Talk:Neomodern

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

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Aesthetics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Untitled

Merge with neomodernism? m.e. 02:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Better to keep them separate - since neomodernism seems to be realitively specific, where as neomodern shows up in a number of places.Stirling Newberry 03:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New image

Hi everyone, I have included this image of a facade of a building in Pretoria, South Africa which has a minimalist and neomodern architectural design. Some users however do not allow it to be included in the article. Please share your views. Thank you. --PretoriaTravel (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were adding the same image to 4 articles, without any other additions (text) to the article, which makes it look like spamming. Cst17 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nou het ek jou verstaan. Ag, nie man.. A friend of mine made a comment that there are no images illustrating contemporary architecture in Pretoria, so I decided to make some of modern images in Pretoria East. The image is intended to serve the same function as this photo (it is not mentioned in the text, but is included in four articles. Jammer vir die misverstand. Regards --PretoriaTravel (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add this to an article without full citation. It's a very modern building. Consequently, its architect, location and purpose must be known. What is it about this building that is of sufficiently ground-breaking interest that it should be placed in four articles, including the major article on Architecture, so that it is up there with the Pyramids, the Parthenon and the Sydney Opera House? Amandajm (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a building in Pretoria East that is neomodern. My purpose was to include a photo of contemporary architecture in the article about Pretoria, because a friend of mine made a comment that there are no images in wikipedia illustrating contemporary architecture in Pretoria. As I said the purpose of the image was to illustrate contemporary architecture in Pretoria. If more than two users think it should not be in the minimalism and neomodern articles, then it's OK with me, but I strongly believe that it should remain included in the Pretoria article. What is your oppinion? Regards --PretoriaTravel (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rename: Neomodern architecture

In keeping with similar article titles such as Postmodern architecture and Modern architecture, this article should be renamed "Neomodern architecture" in order to avoid any confusion.--Marcbela (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article (such as it is) seems to be equally divided between architecture and art, I presume what you really mean to say is that the article should be split into two, "Neomodern architecture" and "Neomodern art". Although this would result in two extremely short articles, I can see some merit in the proposal, but let us be clear about its nature.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neomodern architecture redirects here. Ideally, the topics (art/architecture) should be split and expanded.--Marcbela (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello! I was reading an article on Neo-futurism architecture, but Neo-futurism and Neo-modern architecture seem the same. What is the difference? CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neomodern. 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/20070930093518/http://guydenning.org/neomodern/a_new_critical_aesthetic.htm to http://guydenning.org/neomodern/a_new_critical_aesthetic.htm

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) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]