Jump to content

Changes to Art Nouveau/Art Deco Category


Recommended Posts

I'm creating this topic to allow officers to discuss certain changes to the Art Nouveau/Art Deco category.  The changes have followed a vote to deny the waymark https://www.Waymarking.com/wm/add_finalize.aspx?f=1&guid=ae52d627-b07e-46ef-84fc-93263f16b654&wft=2&uid=84d86564-b60d-4b13-bdfd-775b56b785e4&st=4

 

As determining whether a submission fits this category can be highly subjective, I have added the stipulation that if the waymark owner is able to provide an independent reference supporting the submission, it must be accepted. This was the case to the above mentioned waymark.

 

Comments are welcome.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I agree that the category can be subjective, even if there is an independent or 'official' reference (like a website or document) supporting a building or structure as Art Nouveau /Art Deco, or one of the sub styles that are also acceptable in the category. A link to a website or document from a local historic society or the National Register of Historic Places definitely makes a great argument for inclusion and should be taken with great merit. But sometimes a news article, blog or link to a general discussion of a building is submitted as part of the 'proof of documentation' and for these types, we officers should be more discriminating.

 

I guess what I'm saying is just because a waymarker submits a link to a website or document should not automatically justify an approval. And that's why categories have a voting system when those submissions become questionable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, NW_history_buff said:

I agree that the category can be subjective, even if there is an independent or 'official' reference (like a website or document) supporting a building or structure as Art Nouveau /Art Deco, or one of the sub styles that are also acceptable in the category. A link to a website or document from a local historic society or the National Register of Historic Places definitely makes a great argument for inclusion and should be taken with great merit. But sometimes a news article, blog or link to a general discussion of a building is submitted as part of the 'proof of documentation' and for these types, we officers should be more discriminating.

 

I guess what I'm saying is just because a waymarker submits a link to a website or document should not automatically justify an approval. And that's why categories have a voting system when those submissions become questionable. 

The problem is that none of us are experts in the domain, so we cannot pretend to be able to judge the accuracy of the external reference.

Link to post
4 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

The problem is that none of us are experts in the domain, so we cannot pretend to be able to judge the accuracy of the external reference.

What happens, though, is that you approve enough of these buildings , you become at least a lay expert - don't underestimate yourself.
I like your sectioned explanations of each style - very clean and to the point.  
I would have put in a statement that previously submitted waymarks are grandfathered just so there isn't confusion.  That would be the only thing I would possibly add.
I think it it looks great - nice job!  
 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
12 hours ago, elyob said:

Please please include a clause concerning grandfathered waymarks.  Having a future reviewer go through already approved waymarks can be unpleasant.

...as we all know!  :)  Especially when that previously approved waymark is over 10 years old!

Link to post
On 7/14/2020 at 3:25 PM, iconions said:


I would have put in a statement that previously submitted waymarks are grandfathered just so there isn't confusion.  That would be the only thing I would possibly add.
I think it it looks great - nice job!  
 

Good idea. I tweeked the officer's note and added a grandfather clause.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...