Talk:Art practices/Situography

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please do not move this without discussion. 23:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Art practices. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to discuss moving this Struck by author. The first question is whether this is a good time to discuss moving. If you are involved with a project, we can postpone the discussion. My concern is that not only is there no article in Wikipedia:Situography, I couldn't even find something in a Google search with the words Wikipedia + Situgraphy. In other words, to the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia does not even use the word.
@Dave Braunschweig: I have never taken upon myself to patrol Wikiversity namespace and look for articles that don't belong, and have zero expertise/experience in this area. Could you step in?
@Dx: I (Guy Vandegrift) will never be the one who moves this page, I promise. The wiki way is for you to move it if and when you become convinced that it should be moved.
@Abd: Please be very brief. I know you have a lot of thoughts about structuring namespace with subpages. Perhaps you might want to begin a coherent essay at Wikiversity:Subpages/Forking_and_organizing.
Yours truly, Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The move was obviously in error, the intended target was Situgraphy, which is mentioned on Wikipedia, see [1]. This is why we do not ordinarily require "discussion of all changes." It makes change far more cumbersome. Mostly, what will happen is that a user will see a problem and, if they know about the demand for discussion first, they simply leave it. But most users won't know and the demand will be ignored. Because I have at least one custodian yelling at me, I'm not going to fix this obvious error, even though fixing it would take one-tenth the time I just spent writing this.
Notice, as well, the double redirect, already. This is something I'd routinely clean up. It is not the user who is the problem, it's overreaction from custodians. The user merely misunderstood some things, that's normal. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not an error. Asher Jorn coined the term Situography in 1960 I think altho it may be in some earlier texts. It has been referred to as situgraphy by the psychic workers movement who (including me) have developed the concept. For now I need to set up both situgraphy to redirect to situography. I think. Leutha has suggested I use the (original research) tag and I will look into this next week. Its the weekend now and I need to spend time with my kids! This material is no doubt confusing so please bear with me. Dx (discusscontribs) 19:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to leave it all alone until the content is finished and Dx is done with the course. At that point it should be more clear to everyone how the content can best be organized, if it hasn't been already. I see no advantage to any further disruption now. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace[edit source]

From looking under "Page information" at the left of the resource Situography, it does come up as a content page. So I'd say it's okay for Mainspace.

Situationism does not come up as a content page because it has no intra-Wikiversity links. At present the page only has a wikipedia link and an image. If no more content is added probably within a year it may end up with a prod for deletion as it can be replaced with the wikipedia page. But, hopefully, the resource creator will be adding more content or some intra-Wikiversity links. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The resource creator for Situationism has added some intra-Wikiversity links and the resource now comes up as a content page. No problem!

I had also added it to my watch list just in case what was originally there was the art statement. We're good either way. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit source]

I owe Dx and company two apologies:

  1. I am sorry I played around with the page Neoism. I truly thought that Abd and I were the only ones interested in it, except for Dx, who I thought was in search of ideas of how to develop it. One of my faults is that I get carried away with my own ideas, and the Object to be edited is an example of that.
  2. I am sorry I failed to immediately support the moving of these pages into mainspace. I had never dealt with the issue of what does and does not belong in mainspace and that inexperience prevented me from supporting you on that question.

Thanks Guy/ I don't know what to say really. Neoism is Neoism. Your work with Inkscape looks really good. I will be using it soon for developing some versions of George Macciunas space/time chartss: Dx (discusscontribs) 18:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]