Talk:Constructivist architecture

message: This is truly an outstanding start to an article. Obviously it needs to be referenced, (probably with in-line citations as these appear to be the flavour of the month at WP:FAC). I think a mention should be made about the integration of typography and slogan with architecture. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, the people at WP:FAC seem to insist on inline citations - it's supposed to be up to you if you read WP:CITE but really the de facto policy seems to be "If you want an article to receive Featured article status - it needs inline citations". That's my experience anyway. DVD/RW and myself got Deconstructivism to FA status with a combination of a Bibliography and inline citations. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: There's quite a lot of historical revisionism going on in the world these days, and Wikipedia is certainly a center of this. Which is why -- completely against the logic of context, or even historical accuracy -- references to "Leningrad" are being systematically changed wherever possible, and "St. Petersburg" put in their place.
It's misleading to have an article which references soviet work in "Leningrad" or "Petrograd" as having taken place in "St. Petersburg", as if historical context is meaningless and only the exigencies of the hour matter totally, no matter how they distort and obscure.
Where St. Petersbug fits -- by all means put in St. Petersburg. I myself fully expect the name of the town to be changed back to Leningrad or somesuch some day. I don't like references to either saints or personal dictators -- but truth and accuracy über alles (most critics of Lenin and communism and revolution aren't the least qualified to judge any of it -- including the wisdom of renaming this town in Lenin's name). And it's more than a little ironic than the forces which loudly decry totalitarianism themselves are exemplars of its practice once they get the upper hand.
Note that I don't consider this to be an innocent slip either. It's a very deliberate policy of some tendencies to try and obliterate all references possible to communism when they can -- not to mention this practice being mean-spirited to the sacrifice of millions of workers who believed in a better world. Many still do. Many more will.
So change the damned name back to Leningrad as per the logic of the piece.
Consider this a NPOV issue.
Pazouzou 06:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the substance of your comments and personally have no problems with changing the name to Leningrad - It makes sense, for instance to refer to events of the crusades in Constantinople (today Istanbul), and I think this is equally valid for Leningrad (today St. Petersburg). Your tone however, is unnecessarily strident - we can be civil here, no point of view pushing or historical revisionism was intended and we welcome your contribution to the debate - edit the name as you see fit - perhaps it would be polite to leave a message on Owen's talk page letting him know your intentions. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leningrad vs. St. Petersburg 

message: * Footnotes go after punctuations, as per Wikipedia:References#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation
* Copyediting is necessary to make the prose more fluent. Some peculiar formulations are for example 
** "creating ideal Constructivist cities- see also El Lissitzky's Prounen-Raum 'Dynamic City' (1919) of Gustav Klutsis." 
** Though after the Civil War the USSR was too poor for any new building projects, the Soviet avant-garde school Vkhutemas started an architectural wing in 1921,
* Without inline citations I can't tell if the mentioned architectural works are truly the most significant works. Which of the references are the most important sources for the article? 
* Lead section does not summarize article, please conform to WP:LEAD. Expand it with one-two  paragraphs. 
Fred-Chess 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failing GA 

message: Shukhov towers were built since 1890s, and were as Constructivist as a piece of steel pipe or HMS Dreadnought. A structural engineer, not artist, he served all kind of projects. Interestingly, modern critics (i.e. Vyacheslav Glazychev) specifically place his Moscow tower in opposition to constructivists (old school built in steel, new youth built in plywood). NVO 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point. By 1920 those towers were ubiquitous. Hundreds were built before 1914 by railroads, i.e. they were exposed to millions of train riders. No novelty at all. The 1926 Moscow tower was quite big for its settings, indeed, but - just one of many. 
But there's another question. In 1926-1929, when constructivism was in vogue, nearly all practicing architects built constructivist buildings - client's orders. Even the old neoclassicists like Shchusev, Fomin, Zholtovsky and "non-aligned" folks like Ilya Golosov. Would you put them in this category, too, simply because they jumped on the opportunity? NVO 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which project? Was there anything standardized in 1920s - the real buildings, not the paper talk? NVO 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Got the point - that is my own understanding, didn't ever consider Melnikov to be within Ginzburg faction (or Ladovsky's rationalism) NVO 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Shukhov? 

message: :Image:Gosprom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gosprom.jpg

message: The image :Image:Red flag 1926.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Red flag 1926.jpg

message: Two years ago, in one of my first wikipedia edits (one screen above on this page) I wondered why Schukhov appears on this page. I still do. The page dumps constructivits, rationalists, suprematists, independents like Melnikov and Ilya Golosov, one-off wunderkinds like Ivan Nikolaev and their followers into one pile. The name of this pile is Modernist architecture of the Soviet Union or perhaps Avant-garde architecture of the Soviet Union, and constructivists are just one facet of it. It's like dumping all art of the Second French Empire into Impressionism, and there is no way of reducing current article to constructivism proper without removing a lot of current content. No matter what current college textbook says, we should respect the original creators' opinions: when they said they were not constructivists, they really meant it. Comments? NVO (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold (?) renaming proposal

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Escuelairelibre03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Vesnin-pravda-s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Krasnye Vorota Ext Moscow 1950.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Constructivist architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111182743/http://www.maps-moscow.com:80/index.php?chapter_id=204&data_id=92&do=view_single to http://www.maps-moscow.com/index.php?chapter_id=204&data_id=92&do=view_single
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Constructivist architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415005205/http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/003.htm to http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415005918/http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/030.htm to http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/030.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415002223/http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/015.htm to http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/015.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maps-moscow.com/index.php?chapter_id=204&data_id=92&do=view_single
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411223433/http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/ind.htm to http://www2.polito.it/didattica/01CMD/catalog/017/1/html/ind.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903111642/http://www.kmtspace.com/kmt/constructivist-arch.htm to http://www.kmtspace.com/kmt/constructivist-arch.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion