Talk:Art Nouveau/Archive 2

Art Nouveau in Romania
in the new section on Art Nouveau in Romania, Can you describe what features in the buildings pictured are Art Nouveau? The Cantacuzino building looks entirely French Baroque, and the other buildings also seem to be historical revival styles. What is the connection with Art Nouveau, other than the date they were built? Are there other pictures that illustrate better the Art Nouveau features, as described at the beginning the article? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out SiefkinDR. Rather than wait for @Lupishor to respond, I'm going to remove the section in question, until reliable sources are produce that attest or corroborate the use of the term Art Nouveau for these buildings. At that time, the section may be added again, with proper sourcing. I have a feeling that will not be forthcoming. Coldcreation (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the 5 pics, 1-4 can be called AN, somewhat mixed with other styles. For the Cantacuzino building, only the canopy over the entrance seems in the style. #1 seems the most AN.  I can't see it at all in #5, the exterior of the Sibiu city hall.  Maybe there's something inside. I might add that the Hungarian section is little better - do we need images 2 and 3 there, for example. Also insufficient refs. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. I regret that this article is turning into a list of all buildings in any style built during that period, and basically becoming a tourism promotion site.    The new buildings would be appropriate for an article on Art Nouveau in Romania, but the current article makes no attempt to show what's new about them, or how they're important to the style.  If the authors can show that, then they would fit. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @SiefkinDR, @Coldcreation and @Johnbod. To be honest, I am not an expert when it comes to distinguishing between architectural styles, but from what I've found on the internet, all of the buildings are Art Nouveau, at least partially.

As Johnbod has stated, pictures #1 to #4 are Art Nouveau, so I'm not going to discuss them anymore, except for the Cantacuzino one, which seems to be a bit of a problem.

The Cantacuzino Palace is a combination of Art Nouveau and French Baroque, as its article states. Here is a source that mentions its Art Nouveau architecture, I can cite it if needed.

I'm not sure about the Sibiu city hall, I'm not an expert, as I've said. I've added it after searching "Sibiu Art Nouveau" on Google Images, because it was the first thing that showed up, appearing in multiple images. Here is a close up image of what people call Art Nouveau details on it. Aren't the face mask decoration and that rounded facade part details of Art Nouveau? What about the other decorations on that area? From what I've seen, something typical for Art Nouveau buildings is their rounded nature, which the Sibiu city hall does have in more areas, not just the one shown in the close-up image.

I've got some other examples of Art Nouveau in Romania as well, in case some of the above ones should be replaced. There are the Palace of Culture (Târgu Mureș) and the (not sure about the latter, seems Art Nouveau to me).

I can re-add the Romania section with new buildings and include more sources, if needed. Sorry if you think I've worsened the page's quality. It's true that some of the buildings I've shown combine Art Nouveau with other styles, which can lead to confusion. I'm going to mention that if I'll re-add the section. Lupishor (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Be careful in case of re-adding that it should cover the Kingdom of Romania earlier then it is extended her borders after WWI, thus not including what was then Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC))


 * I apologise if I sound too critical. I like Romanian architecture; I traveled around the country when I was younger, and climbed up to the ruins of the castle of Vlad Tepes. However, my feeling  is that the article must focus on the major examples of the Art Nouveau style,  not just architecture, but also furniture, design, graphic arts, etc.  and that it not turn into a very long list of every building in the world that might be considered Art Nouveau. I think the best thing would be for you to start a separate article on Art Nouveau in Romania, as has been done for other countries, and move your text there.  Then you will have as much space as you like.  You need to explain why each one is original and important. But it can't be simply a list of buildings; architecture was only one aspect, and not the most influential one, of Art Nouveau.   Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of creating an Art Nouveau in Romania article. Would it still be possible to re-add Romania on this article, though, if I also include other aspects than architecture and if I mention the purpose of Art Nouveau in Romania? I will also look for other things like furniture, for example. I will only add a few important examples here and leave the rest for the separate article about Romania. Would that be possible? Lupishor (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did mention that the Transylvanian Art Nouveau was created during Austro-Hungarian times, so it's not like I'm trying to promote Romania for something it didn't do. Lupishor (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't get me wrong, I clarify again: here in this article, regarding the timeline and structure, anything that has been part of Hungary then goes to the Secession in Austria–Hungary/Hungarian szecesszió section, it was not about that if you mention Austria-Hungary or not, etc.. Hence, in case you re-add anything about Romania, it has to be only about Wallachia and Moldavia, consequently, as the article discusses contemporarily the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC))


