based on this material determine structure. Also, {{Contrib-using}} should be applied so that others are urged to resist major changes without coordination. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stop what? Yes, that template may be applied temporarily to a resource. I have no problem with a temporarily owned page, with that template. However, this resource was created in 2013, and was prodded in 2014. I removed the prod.[2]
- I would have a problem with an array of "under construction" pages, out in mainspace. The user has high freedom here. Let's support that. The user has created resources that have natural expansion outside of the user's personal interests. Should that be inhibited? Why? Above, there are discussions of alternatives.
- There is very little material here, and nothing stopping the user from creating content and organizing it. In addition to me, there are three custodians paying attention to this resource! I have never seen that before.
- What "level" page Neoism is, is almost meaningless as to ability to work on it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will apply the {{Contrib-using}} template. I also think we need to collapse the closed discussions so that the page looks clean when Dx looks at it. People unfamiliar of the ways of Wikiversity will find all this incomprehensible, including the fact that some discussions are blue and some are not. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is completely standard practice, Guy. Hiding discussion is not. The discussions with an archive template on them are proposed as completed. I suggested that you could collapse the individual discussions, that is often done. You didn't do it, but you obviously want it, so I'll do it. This, then, will be almost what you did. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will apply the {{Contrib-using}} template. I also think we need to collapse the closed discussions so that the page looks clean when Dx looks at it. People unfamiliar of the ways of Wikiversity will find all this incomprehensible, including the fact that some discussions are blue and some are not. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You know my answer - I do not want any of the art movements or practices to be subpages of avant-garde. the current structure that has been imposed by abd and guy are indeed inhibiting the course structure that i was creating. when i intorduce these practices and movements to students/ teachers who are not familiar with it, having to categorise them as avant-garde or modernist will just confuse the issue,. i am interested in teaching techniques. these techniques should not be dependent on historification. historification (a-g, mod, pomo etc) goes side by side with this not above it. Dx (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That categorization came from [3], which you created. However, it is fine for now that the page has been moved to Art movements/Neoism. I had already removed the subpaging of the list of avante-garde art movements (the intention was to classify them into categories). I will see if there is any other cleanup to do. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Propose closure as resolved. Objection? Continue to respond here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)