Talk:Art Nouveau

Transylvania

SiefkinDR, Neoclassicism Enthusiast, I am going to tag you guys to see what your opinion is on this.

So I want to make a small one-sentence reference in the Romania subsection that Art Nouveau can also be found in Transylvania, which is nowadays part of Romania, but was part of Austria-Hungary in the Art Nouveau period. User KIENGIR keeps on removing my edit (he did it a couple of times without even stating the reason, which is against Wikipedia's norms, because edit wars aren't needed), using the argument that Transylvania was part of A-H back then. This, of course, I have stated in my edit, because I don't want to write anything misleading, to make people think it's Romanian Art Nouveau.

Even if Transylvania wasn't in Romania back then, I don't see anything wrong with a reference. Remember, it's one sentence, not an essay. KIENGIR says that it's the historical period that matters, not the present-day location, which is true; that's why I want to put it as one sentence and not more. Add to that that Latvia has its entire subsection despite having been part of Russia back then, which actually speaks against KIENGIR's argument.

I note that in the old "Art Nouveau in Romania" talk page section, KIENGIR said himself that a small reference to Transylvania/Oradea is fine, but now, he's against it for some reason. What are your opinions? Lupishor (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lupishor,

please avoid coining the situation, and continue misleading statements:

- "he did it a couple of times without even stating the reason" -> the reasons all you get and were all the time present in the talk page

- "which is against Wikipedia's norms, because edit wars aren't needed" -> boomerang, you started edit-warring from the middle of nowhere despite that issue has been already discussed, despite you continued

- "KIENGIR said himself that" - don't confuse negotiations (grabbing out from the middle of the conversation something and ignoring what's coming after), the discussion result is clear, conflating between present-day and contemporary situations are not supported, the given timeline the Art Nouveau in Romania means what is inside Kingdom of Romania back then, similarly what is inside Austria-Hungary then.

As well, everything else has been discussed with extreme details regarding all related stuff, it is not necessary to repeat something again that has been already done.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Stop accusing me of writing misleading statements. About your first point, like you said yourself, the old discussion was almost 1 year ago, so stop using that argument in your favor, but against me. About the second point, you started removing my edits and didn't even name a reason, so I'm not the one who started an edit war. About your third point, that proposal was made by you, which means you agreed with it, no matter what the outcome was.

But that's all besides the point. Stop falsely accusing me of conflating the historical and modern-day situations, because my edit clearly mentions that Transylvania was in A-H back then. The fact that Latvia and Finland have separate sections despite having been part of Russia clearly contradicts your argument. Why isn't their Art Nouveau part of the Russia section, please tell me?? Lupishor (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lupishor,

these tricks won't work, even if you try to be inventive, you wrote misleading statements, and where explained why.

1. does no matter when it was, it is irrelevant

2. the reason was named, read the edit log, and you started an edit war since it went agains the previous discussion

3. No, in a discussion more points may emerge, but the outcome and consensus matter, which was not the case

You apparently make these conflations, not the first time, and not just in this article, and you were explained more times, now you start again. We don't have to discuss anything twice, for all of your question the answers are in the previous discussion, and don't repeat more that you mentioned "Transylvania was in A-H back then", becase Transylvania in this context does not belong to the Romania section.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

You keep on falsely accusing me of writing misleading things and now of "using tricks", apparently. I've already answered your three points, so I'm not going to repeat what I said – let's stick to the topic.

You still haven't answered my Latvia point. If you claim that Transylvanian Art Nouveau doesn't belong to Romania, then I could also say Latvian Art Nouveau doesn't belong to Latvia, but to Russia. Looks like, instead of answering my points that actually have to do with the subject, you only answer the ones that don't and ignore the ones that do. That's not how it works. And please stop your false accusations, I had some points and didn't simply state them for no reason. I am clearly not making any kind of misleading conflation as you keep on claiming. Lupishor (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lupishor, no, I did not accuse you falsely with anything, only one excuse you may have, that you have less experience here, but since you were told/explained many times about these issues, believe I am not sweet sixteen, neither virgin...