 * Of course, there should be an Art Nouveau in Romania section in the article, but please try to find some pictures of buildings that clearly show Art Nouveau features, like those described in the lead of the article. Curving lines, forms based on nature, asymmetry, etc. something original, not just historical revival.  Pictures of Art Nouveau details are better,  rather than images of buildings from far away.   Also, if you can, find examples of Art Nouveau posters or illustrations, or furniture, or jewellery, or ceramics and glassware, or any other aspects besides architecture. You have a very creative country.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you can find.  Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a category at Commons titled Category:Art Nouveau in Romania with subcategories that may be of interest. I would again make sure that everything on the topic be properly sourced in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines WP:RELIABILITY. Coldcreation (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! Sorry for responding so late; I've had some stuff to do in the last days. I've got a new gallery of Art Nouveau pictures I would add to the Romania section:


 * I've got some lamps (if you can call them so) from the Constanta Casino above, since you asked for lamps. I've also got the interior of a Bucharest building, as well as the Pelisor castle, which is described as Art Nouveau on its article. Lupishor (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those sources are most certainly not WP:RELIABLE. Coldcreation (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RELIABLE, user-generated content is, in fact, not reliable, but that page also says that newspaper and magazine blogs – which the sources I gave are – are excluded, and are therefore reliable. Lupishor (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the whole thing. Read also Consensus. Coldcreation (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some reliable sources: archive.org (login to borrow books). See here too: Google Books. Coldcreation (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My argumentaion is valid, since Riga is a subsequent of Russia and there is not in a Latvia section, it is another case it is highlighted, while Finland was an autonomous principality/state of Russia, while Romania was not such of Hungary, etc. Art Nouveau is a historic art, it is irrelevant what are the borders today or what future borders will be, it is not a political concept, but attached to a contemporary phenomenon, and Nagyvárad (Oradea) is clearly attached to Hungary and not Romania, similary to the Transylvanian affairs, and as you said, clearly different from the Old Romanian Kingdom, since evidently we speak about two separate countries with different cultural aspects at the time as well regarding AN.
 * My argumentaion is valid, since Riga is a subsequent of Russia and there is not in a Latvia section, it is another case it is highlighted, while Finland was an autonomous principality/state of Russia, while Romania was not such of Hungary, etc. Art Nouveau is a historic art, it is irrelevant what are the borders today or what future borders will be, it is not a political concept, but attached to a contemporary phenomenon, and Nagyvárad (Oradea) is clearly attached to Hungary and not Romania, similary to the Transylvanian affairs, and as you said, clearly different from the Old Romanian Kingdom, since evidently we speak about two separate countries with different cultural aspects at the time as well regarding AN.


 * Hence, there is no consensus to put Transylvania's part as you plan, but as it is now, under the Hungarian szecesszió. Btw. in case you follow Johnbod's recommendation, in an Art Noveau in Romania article you may without problem establish your plan, as it is devoted to the territory of present-day Romania, thus included Transylvania, but this article is different.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

I didn't fully get the first part of your message, you should express yourself in a better way, but you actually contradicted yourself when talking about the Latvia/Riga section. I'm not sure what you mean with "Riga is a subsequent of Russia" – look at the article again. Riga clearly has its own section and is not part of the Russia section. Also: It is mentioned that Riga is nowadays in Latvia, but was part of Russia at the time; the same goes with Transylvania with Romania and Hungary, so you've actually contradicted yourself. Art Nouveau buildings in Riga were built by Russian architects, yet, Riga has its own section. Therefore, Transylvania should also be included to Romania, despite its Art Nouveau having been the work of Hungarians. What you said about Finland is true, that doesn't change the fact that it was part of Russia, but still has its own section.

Not sure what you meant with the Oradea part either, since Oradea is obviously more attached to Romania, of which it has been part for over 100 years now, not to Hungary. I never said Art Nouveau is a political concept, please stop making things up. Oradea nowadays has a big Romanian majority and its Art Nouveau is being taken care of by Romanians while the city is lead by a Romanian mayor. It's even called the "Art Nouveau capital of Romania"; I'd find it ridiculous to add a Romania section without adding the country's most important Art Nouveau city. You're falsely accusing me of adding Romania as a "political concept", while it seems like the only one being political around here is you. Lupishor (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not contradict myself. Riga is following Russia. Moreover in the article, everywhere is mentioned likely the contemporary and present status quo, so also I could not contradict myself with anything. Your argumentation does not imply the "inlcusion" of Transylvania, not just because what I've earlier said, but because the same type and connected artwork of a has their own sections, as you just demonstrated, everything has it's own section likely if it is culturally and historically bound together (that's all about "contradictions"...).


 * I did not accuse you of anything, I explained to you why you approach is mistaken. Again you mix present-day situations with contemporary ones (that's all about "politics"...), again, the present day situation and status quo is irrelevant, since Art Noveau belong to history, not to present-day political borders. Contemporarily speaking, Nagyvárad (Oradea) is obviously more attached to Hungary, since it has been part of Hungary and Hungarians were active there as you just said (and your description of the present situation of Oradea is irrelevant to the topic as well, since the period of the article discuss 1800-1910 events). It is called "Art Nouveau capital of Romania" because today the city is part of Romania, but it does not change the history of Art Noveau back in time, also this may be mentioned under Hungarian szecesszó. As well, if with one sentence you mention the Art Noveau capital in a possible future Romanian section, it is not a problem of course, but the whole representation does not belong there.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC))
 * I am sorry, but you should really try expressing yourself in a better way, I often have trouble understanding you. "Present day situation", "contemporary" and "status quo" mean the same thing. You used them as if they were antonyms.


 * That's probably not what you meant, but contemporarily (see definition) speaking, Oradea is obviously more attached to Romania, because it is part of it and has a Romanian majority. It seems to me like you keep on making up rules to keep me from adding Transylvania to the Romania section. Like when you said that Finland was autonomous, unlike Transylvania. Yes, that's true. But does this change anything when it comes to this article? No, I haven't heard anyone else say anything like this. It's obviously just a rule you came up with. Same goes with what you've said above: "because the same type and connected artwork of a has their own sections". Umm...who said this? Even if it were as you claim, it still doesn't mean that's a rule. But your claim if wrong, even. Look at the Riga section for example: It clearly mentions that there are different variations of Art Nouveau in Riga, yet they are all under the same section. Therefore, Transylvanian Art Nouveau and Old Kingdom Art Nouveau can also be under the same section without a problem.


 * Also, it doesn't matter whether Riga is below or above Russia in the article, as long as it has its own section. If it were connected to the Russia section, as you claim, it should have been a sub-section of Russia. But it obviously isn't, because it wouldn't be right to add a Latvian city to Russia, just like it wouldn't be right to add a Transylvania sub-section to Hungary, but to Romania, instead. It is the exact same thing. Lupishor (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's make then clear the terminologies:


 * - yes, the word contemporary may be misunderstood (though I think the context made it clear), it matters if it is used as an adjective or not, so I clarify, I used it in a meaning then = 1800-1910, so contemporary that times, while status quo means a situation of any time connected, it may be present or then, it is indicated by other parts of the sentence. I hope now you'll interpret clearly what I mean.


 * - Contemporarily (Art Noveau times), Nagyvárad had over 91% Hungarian majority, part of Hungary and Hungarian Szecesszió dominates with Hungarians active, btw. all over Transylvania. You have to understand multiple clustering o more layers in common sense, this I wished to explain you per your arguments (not specifically rules, e.g.), since you brought up Finland or Riga (although not every instance is identical and may be compared the same way). What I said, Riga is following Russia by obvious reasons, even if it has different variations, they are clustered on each other, per the earlier mentioned. Finland is clustered as well for obvious reasons together with other Nordics, as culturally differ and was not regulary incorporated to Russia like other parts. Such that Transylvanian Art Nouveau is not something disctinct from the Hungarian szecesszió (btw. Nagyvárad (Oradea) is not even part of the historical Transylvania), and again, do not mix present status quo with historical situations, it has been disctint from Romanian Art Nouveau not just even culturally and had nothing to do with the country of Romania (similarly, if in 2069 present Hungary would be part of Poland and present Romania would part of Russia, it won't change the fact that Hungarian Art Nouveau in the Kingdom of Hungary was Hungarian Szecesszió, as well it will not change the fact Romanian/Old Kingdom Art Noveau has been Romanian, not Russian, Polish or Martian.


