Talk:Art of the Weimar Republic

Text and/or other creative content from German art was copied or moved into German art before the Third Reich with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was tagged for speedy deletion under section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion but a reviewing administrator or uninvolved experienced editor declined the request on the basis that: This seems to be a sincere (if possibly misguided) attempt to produce an expanded spin-out article on a particular period in line with the common summary style. Therefore this should not be speedy deleted via A10, but taken to AFD if editors believe it should be deleted.. This article should not be tagged again for speedy deletion under the same criterion and, unless a valid, separate speedy deletion basis exists, further attempts at deleting this article should be made via the proposed deletion process (prod) if uncontroversial, or the article taken to articles for deletion (AfD) for debate on the merits.

Note: this template should be removed once the associated article has survived an AfD debate; or has been significantly changed such that further speedy deletion requests are unlikely.

Fork[edit]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Content forking. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, a reread is always productive. About Content forking, it says "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject". This is not a 'Pov fork', it is a child article for the 1920-1933 period, just as it's done in many other cases in wikipedia.--Sum (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a straight copy, without disclosing the source per the policy. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the attribution as specified in Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. --Sum (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD deletion[edit]

I've nominated this article for speedy deletion because it is a laughable categorization without any art-historical precedent. Honestly, how do you define "Just before"? 10 years, 20, 30? No self-respecting survey of art history would use this term. I might afd it, but that all of the content except one loosely referenced pov sentence ("many intellectuals", "most advanced") is copied from German art. Lithoderm 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not eligible for speedy deletion as it clearly does "aim to expand upon and detail" the 1920-1933 period of German art. You must use regular Afd. --Sum (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article also adds a section for Expressionism, which lacks in the main article.--Sum (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one line - less than the original article has. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the CSD tag. The intent may be misguided, but this seems clearly intended to be an expansion, not a duplicate, and so A10 should not be used. Take it to AFD if you must, or better, wait a few days for worthwhile expansion. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for expansion here, with still plenty of room in the main article. Only two linking sentences have been added. I suggest you look at the contributor's contributions before talking about "clear intentions". Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename[edit]

As mentioned above, the curent name is ambiguous and not a standard way of naming art history articles. I suggest renaming this to German Art 1920-1933 or some similar descriptive name. Possibly German Art during the Weimar Republic would do, as that appears to cover the period discussed in the article currently. If there is a commonly used term for this period in Art History, such a term could well be used instead. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article devoted to 1920-33 in German culture-- this article is called Weimar culture, and the trends that characterized it are mostly described by Neue Sachlichkeit. Furthermore, this article does not really cover that period at all. Der Blaue Reiter had dissolved by 1914, and Die Bruecke had dissolved by 1913- I should know, as the sections on those movements in this article was written in great proportion by myself, for German art. If I were less tactful I might ask if you even read the dates in the article before you cut-and-pasted these sections! Those are so far before Hitler's rise to power that defining them in relation to the succeeding period is pointless. If you want to cover this period, you should expand Weimar culture, which already exists, although it's not much more than a list. I can see that article covering the Bauhaus (which does fit in this period, at 1919-1933), Neue Sachlichkeit, and German expressionist cinema of that period. Probably also the Berlin and Cologne Dada groups. So in sum, I recommend redirecting this to Weimar culture and expanding that article. Please discuss this on the talk page first next time. Lithoderm 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility. But I would prefer a redirect back to German art, which has plenty of room for expansion. If this stays, the two articles will either both need updating at the same time, or will pointlessly become out of sync. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if this becomes a proper child article, duplicative content would be removed from German art, replaced by a brief summary and a link. That would obviate the "in sync" problem. Whether that would be a good development is of course a matter for consensus, and I have no strong opinion on it. DES ^(talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it's a pity you intervened here without looking at the issues. Of course it would be a stupid idea to rip out a chunk of German Art, which is written at a fairly consistent level of detail. No more unthinking comments please. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here while patrolling the speedy delete categories. If you don't want previously uninvolved admins looking at pages and acting on them, don't place db tags. In spite of the issues you have brought to my attention -- which have some merit in arguing for the ultimate deletion of this page -- I still maintain it wasn't a proper speedy delete candidate. If you really think that this should go, WP:AFD is that way. I am not an expert on art history in general, nor on German art in particular, although I know something of history. Such breakout articles are often a good idea, although not in every case to be sure; and this would need significant expansion and improvement if it were to go that route. I don't, however, concede that the idea is "stupid" on its face. DES ^(talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "stupid idea" was removing content from the other article, not adding it here. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I will propose this here, because it is always best to achieve consensus before making potentially controversial changes.

Remove the sections on Plakatstil, Die Bruecke, and Die Blaue Reiter, as they do not belong in an article on Weimar-era art.
Move the sections on Neue Sachlichkeit and the grotesque to Weimar culture
Add material on Expressionist film and developments in theater during this period, as well as more information on German Dada activities. This I will be willing to contribute content to once the material is moved to Weimar culture
Redirect this article to Weimar culture

Discussion? Thanks, Lithoderm 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better all round. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The "article" as it stands is currently such a hodgepodge that it's nearly impossible to even come up with a decent rename for it. Unit Anode 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article can't be deleted and redirected to Weimar culture as it is its child article.--Sum (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry? There is no duplication of content, and the account there is much too short. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly can. And, unless someone beats me to it, I'll be doing the honors myself, shortly. Unit Anode 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any headway on this? I also agree that this article should be moved to Weimar culture. If a child article is really needed, then it should be called "Art of the Weimar period" or something of that nature. The present title is absurd. Sindinero (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, after all this time, let's just do it. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lithoderm 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that a merge would be more appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German art just before the Third Reich → Art of the Weimar Republic – A much more accurate title for this article. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the 2009 discussion above? Little has changed. I agree there's a problem, but a merge to New Objectivity and Weimar culture, both larger articles, remains the best solution imo. Actually it seems there was consensus for this just above, but nothing happened. Let's re-agree on that & I can do it. The editor who started this bastard child (copied from German art) has not been around for a year. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God God, this farce is still up? If I get some time in the next few months I'll take it upon myself to finally fix this mess. Lithoderm 07:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ok, now redirected. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of military aircraft of the German Third Reich which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]