Talk:Documenta

Stub?

I found this article and I must say I am quite disappointed by its lack of content... I don't know how to do this, but I'd classify it as a Stub.

At least there is some information as an introduction to this event. Don't you agree? --Auguste Bolte (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Documenta. 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/20140720031034/http://theartnewspaper.com:80/articles/How-much-are-curators-really-paid/33307 to http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/How-much-are-curators-really-paid/33307

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Does the Documenta 10 article have sufficient secondary sourcing to give itself any notability not inherited from the main gig? I don't think so; all the sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY. I also note there are no other pages on individual years; suggestive of the fact that others have note a lack of sole notability before. Although that is just an OR opinion. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note -- there are actually pages for each year. I am inclined to agree, however. All the individual articles consist of a brief intro and a list of names. Most are not sourced at all. Within the highly specialized world of contemporary art, I suppose an argument could be made for each edition's significance, but I believe that would involve some original research. documenta 11 has the best claim for significance as there has been a great deal written about it, but unless it's expanded and better sourced it too is just a stub and a list. I'm going with merge all the individual articles into the parent article. If someone wants to undertake the major task of writing new articles that demonstrate notability independent of the main article those articles can be recreated/unredirected. Until that time, I see no point of each year having an article. freshacconci talk to me 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• The documenta exhibitions are major modern art events. There are certainly many sources available, they are just not mentioned in the article. Just browing the web: [1], [2], [3]. These are just three, in English, without apending too much time looking for them. There is certainly a huge mass of sources also in German. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - to merge every single exhibition into this generall overview would make this article too huge. And the stubs of each single exhibition can still cinsiderably grow in size. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Template removed as the reason given is not valid.Leutha (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since every other year has its own article. I'm going to go ahead and remove the proposal because it's more than eight months old. Ahalenia (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Ahalenia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Documenta. 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/20140225194859/http://www3.documenta.de/press/news-archive/press-single-view/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=165&cHash=917eef30a56bc6a87c844d1d0d108d45 to http://www3.documenta.de/press/news-archive/press-single-view/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=165&cHash=917eef30a56bc6a87c844d1d0d108d45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)