Talk:Art movements/Neoism

Past 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

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

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) "Very counterproductive' lands with me as "very dramatic." I see w:Avant-garde#Avant-garde_art_movements which then lists the movements listed here and more. w:Neoism has the avante-garde template. "Avant-garde" is an overall classification of movements, not on the same level as a specific movement. The pages that are now subpages of Art movements/Avant-Garde were sitting in mainspace. Neoism was speedy-deleted as a result. The user's wish was to study art movements and art practices, and the user had edited the Avant-Garde page to show all these pages. I'm afraid that claiming w:Neoism as "equally a philosophical movement" with w:Avant-garde is preposterous, beyond the obvious: Any thing could be equally a thing, but educational hierarchy normally respects notability, i.e., the broad field includes the particular, and considers where people would expect to find a resource. Yes, we often, early on, had a very flat mainspace here, like Wikipedia. It was difficult to maintain and develop. Yes, categories can be used, but page hierarchies are direct and organize thinking as well as categorization. With the flat structure, many resources covered the same material (often very incompletely) in a disorganized and counter-intuitive way. What about this page makes it difficult or impossible to use it "educationally in terms of network theory"? Is "network theory" an over-riding organizational principle on Wikiversity? As interpreted by whom? Perhaps you would like to develop a resource on Network Theory. What kind of w:Network theory? The brain is an associational network. "Piles of neurons firing," in my training. What, then, develops the efficiency and effectiveness of this associational network. The simple answer is language, but what kind of language? Are you claiming, Leutha, that Neoism should be in mainspace, not as a subpage? Why? Are you claiming that Neoism is not an Avant-garde movement? (I could see a Neoist claiming that. And a Neoist or anyone would be fully welcome to develop that thesis here. Does the page placement prevent that? Much of the purpose behind the organizational work I do on Wikiversity is to avoid conflict, and especially the kind of conflict that prevents the usage of Wikiversity for educational resources and learning-by-doing and that appears as the unnecessary deletion of resources. If avoiding conflict meant that users could not explore topics of interest, and fully express what they find, I would not avoid conflict, I would embrace it. But it doesn't mean that. When conflict has appeared here, I have forked a resource, so that the top-level page was fully neutral by consensus. But, so far, I'm not seeing any claim of non-neutrality. So please be specific. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) OK, let's fork the resource.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I have no clear idea what the reason for that would be. To see an example of a fork, look at Landmark Education. Those are parallel forks, so that access is neutral. I see no expressed reason for a fork here, no educational purpose that is fulfilled, only a very abstract claim that classification of Neoism as an "Avant-Garde" art movement might be "counter productive." I see no frustrated attempt, no actual obstacle encountered. It is true that subpage structure creates a w:taxonomy, a classification of knowledge. Taxonomy is a basic scientific and educational device, as is language itself. If a user finds our taxonomy to be harmful, the user may change it. Subpage structure has certain high advantages, but one might consider the difficulty of changing it as an obstacle. However, if a decision were made that Neoism, for example, was not to be classified as an Avant-Garde resource, any user will be able to move it, if the redirect has been cleaned up. If not, any custodian can do it. And if subpages of Neoism have been created, any custodian can move the entire structure with a single command, with little clean-up necessary, if subpage links have been used, which I always advocate where possible. However, given that Neoism is obviously classified as an Avant-Garde subject, I'd consider such a move as disruptive absent prior consensus. It appears that we have several users who may identify as Neoist. The classification of Neoism as Avant-Garde was created here by one of them: [1]. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody object if I archive this entire discussion so we can start from scratch?

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)

• 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?

By level 3, I mean:

1. Art movements
2. Avant-Garde
3. 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)

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)