 * - Consequently, there is not even any disctint subsection of anything in Transylvania, because it is integral part of of the Hungarian sezcesszió, not distinct, as even the territory shared the same fate then. You cannot change history back in time and recluster it because of modern situations that did not exist then, it would be totally unprofessional, no consensus for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC))


 * Hey, KEINGIR. I didn't try to "change history back in time" like you claimed in the last sentence. I did mention that Transylvania was part of Austria-Hungary during the Art Nouveau period, so as long as I mention that, you can't say I was trying to change history simply because of adding it to the Romania section. And I'd suggest you stop with ironies like "Martian Art Nouveau" or "2069", because I'm trying to have a serious conversation.


 * So, you claimed that Transylvanian Art Nouveau is not different from Hungarian Art Nouveau and should therefore not be separated from Hungary in this article. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your claim is wrong. Art Nouveau in Transylvania is split into three different styles:
 * First of all, like you said, there is the Hungarian Secession. But, it is not exactly the same as the one in Hungary. It was a local Transylvanian variation of it, and I've got multiple sources to back my claim. This is the first one. It's a history magazine, but actually uses information from a book. It mentions how a vernacular Transylvanian Art Nouveau appeared in the region, being a Hungarian Secession with local influences. The difference was that the Transylvanian variant used a more austere (less decorated) version of Art Nouveau, which can be confirmed when looking at certain buildings, like the Palace of Culture in Targu Mures. Another source backing my claim is this one, written by a Hungarian about Art Nouveau in Targu Mures and Transylvania in general. It can be read in English, Hungarian and Romanian. It mentions how there is a "local Transylvanian Art Nouveau style", which combined Hungarian Art Nouveau with both local and foreign influences.
 * Secondly, there is the German/Austrian Art Nouveau used in German-inhabited parts of Transylvania (cities of Sibiu, Brasov and surroundings). It is different from the Hungarian Art Nouveau and is also referred to as Jugendstil, since it was made by Germans (see this source, which also mentions German architect Carl Hocheder having been active in Transylvania). An architectural example is the city hall of Sibiu, which, as you can see, clearly looks different from buildings found in other Transylvanian cities. It looks more similar to buildings in Vienna, instead – compare it to this one, for example.
 * Thirdly, there is also the Romanian Art Nouveau, since the Art Nouveau period had a late continuation in Transylvania after the region became part of Romania. It is like the Art Nouveau found in the Old Romanian Kingdom and can also be found as part of Romanian Revival architecture, present in Transylvania, which was inspired, among others, by Art Nouveau. Here is an example of such a building from 1918-19. This example is from Sibiu, which also has other examples. They can also be found in other Transylvanian cities.


 * So, there you have it. I've just demonstrated that Transylvanian Art Nouveau is not at all identical to the Hungarian one, like you claimed. And I know that Transylvanian Art Nouveau is (mostly) different from Old Romanian Kingdom Art Nouveau; that's why I want to make Transylvania a sub-section of the Romania section, instead of directly integrating it into the Romania section. Lupishor (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - You had quite issues about contemporary and present situation on other pages as we encountered, so could have expected after more times a more thourough demonstration will follow, about 2069 and Martian were not meant by any means as an irony, but to demonstrate why contemporary situations should not be confused with modern situations, this is a basic necessity for a serious discussion, if you like.


 * - I claimed not something distinct, the Transylvanian is part of the Hungarian szecesszió as well, this fact is not influenced by slight differences (the same as the one in Hungary = please check what Hungary is that time...). Some local influences does not make it distinct.


 * - No problem to mention the Saxon Jugenstil at the Other variations section, where it fits.


 * - Transylvania became part of Romania in 1920, however the link you gave claims Jugendstil, however it fits where the Saxons would, along.


 * - Summa summarum - and what I claimed may be read above, precisely and correctly -, these last two have they place under Austria-Hungary; other variations. You may mention in a future Romanian section anything specifically Romanian after 1920 including the territories what have been part before Hungary and I said a reference to Oradea as a capital nowadays is also fine, but a historical Transylvania subsection -  even it is not integrated - simply does not fit there in the given historical timeline.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

Something can also be demonstrated in a serious way, without the need of irony, but whatever, let's not get away from the subject.

