This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Franklin and Marshall College/London Paris (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
Latest comment: 1 month ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [1] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [2] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support per guidlines and evidence provided by nom. WP:CONSISTENT refers to patterns of naming. It invokes WP:TITLECON which explains that it refers to documented topic-specific conventions on article titles. WP:LOWERCASE (also part of WP:AT) tells use to use sentence case for article titles. There is nothing at WP:AT to suggest there are exceptions to this instruction. Invoking WP:CONSISTENT to suggest revolutionrevival should be capitalised in this article title misrepresents the spirit and intent of WP:AT and WP:CONSISTENT, in particular. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm arguing for a topic-specific naming convention for styles with "Revival" in their names (but also for artistic/architectural styles more broadly; they're currently not explicitly covered by MOS:CAPS). I've shown that there is a pattern in existing article titles, broken by only one article. I don't see how invoking topic-specific conventions helps the case for lowercase "revival" – a "topic-specific" convention does imply an exception to a "project-[i.e., Wikipedia-]wide" convention – but then again this was copied and pasted from another article's talk page. Ham II (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no documented topic specific naming convention applicable here. See those listed at WP:TITLECON. That is what WP:CONSISTENT is about. [B]ut then again this was copied and pasted from another article's talk page. So what? Attacking an argument because it was copied and pasted does not address the substance of the argument and is a WP:STRAWMAN. The arguments made both here and there as to WP:CONSISTENT are in essence the same (other stuff exists). In both cases, the arguments are a pettifogging misrepresentation of what WP:CONSISTENT is actually about. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. Not consistently capitalized in sources, and a major arts movement being capitalized (something we tolerate to some extent, whether that's a good idea or not) does not magically translate into modifiers tacked onto it, especially when descriptive of revivalist or other minor movements/influences that themselves do not consistitute major new movements in their own right. PS: What multiple N-grams show is that there was something of a heyday of capitalization of this term (across a comparatively small number of publications) from around the 1980s to the mid-2000s, but that capitalization of it today is in sharp decline (as is coverage of it in independent sources as a topic at all). This reduction in unnecessary capitalization is happening despite any influence WP might have by over-capitalizing it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Revivals of artistic and architectural styles can reasonably be called styles in their own right, and calling them "minor" is just looking for another reason to decapitalise – not that capitalisation should be based on importance in any case. See how the Grove articles on the following revival styles begin:
Greek Revival: Term used to describe a style inspired by the architecture of Classical Greece that was popular throughout Europe and the USA in the early 19th century1
Gothic Revival: Term applied to a style of architecture and the decorative arts inspired by the Gothic architecture of medieval Europe2
Colonial Revival: Term applied to an architectural and interior design style prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the USA and Australia3
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.