Talk:Art movements/Neoism/Archive

Permitting parallel pages to Wikipedia entries

We can have parallel pages, this is standard

I noticed that User:Abd converted the redlinks made by User:Dx into Wikipedia page links. I think the Wikipedia links should remain because every Wikiversity page should be written with the corresponding Wikipedia page well in mind. But I see no reason why the author's original (red)links to Wikiversity pages cannot also be permitted. The question is where to put them. For now, I suggest: User: Dx/sandbox/Stewart Home User: Dx/sandbox/Multiple-use name, User: Dx/sandbox/Monty Cantsin User: Dx/sandbox/Istvan Cantor The writing of such subpages in user space will motivate us to figure out where Neoism should be placed. Once Neoism is moved, we can figure out where to put these artist pages. If anybody other than Dx creates the page, it should be placed on the author's userpage. Then, as soon as possible, the effort should be placed in a carefully selected subpage of mainspace. @Abd:, @Dave Braunschweig: and @Dx:: Is this OK with all of you? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Upon reflection, I think the best way is to start the artist pages right here (on this Resource) as subsections. @Dx:: Don't hesitate to revert or delete any of the subheadings that I added. To the extent that any Wikiversity resource is "owned" (they are not), you "own" this resource. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Not quite. This is a top-level mainspace page, not owned. However, special courtesy will be extended to the creator. I linked to Wikipedia because we probably don't want those pages free-floating in mainspace. We don't really know what the user has in mind. Guy, if you want to create pages on those artists, then fine, make the links and create the subpages even as stubs. The user can do that, as well, and we want to train users to use subpages, don't you think? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict with above)I'm not sure we want to encourage the writing of Biographies of Living Persons here. BLP policy can be a nightmare. We typically do not link to user space from mainspace. Exceptions have been made, I've done it, and I'm not sure it's a good idea. It gets easier if the link is from a subpage that is not expected to be neutral. (In other words, the difference between an attributed essay, which should generally be in subspace, and a user page, is not great.) If the user wants to develop pages in mainspace, then they probably should be created there. If the user wants to collect notes, that can be done in user space. I would not set up the links for the user. If the user creates an inappropriate page in mainspace, I will often move it to user space. It is so rude to have one's work unceremoniously deleted, and even a deletion request is a bit offensive. I routinely link to Wikipedia articles as a push toward neutrality. Even if I think the Wikipedia article sucks. We are inclusive. We can have parallel entries, in which case the Wikipedia links would be on the parallel entries, it's very normal. Right now, the Wikipedia links serve as examples of Neoist artists. I usually look for something that can be done here that cannot be done on Wikipedia. For example, see Photography as art/Augusto De Luca. Notable photographer, my opinion, had a pack of howling users after everything involved with him. Even if the Wikipedia article had not been deleted, we could have this kind of study here. It's an educational inquiry, not an encyclopedia article, and we don't need to establish notability. Or see Street art/Gregory Alan Elliott. Controversial guy. The resource doesn't touch why he's controversial. If you look at the history, there have been efforts to add links to the issue. I do not know why there is no Wikipedia article on him. There is reliable source.... Let me be explicit. I'm opposed to creating those user space redlinks. They probably would create a maintenance problem. I also don't use Sandboxes for that. The sandbox is used for transient stuff. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Okay, I see what you did, Guy. I appreciate the intention, but I would not organize it that way, I reverted. First of all, I want to push anything possibly controversial as far down the structure as possible. If a user wants to write an essay on the work of an artist, let them! But if it's a BLP, there can be issues. I'd suggest studying the art itself. There is a lot for the user to do. The Wikipedia articles provide a core. What is in them need not be here, but it can be quoted as part of a study. Users may express their opinions about the artists and the Wikipedia articles. Not at the top level, which must be a neutral key into the exploratory maze that can be created. Take a look at a controversial topic where I used these principles to completely defuse which could have become a revert war or other serious disruption, and I know the user involved, well, and he's been famous for problems elsewhere. Landmark Education. We forked the resource, he's got an attributed section and I have one. (I created the original resource, mostly to create a Glossary of Landmartian (a word I coined). There is also a standard and neutral section. I might not do that again. (B o r i n g). So, in the end, we cooperated. And that is the spectacular possibility of Wikiversity. It creates depth. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC) I did not realize that these artists were living. That changes things in ways I don't understand because I have never had a reason to understand Wikipeida's policy on living persons. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Great. If you understood it I'd consider recommending psychiatry or medication. Seriously, it's a can of worms, something that people fight over. Home and Kantor (it was mispelled) are living, apparently, according to Wikipedia. If someone wants to say that, say, Home is the Messiah, let them do it on a page where it is crystal clear that they are responsible for the idea, and if someone wants to say that he is the Antichrist, similarly. We do not want it to look like opinion is a Wikiversity position. We freely classify resources as opinion because it protects them. If someone wants to claim that what is in the resource is Truth, and, hey, he can prove it with Reliable Source, well, I'd send them to Wikipedia. If there is Reliable Source, it should be possible to put it on Wikipedia, and I'll let them fight over it. Not us. We can have the same material here, labelled as student work, with all the same sources, and nobody will fight over it. As well, an expert can write about what they know here, and not have to answer to Randy from Boise. Who is free to write Randy's Opinion. Or User:Randy/The True Essential Facts of Life. Meanwhile the rest of us keep sorting and classifying, learning, and making study more accessible to everyone. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Close. There is no question that we can have "parallel links." The redlinks I removed were effectively suggestions to create mainspace pages, and I did not want to encourage that, as explained above. None of this is rigid. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