I answered the Latvia point -> "for all of your question the answers are in the previous discussion", and yes, editor's precious time should not be stolen to repeat something that have been extensively discussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

The argument you gave me 1 year ago about the Latvia point is invalid, unfortunately. Riga has its own sub-section, it is not part of the Russia section! If your argument was valid, then "Riga" would have been a sub-section of "Russia", but it isn't. Additionally, the article specifically mentions that "Riga, the present-day capital of Latvia, was at the time one of the major cities of the Russian Empire", with the purpose of not leading to confusion. What I'm trying to do is the exact same thing, I'm saying that Transylvania is now in Romania, but was then in Austria-Hungary. Is it so hard to understand? I'm not sure if you should be the one making jokes about "sweet sixteen". Lupishor (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't make jokes, it is sad you consider me naive a taking away from me precious time. No, you won't drag me any way to duplicated discussions as I said, you've got answer for this at 21:46, 24 May 2020.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Again, you're ignoring my arguments, stop the "duplicated discussion" thing. And another argument which clearly points out that it doesn't matter whether Latvia/Riga is above or below Russia, is the fact that Finland (which was also part of Russia) also has its own sub-section and is located above Russia's one. So no, the Latvia and Finland sub-sections are not conflating the present and past and neither am I, you know that very well. And stop accusing me of taking away "your precious time". I could accuse you of the same thing. I'd say we wait to see what SiefkinDR and Neoclassicism Enthusiast have to say, since we've already written a whole essay here, which is just pointless. Lupishor (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not ignore anything, time to finish nibbling the edges and these lame trials. This is a duplicated discussion. You've got also answer to that what you raise here in 20:29, 26 May 2020, and for everything subsequently. So yes, you are taking away time from other editors - nothing to wait for - which cannot be from my side, since not I started this unnecessary duplication.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: May I politely ask you what exactly disturbs you so much about making a reference to Transylvania in the Romania section? Transylvania is also mentioned in the Austria-Hungary section, since its Art Nouveau obviously belonged to AH back then, but now belongs to Romania. I looked back at the 26 May 2020 discussion that you have quoted and haven't found any "answer that I've got", like you said. You didn't provide any contra-argument for my points about Finland and Latvia, apart from some made-up "rules" that make no sense. And again, you said yourself that a short reference to Transylvania is fine; may I again politely ask you why you have suddenly changed your opinion on this? You told me that there was "no consensus" – let me remind you that there was also no consensus on your made-up "rules" about Latvia and Finland's situation. Lupishor (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As it has been numerous times explained in the previous discussion, the time scope is the historical comtemporary intervall of Art Nouveau, and that does not belong to the Romania section. The answer is there, and even all your to futher questions and trials you coined (that date is just a beginning, the thread subsequently continues), it is another thing you don't wish to accept them, again what you ask here is as well explained there. The issue is complex, and may have multipiple layers and whereabouts regarding any instance, which are not necessarily comparative or identical, this has been as well widely dicussed. Consensus is how the article has been.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: You still haven't answered the question why you've suddenly changed your mind about the small Transylvania reference. I am not asking what the consensus was, but what your personal reason behind this was. And I'd like it if you'd show me where exactly those "rules" and the "consensus" that you're talking about can be found. Since you claim that "the present and past shouldn't be conflated" (despite the article doing it multiple times), I want to see where this rule is written and who decides it.

