Talk:Renaissance architecture in Central Europe

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles

Poland

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles

Architecture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles

Duplicate page

If this is to be developed, remember that it has been lifted from Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe, meaning that information it needs to be split leaving at least a reasonably well developed stub for Renaissance architecture in Russia. Currently, it is essentially still a duplicate sans Russian architecture of the period. I'd suggest that the original page should be renamed and redirected (simply being called 'Russian' as nothing outside of central European architecture has been developed there).

I've also left a note on the original article's talk page in order that any interested contributors still watching it there be aware that it is to be split. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "lifted" is unnecessarily rough. Reusing stuff within Wikipedia is OK, when WP:WHENSPLIT is justified. Quote: one of the "two main reasons for splitting material [is] content relevance. If... specific material... is seen to be... out of scope, then a split may be considered." – The main problem with the parallel Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe is that neither the Kingdom of Poland (with westward Pomerania) nor the Kingdom of Hungary (extending to the Alps), were in the East (unless the Alps belonged there also); only the Russian Renaissance architecture was in its entirety in Eastern Europe along with the Transylvanian and/or Lithuanian Renaissance (further north), which also need to be mentioned somehow. The POV problems go both ways. Poeticbent talk 17:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have read negative connotations into a simple term which I did not intend to read as such. If you have understood it to be negative, I apologise and will change the wording on the other talk page. It is unnecessary to take a defensive position with me on this split as I have already stated that, "... nothing outside of central European architecture has been developed there..." (sic). What I have stated is what I mean: the content is essentially about Central Europe. Nevertheless, I consider it a matter of courtesy to give fair warning to anyone still involved in the original page as I believe that is what is meant by 'consensus' decisions. I made absolutely no reference to POV problems. For myself, I'm entirely neutral on the matter of this split. If anything, I'm not even certain as to why it was developed as Eastern European-specific in the first instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ueh, no. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK and needs to be merged back to Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe (which may be renamed later, but let's say no to content forks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would also be my preference as it can easily be addressed at a later date by a consensus vote to rename it as Renaissance architecture in Central and Eastern Europe. Splitting it does strike me as being problematic as it would automatically preclude architecture in Ukraine (prime example being Lviv/Lwow), as well as Belarus and other areas commonly defined as Eastern Europe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this article was began only to make a point in a long-standing dispute ... which it was, does not mean that it should not be here. Just the opposite is true. There's a reason why in Wikipedia a dedicated article is called "Central Europe". Renaissance Russia was not in "Central" Europe. Renaissance Austria-Hungary was not in "Eastern" Europe either. For more details, see: A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present By Hanno-Walter Kruft; and Renaissance to Rococo: Art in Central Europe undergraduate programme run by the Northern Illinois University.1 2 Poeticbent talk 00:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

This remains a problematic article for the simple fact that virtually all of the content is unsourced. Referencing three books without page numbers, plus using photographs of buildings does not meet WP:RS in any shape or form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody agree to this? I certainly did not! Where's the vote? Poeticbent talk 12:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy guidelines (just to refresh your memory) require that the articles should remain verifiable, not that they should be verified by inline citations in order to exist. Books are books, and photographs are photographs. I propose that the merger be promptly reverted as misconstrued. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article split off by a sock for POV reasons is not a rationale for keeping the article. This isn't an issue for a !vote. 'Central Europe' was not WP:V, and WP:NOR trumps all other guidelines and policies.

If the article is to be split, it needs to be done so without gaming. Discussion needs to take place in the correct venue... which would be the main 'Renaissance' article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]