à bas l'avant-garde

Chatty discussion between Guy vandegrift and Abd. About the Avant-Garde as a category

The following comment was made on the resource page by User:Guy vandegrift: Request to all Neoists I am not sure that Category:Avant-garde should exist as a category. Let's not make too many links to it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy vandegrift (talk • contribs) Of course it should not exist. It should be blotted out, erased, terminated with extreme prejudice, and salted. Avant-garde is a corruption of the youth, disrupting the learning of conformity to norms developed over millenia through the greatest sacrifice by generations of dedicated maintainers of propriety and good sense. We now have more than a century of this so-called "avant-garde," and most early adopters of this intellectual terrorism have died, showing the end of all this "newness." Plus ça change, plus le même chose! Burn the avant-garbage! Piss on it! Do not be afraid to love your couch and your potatoes (and especially your potato chips!)! Do not be intimidated by those terrorists who want to disturb your comfort, to make you like them, crazed, suicidal maniacs. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) The word Avant-garde might have different meanings to different people. Though not up to par with the great classical composers, Igor Stravinsky wrote music worth listening to. He has been called Avant-garde. Whether he is or not depends on how you define the word. I say we allow the redlinks to Category:Avant-garde and wait for a consensus as to how dangerous it really is. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC) OK, I agree with User:Abd on one point: We have too many short pages pertaining to Avant-garde, Neoism, et cetera. For those of us who are trying to make Wikiversity useful, this clutters up namespace. I ask the Neoists to choose between one of these two alternatives: Consolidate a lot of short stubs into one long resource. Develop at least one short stub into a more substantial resource. I love the concept of a w:Flash mob, but it would be a bad idea to hold one on the main roads leading out of a city being evacuated before hurricane. Though the urgency is not at hurricane level, I have better things to do than deal with Wikiversity stubs. @Dx: @Leutha: To carry on the analogy to hurricane evacuation, a flash mob designed to entertain (but not deter) those stuck in traffic attempting to escape would be a good thing. I will soon be teaching a course on physics and technology. Let's make the first lab on learning to use Inkscape. Then we hold a contest to see who can render the best facsimile of w:Object to be destroyed. We post the best image on the talk page to the Wikipedia article, and ask for permission to replace the photo with the (editable) Inkscape facsimile. Next we stage a bit of fake w:Wikipedia:Edit warring, orchestrating it so that the administrators and bots are not disturbed as neoists, neo-neoists, and anti-neoists attempt to distort the image as much as possible. Wouldn't this be more fun than fussing about namespace?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC) While I congratulate Guy on the concept of having fun, performance artists who violate laws may expect to be arrested. Edit warring is defined by actual editing, not by intention. It will raise administrative attention. Orchestrated editing will, also. The Inkscape project could be a great idea. If an individual wants to distort the image, they can do that without edit warring, which only arises, normally, when space is limited and only one result of more than one possibility can be allowed. That is Wikipedia, forking is not allowed. There is one article on a topic, POV must be "neutral." Of course, this is not necessarily objectively defined, so Wikipedia becomes a war zone. It is possible to post hoax resources here. I don't recommend it, because some users will hate this. Wikiversity is like academia. A true "hoax" is almost universally rejected. Parodies, however, are allowed. User:Moulton was not blocked or banned for his "atrocious song parodies," per se. (Some of them were quite funny.) So, a Neoist might get into trouble here. But isn't that the point? I will say this: I've been blocked and banned. The ban hammer is vapor, it causes no injury. It's like an Art Strike in reverse. Do not take this as encouraging disruptive behavior! I will support blocks and bans of users who persist in disruption. Even if I applaud their cojones. Or ovaries, or guts, as the case may be. Fertility! Fertility! Fertility! Now, please don't leave that placenta on the reading table at the library. Bloody mess! We buried one of our kids' placentas under the rose bush in the back yard. Beautiful roses! Everything in its place. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict with above. The section with the pings at the start was added while I was writing this.) While there is some evidence that a particular user here is a "Neoist," that's not really relevant. I'm editing these pages now, and I don't call myself a Neoist. I'm an Old-Fogeyist. Ask my daughter! (She also tells me her friends think I'm cool. But that's another story.) Dangerous? Anything smelling of "Avant-Garde" should immediately be deleted and revisions hidden. A bot should watch for any edits containing those awful words, reject the edit, and auto-block the user. Argument to the contrary should be grounds for ban. Ahem ... We have a common practice, now, of allowing stubs within a resource structure. They are part of the process of study. I've been adding wp links to stubs. I can say that the process is educating me. I don't just find the WP article, I actually read it. Notice what I just added to Art movements/Avant-Garde/Art Strike. Some substantial utility may develop out of this. Isolated stubs in mainspace serve little purpose, and they distract. However, our working custodians and other site maintainers often will look for a relevant resource and move them under it. Finding a stub, I look at who wrote it, and what else they wrote. As soon as I did that in this case, I saw the pattern, and it was obvious what to do. Opposition to this has been very rare. In fact, the current objection