So you're trying to tell me that instead of adding Transylvania as its own sub-section, it should be split among more sections of Austria-Hungary? Why would you do that? As I've already told you 100 times, I am going to mention that Transylvania was part of Austria-Hungary if adding it to the Romania section. As long as I mention that, there is no way I am confusing modern-day situations with historical ones (or contemporary ones, as you like to call them). The simple fact that Transylvania is getting added to Romania doesn't mean that the historical context gets messed up; you don't seem to understand this. And look around – you are the only one from here disturbed by the fact that I want to add Transylvania to Romania. The three other users part of this conversation haven't said anything against it, since obviously, there is nothing wrong with it, like I've demonstrated you in my two previous sentences. You're clearly disturbed by it from other reasons, so you keep making up non-existant rules to keep me from adding it to Romania. Have you seen anyone here disturbed by Transylvania being added to Romania? Neither have I. Have you seen any Russian here disturbed by Finland and Riga getting their own sections? Neither have I. Because, as I've already said, there's nothing wrong with those decisions as long as the historical context doesn't get messed up; which it doesn't, in this case. It's called common sense.

Even if Transylvania officially became part of Romania in 1920, it was already under Romanian control by 1918/19, and you know that. The link I gave doesn't actually claim Jugendstil. I know it might lead to confusion, but that website uses the tag "Art Nouveau / Jugendstil" for any type of Art Nouveau, no matter what variation. And by looking at the picture, you can clearly see that building is definitely not Jugendstil; you just need the knowledge about Art Nouveau variations to realize that, which it seems you don't have.

And I don't get you – you said that a small reference to Oradea is okay, but by your logic, wouldn't that also mess up the historical context? Why would you agree with referencing Oradea, but not agree with adding Transylvania as a whole? Doesn't make any sense at all. Lupishor (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - please read back if it is not clear: not meant by any means as an irony, so please do not insist on it.


 * - Yes. Because it belongs there.


 * - "you don't seem to understand this" -> On the contrary, please understand that the given period does not belong to the Romanian state.


 * - The others suggested you to create an Art Noveau in Romania article, other things you describe is speculative as you claim your demonstration would be valid.


 * - It is also speculative I would be disturbed by other reason, I could say you the same way you may be e. g. disturbed that the given historical period the subject had a different status quo then today, but such speculations are unnecessary (your poetrical questions fell into the same category, btw. the Finland/Riga case does not conclude your claim), as I told you about not necessarily rules, but common sense (and yes, that does not imply to put Art Noveau of given country to another country, anachronistically) and structure of the article, etc.


 * - "it was already under Romanian control by 1918/19" -> just parts, anyway it is irrelevant to the subject, it has nothing to do with foreign occupations, this is an article about art


 * - No, it would not mess it up, because Oradea is today the capital of Art Nouveau, not then. Excuse me, if we speak about fundemental logic, I don't see why it is not clear after so many times explained the obvious, think a little bit more contructively...I said anything concerning after 1920, you may add to a future Romania section, that is inside the state of Romania, but adding anything that belongs to another country obviously has no sense at all. Austra-Hungary has it's own section, divided to Austrian, and Hungarian art, and having an other section that would differ in a way from the two mentioned before, but included. It's clear what, when and where belongs to.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC))


 * Well, I'm not going to answer all seven points, since most are getting away from the Art Nouveau subject, but I have the following to say:


 * 1) "the others suggested you create an 'Art Nouveau in Romania' article" – yes, but what does this have to do with what I said? I said something completely different: that the others were not against Transylvania being added to the Romania section. The three other users have all seen the Romania section I had originally added and no one was against the fact that I had included Transylvania, despite it not having been part of Romania during (most of!) the Art Nouveau period. And I had mentioned the fact that it was part of Austria-Hungary, so please don't come with anything like "they are probably not familiar with Romania's history". Yes, the Romania section I had added was removed, but not because of Transylvania, but because of the sources and images I had used. No one from here except for you has claimed that I was "trying to change history", since that's obviously not the case.


