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))

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)