Changes to Art Nouveau/Art Deco Category

[+RakeInTheCache]

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.

[+elyob]

That sounds so sensible to me.

[+NW_history_buff]

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. 

[+bluesnote]

I was removed from that group as an officer recently with no explanation. Would have been nice to know why prior.

[+RakeInTheCache]

2 hours ago, bluesnote said:

I was removed from that group as an officer recently with no explanation. Would have been nice to know why prior.

I did send you the explanation.

[+RakeInTheCache]

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.

[+iconions]

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!  
 

[+pmaupin]

Providing proof with a website, and a good thing, that will bring us appreciable help, because it is true that it is difficult to be an expert.

[+elyob]

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

[+iconions]

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!

[+RakeInTheCache]

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.

[+iconions]

1 hour ago, RakeInTheCache said:

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

Thanks for doing that!  I know I really appreciate it! 

[+Ariberna]

A year after being serious with WM I think that in the Art nouveau and art deco category it is still a bit (a lot) subjective, since depending on who sends and who approves, the sources provided are sufficient or not. Let me explain a very small entry in wikipedia of a house somewhere in France seems to be more reliable to publish than a tourism page from another region. When the word Modernism, art deco or art nouveau appears only once. Or is it my appreciation?

[+pmaupin]

22 minutes ago, Ariberna said:

A year after being serious with WM I think that in the Art nouveau and art deco category it is still a bit (a lot) subjective, since depending on who sends and who approves, the sources provided are sufficient or not. Let me explain a very small entry in wikipedia of a house somewhere in France seems to be more reliable to publish than a tourism page from another region. When the word Modernism, art deco or art nouveau appears only once. Or is it my appreciation?

Be careful, this is starting to get insulting !!!!

[+Ariberna]

I have not insulted anyone. I only asked for what I appreciated.

[+ScroogieII]

On 7/10/2021 at 12:13 PM, pmaupin said:

Be careful, this is starting to get insulting !!!!

 

Well Phil, methinks that when a Frenchman reads English written by a Spaniard, a bit can get lost in the translation(S). 

 

On 7/10/2021 at 11:50 AM, Ariberna said:

A year after being serious with WM I think that in the Art nouveau and art deco category it is still a bit (a lot) subjective, since depending on who sends and who approves, the sources provided are sufficient or not. Let me explain a very small entry in wikipedia of a house somewhere in France seems to be more reliable to publish than a tourism page from another region. When the word Modernism, art deco or art nouveau appears only once. Or is it my appreciation?

 

I do see what you're referring to, but I really doubt that she meant that as any sort of insult, just as an example of the necessary subjectivity of the category. I'll admit that I'm glad that I'm not reviewing that category.

Edited July 13, 2021 by ScroogieII