 * 2) I'm not sure why you keep on insisting that the situation of Riga and Finland is different from the one of Transylvania, since that's not the case. You claimed that Transylvania can't be added to Romania because each section is created based on similarities of its art; therefore, Transylvania should stay separate from Romania, since its Art Nouveau was (mostly!) different. Look again. The "Jugendstil in the Nordic countries" features 3 sub-sections which are clearly different from each other when it comes to art, yet they are under the same section. Riga, like I've explained, contains 3 different Art Nouveau variations, yet they are all under the same section. Those show that your claim is not true and that it is, therefore, not a reason to keep Transylvania away from the Romania section. Finland might have been autonomous in Russia, like you said, but that doesn't change anything. Riga was not autonomous, yet has its own section. So your argument that Finland's situation is different from Transylvania's, since the former was autonomous, is not valid either.


 * 3) The second sentence of the Finland sub-section says "The Nordic country with the largest number of Jugendstil buildings is the Grand Duchy of Finland, then a part of Russian Empire". This contradicts what you have claimed in your 7th argument, "adding anything that belongs to another country obviously has no sense at all". It is clearly stated how Finland was part of Russia, yet it gets its own section. I could do the same with Transylvania and say "The Romanian region with the largest number of Art Nouveau buildings is Transylvania, then part of Austria-Hungary". By doing so, I am obviously not leading to any kind of historical confusion, like you have claimed. That's common sense, don't you think? Lupishor (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) again, speculation, because there are three sides of the coin, not just yes or no
 * 2) Sorry, I explained you already that you have to understand multiple clustering of more layers in common sense, this I wished to explain you per your arguments, similarly the case. Now you prompt me again to demonstrate the flaws of your inference on other cases...my arguments are holding, and they are arguments on multiple layers which you ignore (and you did not even list all of them, and don't wish to repeat them, as they may read above). Your argumentation fails at the first instance when you recurrently talk about same section/own section, etc. Your erroneus aim is put Transylvania to Romania, where it not belongs the given historical timeline and despite the issue is covered in the already existing Austria-Hungary section, where it fairly belongs which is divided into three subsections where the varieties may be clustered in. This is the point. Are Sweden, Denmark Finland and Norway Nordic countries? Yes. Is Riga clustered into an unrelated section? No. Riga is a city and not identical with Transylvania, Finland's situation was different from Transylvania, as the latter have been not just integral part of Hungary as well part of the Hungarian Szecesszió and her varieties, etc.
 * 3) Does not contradict it, because Finland is not clustered under of an unrelated section, unlike your plan. Transylvania is only after a few border adjustments is a "Romanian region" (or better to say, a historical region in Romania), historical confusion would be if you'd wish to cluster under Romania section Art Nouveau that belongs to Austria-Hungary, this is irrelevant from mentioning what is present-day or then, I am amazed you still do not see this very simple fact. So again: any period when Transylvania is part of Romania, you may safely refer to anything that is within the borders of Romania, but avoid corruption of eras, arts, periods that belongs to Austria-Hungary in the given period.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC))
 * 3) Does not contradict it, because Finland is not clustered under of an unrelated section, unlike your plan. Transylvania is only after a few border adjustments is a "Romanian region" (or better to say, a historical region in Romania), historical confusion would be if you'd wish to cluster under Romania section Art Nouveau that belongs to Austria-Hungary, this is irrelevant from mentioning what is present-day or then, I am amazed you still do not see this very simple fact. So again: any period when Transylvania is part of Romania, you may safely refer to anything that is within the borders of Romania, but avoid corruption of eras, arts, periods that belongs to Austria-Hungary in the given period.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

I see we aren't getting anywhere like this, since we are just repeating the same arguments all over again. @SiefkinDR, @Coldcreation and @Johnbod, can you please state your opinion on this issue? I'm asking you, because you also replied to this talk section and you all seem to be very concerned about the Art Nouveau article. As you can see, KIENGIR and I have had a very long conversation, so I'm going to sum up our issues here.