on this page is the first opposition that I've seen. It appears to be from someone who wants to use categories to build a knowledge network, but that is independent from page structure, and page structure does not negate categorization at all. Given that Wikipedia has a substantial article on Avant-Garde, that it has an organizational template for it, if any user finds the category useful, I support it. If the category is inappropriately applied to something not considered avant-garde (i.e., the categorization is not neutral), that edit might need to be discussed. I just removed a category from Cold fusion that could seem like a no-brainer to someone who does not know the topic well. Yet it was actually misleading. If someone disagrees, we would need to seek consensus. There is more than one way to remove fur from cats. Redlinks are always allowed if the link is to a page that might possibly be developed. Nothing unusual about that. Redlinks encourage development. Converting the redlink to a normal link by adding a stub can waste reader time. However, if the stub contains a link to further information, not much time is wasted and a little time might actually be saved. Hence Wikipedia links! But those also became my practice to support our site neutrality. I am sometimes creating a resource that challenges Wikipedia coverage of a topic. I always lead with the Wikipedia link. Sorting stubs under resources (sometimes creating the resource to sort them under) is a highly useful activity supporting the use of Wikiversity for educational activity, and supporting the users who created those stubs. This is part of our "learning by doing" mission. If all we were was a collection of content, we'd not want this. Once the stub is sorted, adding minimal content to it, such as a Wikipedia link, creates immediate educational utility, without limiting what users may then add. We don't want copies of Wikipedia articles. That's a speedy deletion reason. But stubbing them might be useful, instead of deleting them. Wikiversity, then, can become an extension of Wikipedia, where study of topics may take place, discussion, etc. Discussion of topics is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Not here. Here, let a hundred flowers blossom! Then we can ban you! à bas l'avant-garde. Tradition! (evidence) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC) The "fake" edit war would occur only with the blessing of editors of w:Object to be destroyed. We could keep bots out of it by carefully timing the reverts so as to not trigger an edit war warning. If Wikipedia does not want this, we could use Wikiversity but after we clear this with Commons, since they host the image. Or we could use Wikiversity files to host the svg file and keep Commons out of it. If Wikiversity objects, people can do it on campus computers by exchanging the images using the local server. Mann Ray would want this.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Guy, the editors of a page have no special authority. Believe me, pulling this trick could get you blocked on Wikipedia. The same for Commons. Wikipedia and Commons have very little sense of humor. The only chance for doing this would be on Wikiversity. The problem is not the image contest. It is revert warring. How is revert warring necessary for the contest? Users can say "My image is the best, others are punk!" It's just an opinion! The problem is creating an impression of a fight, with incivility, in a place where people patrol Recent Changes, including custodians, stewards, global sysops, etc, and only see those edits, not necessarily the context. This could be done by setting up a blatantly obvious "ring" where there is a "play." I'd also use socks for it. Disclosed socks, to be sure, with pointers on the user pages and user talk pages to an explanation of what is going on. With that context, you could still be blocked, but we could defend it and obtain unblock. With the socks, do nothing cross-wiki. There are stewards with itchy global lock fingers. And then they would discover that they locked a sock (they have and use checkuser aggressively), and go after the "sock master." They do not necessarily pay attention to details. There are pranks on youtube that involve a fake kidnapping, with "Russian hit men." Very dangerous. Someone with a gun could see that, and they could be dead before they could explain that it was all a joke. Very funny. Cosmic joke. To be sure, I've done something like this, here, calling for the immediate ban of anyone even mentioning "Avant garbage." Considering that people have called for for actual users to be banned here, apparently seriously, even lying about the facts, and they were not blocked, I feel pretty safe! à bas l'avant-garde! Don't you like my slogan? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I had to Google-translate the French, and it didn't translate very well. I got the gist.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, Google does a poor to middling job with this. See [1] or our very own wiktionary:à bas. It's colloquial, and very common in political speech, on posters, signs, etc. --Abd (discuss • contribs) "Слава Викисловарь!" Google translates to "Thank Wiktionary" when "Glory to Wiktionary!" is probably a better translation.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten is a storied example of machine translation of Mark 14:38 (probably too good to be true, the vodka was actually lousy, but for some, lousy vodka is better than none). Literal translation is actually a great place to start. I taught myself Qur'anic Arabic that way. The figurative is rooted in the literal. And this little "off-topic" conversation has taken me to some realizations that might require a tome to express, about how I have approached learning. It's not just me. It may be built into the structure of the brain. I'll stop now, and write the essay somewhere. Thanks for playing. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Close. This was a chatty discussion, including sarcasm and possible humor, which is allowed on Wikversity. However, it seems that there is some business to attend to, so I'm closing this, to prepare for archiving. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)