Talk:New York School abstract expressionism

First edits, mostly style

A CZ convention is to bold the title of the article in the first sentence of the first paragraph. As to the title, this makes sense, but would New York School [of] abstract impressionism be closer? This is fine to me, though.

Apropos of the title, there is a sorting field in the metadata, which will affect the way the title will be sorted in some displays. Right now, I have it as New York School abstract impressionism. If you want, I can change that to "Abstract impressionism, New York School", so all Abstract Impressionism articles will display together.

I also moved the shows to an New York School abstract expressionism/External Links, which you can access from the tabs at the top. You may want to rewrite New York School abstract expressionism/Definition; our convention is that the title is not repeated in the definition.

Why do we have definitions? See the New York School abstract expressionism/Related Articles. When you edit the page, you'll see the article names are in R-templates, which I've used in basic form. It's fine, and indeed recommended, to create Related Articles entries for articles that do not yet exist, as R-templates like the rest.

If an article does not exist for the title, it will display in pink. If the article (or some special cases) exist, the title will display in blue or black. If the article exists but doesn't have a definition, the definition field will be in gray. Using related articles, it's possible to develop workplans and create opportunities for collaboration. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is changed and it is now incorrect

The article was changed without proper knowledge or understanding of the text. At this point the article is incorrect and useless. Before deleting or changing the text see reference:New York school abstract expressionists : artists choice by artist, pp. 11-12. Would it be possible to consult before changing the text? If you wish you can keep New York School and Abstract Expressionism can be the text. It is fine but at the moment the whole article is incorrect and cannot be listed. Thank you for your attention. (Marika Herskovic 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm confused. I didn't think I did anything besides format, put in some wikilinks, and move external links to the appropriate subpage. To what major change do you refer? If it was the first sentence, feel free to change it, but the CZ convention is that the article title appear in the first sentence. That, as far as I know, was the only rephrasing I did. I did not change the title but I asked a question about it. 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Howard! I think I made the correction that you have referred to. Thank you for the advise, Best, (Marika Herskovic 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi Howard! You must be the treasure of Citizendium for sure. I am not very good in technical contribution. I can somehow follow when I need something to carry out. Tthank you for your advise and please let me know if something is wrong. Best regards (Marika Herskovic 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

where?

I wonder if this phrase shouldn't be qualified: "New York School abstract expressionism dominated a period of the post-World War II art world". In the USA, sure. But in Paris, London, Rome, the rest of the world? An easy fix to make.... If it really did dominate all over the world, then that too should be made clear. Hayford Peirce 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that follows intends to substantiate:The renowned art historian Marilyn Stokstad wrote the following: “When the United States emerged from World War II as the most powerful nation in the world its new stature was soon reflected in the arts. American artists and architects-especially those living in New York City-assumed a leadership in artistic innovation that by the late 1950s had been acknowledged across the Atlantic even in Paris.[1] (Marika Herskovic 04:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, didn't really read that carefully enough. You're right! I changed a couple of hyphens to emdashes, as per our conventions. And please indent your replies here on the Talk pages. Glad to see you being so creative! Hayford Peirce 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

the article is changed again and now it is incorrect

This CZsystem is certainly a problem. The references have moved The whole article is changed again to make it useless. If you look at History there is no documentation for the change. Can it be reversed? (Marika Herskovic 12:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Now the whole article is practically eliminated. I have the article saved in my computer. I wonder whether you have it? To provide work free for the public benefit does not seem to work. Is there an explanation? (Marika Herskovic 12:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

I just reverted your last edit and it restored the article. I'm not sure what you are doing to remove these things. I have to suspect it must be something you are inadvertently doing, as I have not seen this problem before. Also, there is documentation in thie history of these changes. --Todd Coles 12:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Todd. The References do not belong there so I deleted it. The additions of the references 8-13 do not belong but it cannot be deleted. Please delete the whole article until History and I will replenish it. This will be a test whether it can stay or not in practical sense.