As you know, I want to add the Romania section to this article. I want to include the historical region of Transylvania, since it is part of Romania and it's the country's most important region when it comes to Art Nouveau. KIENGIR doesn't agree with this because of a number of arguments that I consider wrong. Here are our issues:
 * KIENGIR claims that adding Transylvania as a sub-section of Romania would lead to historical confusion, because Transylvania was part of Austria-Hungary during (most of!) the Art Nouveau period. I don't see how it would do so, since I had clearly stated that Transylvania belonged to Austria-Hungary at that time in the Romania section I had originally added. None of you three seemed to be against it; you didn't say anything about a historical confusion, you removed the section because of other reasons (sources, images).
 * He also wrongly claimed that Transylvanian Art Nouveau is identical to Hungarian Art Nouveau and used this as an argument to show that Transylvania should be part of the "Hungarian Szecesszió" section. After I had demonstrated him above that he is clearly wrong, he came up with other things.
 * He claims that everything should be added to the country it historically belonged to during the Art Nouveau period. This claim is most certainly not a valid argument, since Finland and Riga were part of the Russian Empire, yet they have their own section instead of being part of the "Modern in Russia" section. Therefore, Transylvania can also be added as a sub-section of Romania, even if it (mostly) belonged to Austria-Hungary during that period.
 * He claims that Transylvania should stay separate from the Romania section, because of Transylvanian Art Nouveau being mostly different from the one found in the rest of Romania (Romanian Art Nouveau was also introduced to the region after it became part of Romania). He seems to be the only one from here who is against this, though. All three of you have seen the Romania section I had originally added; it mentioned how Transylvanian cities were part of AH at that time and later became part of Romania. So you three neither said anything about this being a problem, nor about the so-called "historical confusion" mentioned above. I told him that the Romania section was removed because of other reasons, to which he replied that I am speculating... Also, I'm aware that Transylvanian Art Nouveau is mostly different from Romanian one; that's exactly why I want to add Transylvania as a sub-section instead of directly integrating it in the Romania section (which I actually did at first and you three had no problem with it).
 * He uses his arguments as if they were actual rules, not just personal claims. Like I said, I haven't seen any of you three telling me anything similar to the things KIENGIR did, so I don't see how his arguments can actually be considered rules, since no one has said anything about this article having any kind of "rule" like that.

What do you think? Lupishor (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lupishor,


 * better you as well inventing new arguments over an already failed and erronous inference line, you don't wish to end. On the other hand, you should not summarize anything on my behalf since the discussion may read above and you address and qualify my point many times improperly.


 * - 1st * -> next to your repetitive speculations and failed argumentations, it is irrelevant in this case if you address in a Romania section what had been part of Austria-Hungary, any material is already and fairly part of the Austria-Hungary section, where it belongs, so the whole concept in the beginning is erroneus, since you wish to claim in a redundant way something that did not belong to Romania. Hence, anything added to Romania should be from the time when the corresponding territory is within Romania's borders. The rest are your speculations and solicitation reagrding other users, based on the same failed inference line (= put to Romania what belongs to Austria-Hungary in fact, etc.)


 * - 2nd * -> Complete falsification, I did not claim wrongly anything, also before you did not read correctly what I have written as it has been demonstrated (not something distinct, the Transylvanian is part of the Hungarian szecesszió as well). Utterly avoid falsification of my words and misrepreseting them! Hence it belongs and part of the article where it is now. Moreover, I did not came up with new things, you are the one who is solicitating this discussion repeatedly on the already erroneous inference line, more times demonstrated.


 * - 3rd * -> Again, reintroducing the already failed inference line....the fact Finland is put to the Nordic countries and Riga has it's own section, does not imply to put Transylvania into a Romania section, besides anything has been demonstrated so far, since it would be a false clustering (Finland and Riga is not put to an unrelated country historically). This may only imply a separate Transylvania section under no state or country at minimum. Elementary, basic logic you fail to see.


 * - 4th * -> Repetitive expansion of "1st *", the answer is identical like there.


 * - 5th * -> Again, clear falsification of what I said, although clarified just two days ago, as before. The arguments demonstrated why your approach is erronous, illogic based on the structure of the article. Understanding this is not a big deal, it is another thing you are not willing to understand. I repeat the last time - told enough - you may safely and freely put under a future Romania section anything that has been part of Romania in a given timeline, but those which were not part of Romania and belonged to others - as they are fairly in they respective sections - obviously not.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC))


 * This content clearly needs to be in an Art Nouveau in Romania article, if (and only if) there are sufficient reliable sources (such as here or here) to justify such an article. To date, on this talk page, no reliable source has been mentioned to justify either the inclusion of the material in this article or any other on the topic of Art Nouveau. Coldcreation (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't say things like my arguments are erroneous and/or illogical just because that's your personal opinion. I also disagree with your arguments, but didn't use such terms for them because of having a different opinion than you – instead, I said that I consider your arguments to be wrong. And, like I've already told you, nobody has said that the article has a certain structure that must be followed, like you claim. Lupishor (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I get it that this content needs to be in an Art Nouveau in Romania article, but that doesn't answer my question. My question was whether Transylvania could get added to an eventual Romania section on this article, despite not having been part of Romania during (most of) the Art Nouveau period.

