Talk:Art Deco

message: I'm confused by the inclusion of Taksim Mosque in this section. How exactly is this a neo Art Deco building? It follows the same lines as the rest of the big Ottoman mosques in Istanbul
177.225.141.195 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo Art Deco examples appropriate?  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: May be of interest to editors of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Deco stamps]]

message: This article is all over the place. It would ideally be organized similar to the Art Nouveau article, with a unified History section, a Characteristics section, a section summarizing how Art Deco was expressed in different mediums (jewelry, furniture, graphic arts, etc), and perhaps a Local variations section. As it is right now, it's very disorganized, with about a dozen sections for various mediums that are largely arbitrary distinctions. Not to mention the Style of luxury and modernity section, which is an essay sneaked into an encyclopedia article, and a gallery at the end with images that should be placed near relevant text. 
This is not to say it's all bad - the Origins section is largely ok, the Etymology section might need trimmed down but is needed, and the actual content throughout the article is generally fine. It's just so disorganized that I don't know where to start. I would consider separating info about architecture from info about the arts (perhaps even splitting the article), though I acknowledge that they are interconnected, since much of the content focuses exclusively on Art Deco architecture. But generally consolidation is needed. Does anyone have any ideas about how to fix this? BappleBusiness[talk] 22:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a similar mess at another article, and found it helpful to just start working on a copy in a sandbox, moving stuff around and adjusting text to flow without significantly altering the meaning, until better structure emerged. I started with a basic outline in mind, though it adjusted during the work to encompass all the content.  That was phase one of the overhaul: basically improving the article without substantively changing much of it. It ended up highlighting weaknesses and missing material that I then later sourced and wrote up, and in the end it was a total page overhaul, though done in stages over a couple of months. And, yeah, after doing that you find that some things stand out as needing to split into side articles (especially if filling the gaps causes the article to grow a lot larger), though doing that is itself a big job (have to write a new lead, and repair all the citations in both articles, then write a WP:SUMMARY to leave behind that doesn't just copy the lead of the new article, which would irritate readers). PS: I agree that having the deco and nouveau articles mirror each other would be a good idea, though the nouveau article itself might need work; i.e., it's not necessarily a perfect model as it presently stands, though I have not gone over it in any detail in years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: The redirect Dark Deco has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Dark Deco]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]