Thank you for being a good sport and samaritan. (Marika Herskovic 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi Todd. I will try to do something now since I have a little time. Please leave it as it is. If I cannot succeed I will askyou again. Thank you very much. (Marika Herskovic 13

22, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Marika, I won't making any content related edits to this article since this is far from my field. I am available to help out with any kind of CZ policy, formatting, or wikicode related questions, so feel free to ask.

One thing I will add to the article is a section that will show all your footnotes. --Todd Coles 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is correct again

Hi Todd! As you see it looks OK now. We will see what will happen to it. Before I add a whole new list. Please would you be able to give me the command for numbering columns. Thank you for your collaboration. Best, (Marika Herskovic 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Are you just wanting to make a numbered list? You can do this by using the # at the beginning of the line, and then whatever you want after it. For example:

1. Apple
2. Banana

is produced by the following code:

# Apple
# Banana

Is this what you are trying to do? --Todd Coles 14:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Todd! I was not clear. I would like to do the following:

e.i.: Apple

      Banana
      Cherry
      Potato           

with a code I would like to get;

      Apple           Cherry
      Banana        Potato

Thank you.(Marika Herskovic 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

I would like to divide the Artists of the 9th Street Show to three columns. (Marika Herskovic 14:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)).

To do that you can set up a table.

Column1	Column2	Column3
Apple	Banana	Cherry
Donut	Egg	Fudge

using the following code

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
! Column1
! Column2
! Column3
|-
| Apple
| Banana
| Cherry
|-
| Donut
| Egg
| Fudge
|}

Is that more along the lines of what you want to do? --Todd Coles 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Todd! Thank you . It is perfect. I'll see how it will turn out. Lets hope for the best. (Marika Herskovic 15:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

I just thought it over. I would think that an invisible table would be better. Just the names will appear in columns. What do you think!? (Marika Herskovic 15:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

By invisible, do you mean not having the headings, or not having the boxes? Tables are easier than pure columns, but this will produce a 2 column table:

{{col-begin}}
{{col-break|width=50%}}
{|
|- valign=top
|

• First name in column 1
• Second name in column 2

{{col-break|width=50%}}

• First name in column 2
• Second name in column 2

|}

producing

First name in column 1 Second name in column 2 First name in column 2 Second name in column 2 Howard C. Berkowitz 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I am not 100% sure, but I think Howard's suggestion is the only way to get it to be "invisible" if I understand what you mean by that. We can of course, customize the colors of the table to have "no fill", I think, but that will retain the column headings and such. --Todd Coles 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Hi Howard! Thanks for your collaboration. I will try it just now. Best regards, (Marika Herskovic 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Hi Howard! I think your advise was just perfect. What do you think? I certainly like it. Best regards, (Marika Herskovic 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) It looks fine. Purely from a readability standpoint, a lot of CZ authors find it more readable to put longer lists into subpages or subarticles; there's no clear line. My rule of thumb is when a list is apt to be a full screen, I try to get it off the main article but available by a link. Just as an example of where I drew the line — others will do it differently — is that I used two-column format, in the body of the article, for the organization of the Gestapo. On the other hand, I put the details and narrative about the Bush Administration specific policies on interrogation into a catalog page linked from a subarticle, and even there, the interrogation techniques themselves are links. In like manner, some of your individual artist entries might well become links; another way to encourage that is to put their names on the Related Articles page as an alert for articles to be written. One other thing that might help column readability: if you put four hyphens on a line by themself, it will put a horizontal line across the page. Sometimes, that helps set off a list; it's case-by-case if it's useful. I had to go look at a place where it was used to remember how to create it; I know there are HTML commands to do that but I don't know if they work directly in Wikimedia formatting. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Hi Howard! You must be the treasure of Citizendium. I am not very good in technical contribution. On the other hand I am capable to see the importance of different technics and use them as it relates to my work in general. There is an aptitude for everything. Thank you very much for your collaboration in this article. Best regards, (Marika Herskovic 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) I changed them into 3 and 4 columns... you can change them back if you don't like it. D. Matt Innis 03:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) the article is changed again and now it is incorrect I do not understand this at all. Please revert the article to its earlier state. (Marika Herskovic 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) The Club is the predecessor of the 9th Street Art Exhibition. It can not be misplaced. (Marika Herskovic 17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) I think I fixed the problem. It was a missing < in part of the code. --Joe Quick 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Hi Joe! I never save before checking: Show preview. Therefore I still do not understand how it happened. Thank you for fixing the problem. (Marika Herskovic 18:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Is it possible that you were doing show preview after editing a section, rather than edit page? If you preview a section, and there is something like an unbalanced <, it won't show the effects outside of that section. I can't speak for others, but I try to work in full page mode when I can, which isn't always practical. When I do work in section edit, I save, and then immediately look at the full page — if something is wrong, I may undo, or go back into full page mode to look for the formatting problem, which is sometimes very hard to find. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC) The article is OK again Thank you Joe! As long as this is a draft article it can be changed. Having the large number of references provided it may give sufficient information to prevent it from random alteration. (Marika Herskovic 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Lists within articles and Catalogs It looks to me as if these lists are getting seriously out of hand. Larry has been busy with other stuff at the moment, but I *know* that he has always very strenuously wanted lists like this (and even annotated ones) to be put into Catalogs of one sort or another and not become so overwhelming in the article itself. I also know that many so-called "catalogs" have become very full articles in their own right, so it's not necessarily a secondary place to put things. Look, for instance, at: Catalog of World No. 1 male tennis players. I think that someone who is up on creating catalogs ought to see what can be done here. All sorts of links and references can also be created to draw the reader to them. Hayford Peirce 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Your comment is troublesome for the following reasons: a. It reflects only a formalistic concern with no regard for the content. The New York School is a definition of an art movement that recognizes a group of artists that worked in the 1950s in New York City primarily as action painters. Without the list of the artists representing the movement there is no article. b. Many references underline the importance of the artist lists to the article make it concrete and integrated. c. No.1 male tennis players do not present a movement in Tennis Playing. d. There is no controversy about who were the no.1 tennis players but there is plenty of controversy as to who were the artists of the New York School of the 1950s. The references make the article unique, indisputable and therefore necessary. The article that I provided is a relevant one especially for those who would like to learn about American art history of the 1950s. If you would like to have authors contributing to CZ you may decide to approve rather then procrastinate approval of an article. (Marika Herskovic 21:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)) You are taking what seems to me to be an antagonist attitude towards what was intended as a helpful comment. I am now speaking as just another Citizen, another Author like yourself: I myself couldn't care one way or another how you list these people, I was simply telling you that, in my OPINION, Larry, the Editor-in-Chief, I remind you, and the founder of Citizendium, is *very* pro-catalog and very *anti*-lists no matter what the author of the article feels about it. If Larry had been more active over the last couple of months, I'm sure that you would seen a comment from him on this matter. You say that without the lists there is no article -- the lists could easily go into the Catalog tab at the top of the page, or somewhere else, but I'll say no more about it. I would now like to remind you, however, in my official capacity as a Constable, as well as a simple Citizen, that no one at Citizendium owns their articles, no matter how much creative activity they have put in them -- ALL articles are subject to editing, revisions, deletions, expansions, rewriting, etc. etc., by the other members of CZ. I may be wrong in thinking that you seem to be implying that you have ownership of this article -- perhaps you aren't. Please note that I, as a Constable, have absolutely no right to tell you what to do when it comes to writing articles, you are free to write them as you see fit, and I am not trying to do so. I am, however, trying to elaborate, perhaps unnecessarily, how Citizendium works. Hayford Peirce 22:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)