And about your source issue: Are you basically telling me that books are the only type of reliable source? Because I've never heard any other Wikipedian say this. I've seen many articles using websites like history magazines or news sites as their sources, and no one called them unreliable. I myself have used such sources for articles I had submitted for creation (before having the right to publish them myself) – they were reviewed and accepted, without anyone telling me the sources I used are unreliable. And besides, why do you even need a source at all for a building/painting shown in an image, as long as the image itself shows it is Art Nouveau? SiefkinDR and Johnbod have identified most of the image I had used above as Art Nouveau without telling me I also need a source to demonstrate this. Lupishor (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lupishor,
 * your arguments are not erroneous and/or illogical becuase of my personal opinion, but demonstratively may be equated with logical expressions and their satisfiability and coherence, that are apart from personal opinions (otherwise I would not have said it). The article has a long-standing structure, and now you wish to brake it's consistency with an irrational claim.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC))

The one thing that you don't seem to understand is that nobody has ever said that this article has a certain structure which must be followed. And no, I don't wish to "break its structure", nor do I think that adding Transylvania to Romania would affect its structure in any way. Like I told you, the other three users involved in this conversation had nothing against the fact that I had added Transylvania. And no, this is not a speculation, but a fact – you can see it by looking at the first messages they have posted on this talk section. It clearly shows that my edit was reverted from other reasons. Lupishor (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is straw-man like argumentation. The article has a structure and your plan would make it inconsistent (already explained). This is independent from your speculation, "since" the claimed revert for other reasons are not necessarily implying anything regarding other issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC))

New section about Romanian Art Nouveau
Hello there! I’m working at the Romanian page about Art Nouveau ( https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau ). I’ve also added a section about Romanian Art Nouveau, which is very different from the one which was on the English page. Here it is in Romanian:

Unul dintre cei mai importanți pictori Art Nouveau din România este Ștefan Luchian, care a preluat rapid direcțiile novatoare și decorative ale Art Nouveauului pentru o perioadă scurtă de timp. Momentul s-a sincronizat cu înființarea Societății Ileana din anul 1897, al cărei membru fondator a fost, societate care a organizat o expoziție (1898) la Hotelul Union intitulată Expoziția Artiștilor Independenți și a editat o revistă – Revista Ileana.

Grafica de carte pentru reproduceri tipografice a avut o dezvoltare importantă și în România. Ilustrații Art Nouveau de cărți au făcut: Octav Băncilă, pentru volumul lui A. Steuerman «Ele» (Iași, 1898) și pentru «Stihuri și epigrame» de Giordano (1925); Nicolae Vermont, pentru «L’éternel clavier» de A. A. Sturdza și pentru «Epigrame», de Quintus (apărute în București 1896); A. Baltazar, pentru volumul lui Emil Gârleanu «Cea dintâi durere» (București, 1907); Nicolae Tonitza, pentru «Însemnările unui prizonier» de G. Milian-Maximin (București, 1920), și așa mai departe. Coperte și frontispicii pentru reviste au creat și Ludovic Bassarab, D. Stoica, Nicolae Gropeanu, Th. Cornel, G. Sterian, Kimon Loghi și alții. În unele reviste și ziare ale perioadei apar desene publicitare. În primul număr al revistei «Arhitectura», din 1906, sunt reproduse proiectele lui N. Grant și V. Mantu pentru un concurs de timbre, care combină Art Nouveauul cu folclorul românesc.

It is entirely written by me and the main sources are two books: Arta 1900 în România (1900 Art in Romania) by Paul Constantin, and Casele și Palatele Bucureștilor (The Houses and Palaces of Bucharest) by Alexandru Popescu. This section is entirely dedicated to the Art Nouveau from the Kingdom of Romania, and the Hungarian Art Nouveau which is now in the territory of present-day Romania is included in the section Hungarian Szecesszió. So, should I translate it on the English page? It is very well documented, and most of the pictures in it are taken by me, especially for this section. I don’t know why, but the first pack-gallery, which is with architecture, doesn’t load, so please check it here: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau#Art_Nouveau_în_România Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mattriacanthosaurus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sára Salamon in Culture Palace, Marosvásárhely.jpg