Other users like Coldcreation and Johnbod might also want to express themselves about my upper question; this, I guess, would lead to a consensus faster, so this conversation can finally come to an end. Guys, I'm sorry for dragging you into this discussion, but I want to ask you, since otherwise we're not getting anywhere: Would you two be fine with a small reference to Transylvanian Art Nouveau from the Austro-Hungarian era in the Romania section, or do you agree with KIENGIR that this is "unprofessional" and "conflates the present and past"? Like I said, Riga and Finland also have entire sections despite having been part of Russia, but KIENGIR doesn't see this as a valid argument. Remember, I don't want to add an entire Transylvania sub-section for Romania – just one sentence. When my initial Romania section was removed last year, it wasn't because I included Art Nouveau from the Austro-Hungarian era (you didn't mention this point at all) – it was because of other problems such as a lack of sources. Lupishor (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I answered all of your questions, here there with timestamps, and recurrent ignorance from your behalf and continous pushing won't change that (like in the other artcile in which you reiterate already failed points, surprsiingly if you would not read the entire discussion or know about, although you did). If you are not understanding what means consensus despite you were explained more times is as well a problem, any additions that would differ or alter the current structure needs that, shall it be any topic or any article. Riga and Finland's case the second time as well here was referred with timestamps, they are barely analogous and these issues are complex and versatile, please stop sealioning.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: No, the only answer you gave me to that question was the consensus thing, while I asked about your personal reason. I won't repeat everything again. Also, on 24 May 2020, you said it would be fine to include Transylvania in an Art Nouveau in Romania article (which others have also said), since that article would cover the entire territory of modern day Romania. This doesn't make any sense to me....Think about it: If the article Art Nouveau in Romania existed, it would be linked here to the Romania section as "Main article: Art Nouveau in Romania", just like it's the case with the other sections. This would mean that the Romania section of this article would be a shorter overview of the Art Nouveau in Romania article, and thus, would have to include at least a sole mention of Transylvania, if not a detailed one, along with photos, since they'd all be part of the main article. And don't bring up the excuse that there was no consensus again, because others have also said that Transylvania belongs to an Art Nouveau in Romania article, and you followed their words. The small overview of the main article would have to include a bit of everything the main article mentions, Transylvania being no exception. This is pure logic and nothing more, so if not even this will make you understand that there's nothing wrong with my edit, I don't know what will. Lupishor (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not following any special personal reason, I follow accuracy as ever. What you describe here is a speculation and does not necessarily imply the logic you try to assert. The scope of this article is clear and even defined the lead. In case that hypothetic article would be made you speak about, and it would have a Transylvania section where you could fulfill what you wish, it does not mean what you insist would need a short mention here, since your article's scope will not be identical with this article's one and even does not have to. Your article will serve Art Nouvau history in the territory of present-day Romania more detailed, because we agreed to define like that.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Femmes au jardin.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Firenze, galileo chini, vaso floreale, 1896-1898 ca..JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lettering / typefaces

FTA: ‘Designers often created original styles of typeface that worked harmoniously with the image, e.g. Arnold Böcklin typeface in 1904.’

Maybe it would be nice to have a little gallery of Art Nouveau (inspired) lettering and typefaces here. Art Nouveau is well-known for its distinctive lettering, so I think we should showcase that.

I got here because of Desdemona, but I'm also thinking of Elefanta, Warszawa, Gatsby, Abaddon, Christina Torre's typefaces, Rivanna, Maigret &c. I realise most of these didn't exist as typefaces at the time, because a lot of custom lettering was done, but you get what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph that needs splitting

Specifically, the second paragraph of the section "[f]urniture". I think the sentence starting with "[o]ther notable furniture designers ..." would be a good place to split it. Could anyone please tell me if this is a good idea? Thylacine24 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Franco-centrism

I think this article is centred in the history of only french and british art nouveau, ignoring other vital origins, such as Antoni Gaudí, who started his architecture career in 1878, 20 years before any Art Nouveau architect mentioned in the first part of "History" section, only mentioned briefly in the last paragraph. Antoni Gaudí became an important pioneer in the Art Nouveau. He was a promoter of the eastern eclecticism and naturalism in architecture. His first big work, the Casa Vicens, was very colorful and it was a mix of different styles: far-east asian, persian, mozarabic, etc. And it was designed in 1878. By the late 1880's he already behan to work with moving and curved shapes, which inspired many others in France and Belgium. Politonno (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)