Talk:Fractal expressionism

Templates, call for expert help, technical language

Removing the deletion tag. This page doesn't contain any OR. It cites some of the many peer-reviewed scientific articles on Fractal Expressionism and elaborates on the Fractal Expressionism section of Jackson Pollock's page. The amount of scientific research done on Fractal Expressionism warrants the existence of this page because it's too off-topic to include all of this information on Jackson Pollock's page. Fractal Expressionism is also mentioned as a type of Fractal Art, and every single type of fractal art listed has its own wikipedia page. Egapelesile (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Egapelesile

Please read WP:NOT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. freshacconci (✉) 17:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Freshacconci and Egapelesile: I agree with Egapelesile. A lot of scientific research backs the content written in this Wikipedia page and as stated every single type of fractal art has its own Wikipedia page. The WP:NOT page summary states that 1. "the amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere." This page is not an attempt to "contain all data or expression found elsewhere." It is simply a page focusing on one type of Fractal Art.

2. "Although anyone can be an editor, Wikipedia's community processes and standards make it neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy." This point is also irrelevant to the page since this page is not trying to operate as an anarchy, democracy, nor a bureaucracy.

3. "Wikipedia is not a place to promote things, is not a thought-book, a website primarily used for communication, a freely-licensed media repository, nor a censored encylopedia." The Fractal Expressionism page is not promoting anything. The page contains only neutral facts about the scientific research of Fractal Expressionism. This page is not a thought-book. The page contains only neutral facts about the scientific research of Fractal Expressionism. This page is not being operated as a point of communicating. The communication related to this page is only related to the discussion of editing and maintenance issues. This page is not a freely-licensed media repository. This page does not store or attempt to store a database of media content.Lastly, this page does not act as a censored encyclopedia. It is, again, a page containing neutral facts about the scientific research of Fractal Expressionism.

So, I am not sure your comment about reading WP:NOT is relevant to this discussion. The only thing I can foresee you arguing, based on other maintenance issues you have posted, is that this page acts as a textbook or scientific journal.

a. This page does not act as a textbook. According to WP:NOT a page acts as a textbook if it reads as a textbook "with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." This page presents neutral facts about the scientific research of Fractal Expressionism. This page clearly acts to inform and not to instruct.

b. WP:NOT states that the article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. A Wikipedia page must have introductory language in the lead and possibly in the initial sections of the article. The lead of this page introduces the term "Fractal Expressionism" in the very first sentence. The lead then goes on to explain and define what fractals are and then the lead further explains the relationship between fractals and the term "Fractal Expressionism". This lead is written in plain terms and therefore can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge of Fractals or Fractal Expressionism. The following sections involve similar language. When a complex, scientific, or otherwise uncommon term is mentioned it is clarified upon and also accompanied by an external link. There is no need for expert help.

justscience (✉)(talk) 13:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's heartening that you agree with Egapelesile, JustScience. It must be handy that you both only edit in this one very narrow area, so coming to a consensus between the two of you must have been easy. As for WP:NOT, you're kind of missing the point of WP:NOT, and why I mentioned it. I'll assume that is my fault for not being clear. WP:NOT is Wikipedia policy, meaning it's (mostly) non-negotiable. However, WP:NOT is not a checklist that needs to be satisfied for an article to proceed. If even one area covered by WP:NOT is in question, we need to address it and fix it (if possible). Worst-case scenario is deletion. Let me just state to be clear: I do not believe this article should be deleted (or I would have nominated it for deletion again). As an article, however, this topic needs to satisfy all of WP:NOT (plus such things as notability guidelines and must have reliable sources that can be verified. Although this topic is relatively new (see WP:RECENTISM for more on that) and is quite niche in scope, it appears to be notable and sourced. However, Kakurokuna tagged the article for legitimate reasons, reasons for which I am in agreement. It is (or was, see below) very technical. As you appear to be involved in this area of research in some way, it may be hard for you to step outside that specific world and understand that for the lay person, this article is/was very heavy going. The context was not sufficiently clear and the request for experts is standard for this kind of article. What is not acceptable is continued removal of the templates with an insistence that everything's fine with the article. Two editors disagreed and the onus was for you to make the case here on the talk page, or better yet, fix the problems. If you cannot see what the problems are, then you have to wait for others to come into the discussion (i.e. an uninvolved expert).

My reference to WP:NOT was directed to Egapelesile's initial comment, specifically "[t]he amount of scientific research done on Fractal Expressionism warrants the existence of this page..." and "every single type of fractal art listed has its own wikipedia page". Neither of those statements justifies an article per WP:NOT, specifically WP:OR (and despite Egapelesile's claim, there is/was original research), and Textbook/Scientific journals and research papers/Academic language, for which this article was at best borderline (and probably violated Academic language). Most importantly, WP:NOT is applicable because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This one is purposely vague because we need to be certain that there needs to be an article for this topic, rather than a paragraph in each of the Pollock and fractal articles. Egapelesile's insistence that this article is necessary warranted his reading WP:NOT. Your quoting of WP:NOT above is pointless as I never suggested that the whole thing need apply, certainly not things such as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. What Kakurokuna and I are attempting to do (and I'm not trying to speak for Kakurokuna) is improve this article. As such, templates are required to alert other editors. I've put a call out for other editors to weigh in. That requires patience as we are all volunteers and people may not step up immediately to help. But until the article is fixed, removing the templates is counter-productive. Likewise, it's a peculiar issue to be focussed on: there's nothing wrong with templates. It's merely alerting the reader that this is a work-in-progress and it alerts potential editors (including readers). I've always been a bit bemused by the obsession with removing templates, as if the sight of a template is a personal insult. It's not. It's a good thing: the article has attracted enough attention that editors are invested in improving the article rather than letting it languish in the margins, unreadable. Since it links to an important article such as the Pollock article, it is necessary to get it right.

Having said all that, another editor, Archieblu has stepped in to help out. I haven't had a chance to review the changes but this is an important first step. You just need patience and understand that this is Wikipedia's article, anyone can edit it, anyone can expand, remove, improve, or ruin it. Luckily, we have policies and guidelines to encourage the first three and avoid the latter. freshacconci (✉) 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Another editor, Kakurokuna, added templates to the article, asking for expert help and suggesting that the article is too technical. I agree completely. Another editor has removed the templates twice and has been warned twice as he provided no actual rationale, made no attempt to address the problem and did not discuss it here. I should also mention he used deceptive edit summaries by stating "Deleted request for Mathematics expert. The knowledge of complex Mathematics is not required to comprehend the article in its entirety." However, he removed both templates. Two editors feel the templates are warranted and I've requested input from other editors at the Visual Arts Wikiproject to chime in. The article as it stands is an essay, it's technical, and is definitely not for the layperson. Wikpedia is a tertiary, general knowledge encyclopedia, not a specialized math or science encyclopedia. Right now, this article is very much inaccessible and needs to be edited drastically. We should get some experts involved, per the tags, as this requires a complete rewrite. freshacconci (✉) 18:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for mentioning my name, as I had forgotten to add this page to my watchlist and did not notice that my suggestion was being reverted. I can't really help too much because I'm nowhere near qualified enough to evaluate or rewrite the article beyond evaluating the way it is written. The first thing that strikes me is that the article is almost entirely text (with even few wikilinks, let alone pictures for examples or math equations), and that the lede does little to give the average reader a sense of the article beyond "rather technical math applied to abstract painting." The article doesn't even bother telling the user what a fractal is, despite it being the subject of the article. I'm not sure that the way the article is divided into sections is particularly helpful, either. I'll add this page to my watchlist, but please let me know if there is anything I can do. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I also noticed that the citations are improperly formatted, but I don't see a tag for that and cannot do it myself right now. By the way, the user in question's edit history is virtually identical to the user who contested your PROD, did you notice that? Kakurokuna (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

RE-WRITE OF PAGE

HI,

the previous version of this page was well out of date (citing papers from 2006 and earlier and not include the many papers that have been published since then) and too limited in scope (it dwells too much on authenticity disputes which has little to do with Fractal Expressionism). It was also too technical. I have therefore given it a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archieblu (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)