Talk:allied arts

RFV discussion: March 2016–April 2017
allied means "related"; this occurs in phrases like "architecture and the allied arts", i.e. those related to architecture. I don't believe it's a thing on its own. Perhaps suitable citations can prove me wrong though? Equinox ◑ 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It can easily be cited without the word "architecture", if that's what you mean. Pur ple back pack 89  21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is just an example: X and the allied arts means "X and other arts allied_with/related_to X". DCDuring TALK 21:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is another one of your hybrid RfD/RfVs. If I find three citations for "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts", the other words in the sentence are irrelevant because it still passes RfV, but...
 * I believe that there are plenty of citations for "allied arts" that are not constructed in the forms "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts" Pur ple back pack 89  22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Two citations (spanning 50 years) for "allied arts". I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a third citation of the form "X and the allied arts", and then this RfV can be closed. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cited: Entry now has three citations. This is not the place to discuss SOP. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The first two citations look good to me, but the third citation doesn't seem to mean "fine arts and related disciplines". Rather, it seems to mean the SOP sense of "related arts". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * [after e/c] The first two citations seem to establish "arts allied to each other" or "arts allied to something that everyone knows they are allied to". The third does not IMO. It seems to be clearly an SoP use of the term. Can you find another like the first two? It would be nice to have three citations that allowed us to look at the context. It would also be nice if we had three unambiguous citations for at least one of the definitions I gave, because they seem quite different to me. I note that no other dictionary at OneLook has the purported expression, so we apparently cannot rely on authority, but rather our own lexicographic skills, however meager they may be. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider this from Encyclopedia Americana 1924:
 * Those, then, of the decorative arts which are applied to the beautifying of useful objects, may properly be called the industrial decorative arts. (See Interior Decoration). Under this classification would be included all decorative weaving, textile work and basketry; decorative metal-work in iron and bronze, silver and gold, etc., applied to the adornment of implements or furniture; decorative woodwork in furniture, including wood inlay; and all decorative pottery and ceramics. When, however, any of these arts is applied to the decoration of permanent or immovable structures instead of movable objects, they become ancillary to architecture, and are often called "the allied arts" or "the accessory arts,* along with mosaic, ornamental carving and stained glass.
 * That is a mention rather than a use, but it offers a clear definition and suggests that the term means or meant something different in the context of architecture from what it means in education as the Encyclopedia definition does not fit correspond to the definition in the entry. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added an additional citation which I believe does not apply to the SOP definition, giving us three "non-SOP" citations, even though SOP is not an RfV issue. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  01:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2014 cite is SoP. The cite from the J of the AIA belongs to a separate definition, as explained above. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Will you stop bringing up RfD policies in an RfV? And I hope you three realize how you guys are coming off.  I write an entry, you say it's SOP.  I add citations, you say they're not good enough.  How 'bout less, "this isn't good enough, this is SOP, Purplebackpack do it over", you actually try and find a citation yourself to replace the one you claim is SOP?  <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm simply describing what the cite seems to support. For most multi-word expressions there is at least one, often many, SoP interpretation. The first job of a citer is to exclude those. You don't seem to have been doing that.
 * If you don't understand the difference or notice the difference in the meaning of the cites, then you shouldn't be wasting your time or ours pretending that you know how to define a word and cite the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not improving how I think of you with that comment. If you're wondering why this project burns out users, it's processes like this one and comments like that one.  And if you consider adding an entry that has at minimum two implacable citations a "waste of time", you give me pause on thinking you're actually here to build the project.  In the time you have spent criticizing me here, you could probably have found that third citation.  So get to it!  Equinox tries to make me a dancing monkey; now it's your and Equinox's turn to dance!  <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Appropriately selective burn-out is not necessarily a bad thing.
 * The time waste is in your apparent inability to discriminate among citations. I don't believe that the challenged definition in the entry is worth saving, so I'll wait for the next dance. I would stipulate that the collocation allied arts is abundantly attestable, but not the definition under challenge. We need much better citations than we have. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so you admit that you neither care about adding new editors nor about adding this entry, even though it's at most one citation away from passing RfD. OK, glad we're clear on that.  You also admit your unwillingness to do any work on it; which I continue to believe is completely disingenuous with holding me in scorn for the work I have done.  Finally, lest you forget, there are at present two definitions (counting the one you added last night), and as you forgot to convert the RfD into an RfD sense, both of them are technically at RfD right now, with the one you created closer to failing RfD than the one I created, as the one you created has only a single citation. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the oversight. Would you like to challenge the architecture sense? It seems marginal and it's probably dated. It might even be US only. But there I go again, splitting hairs. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is "Request" for verification: no one is obligated to do anything. The normal practice is that anyone who feels like it provides cites, and any perceived shortcomings in the cites are pointed out until either a consensus is arrived at that they're adequate or the rfv fails. The creators of the entries have an interest in not having them deleted, so they typically do a good part or all of the work. It's nice if people pointing out problems with the cites help in finding better ones, but they don't have to. Some nominations are disingenuous and/or unnecessary, but that's for the process to sort out. The only thing out of the ordinary here is your histrionic tone and demands on those who have the temerity to question any detail of these obvious manifestations of your brilliance. I know you're sincere about this, and not intentionally playing any games- but it's a bit much. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not convinced that any of the meanings are justified by the citations given. Sense 1 isn't even a definition; if the other two fall, then the whole entry should go.  Sense 2 has two citations: the first one appears to use the phrase to mean "humanities and the allied arts" (i.e. arts related to the humanities) while the second one is vaguer, but seems to mean "arts related to each other" in the context of an artist colony, and is sum-of-parts within that context.  The use given under sense 3 means "arts related to architecture".  The fact that the American Institute of Architects has or had a "Committee on Allied Arts" doesn't give the phrase a specific architectural meaning, any more than its "Committee on Publicity" gives publicity a special architectural meaning.  In each example cited under both senses, allied arts means nothing more than "arts related to whatever topic is under discussion," and is therefore sum-of-parts.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be right about the architecture definition. I viewed the Encyclopedia's definition as suggestive rather than conclusive. But there seems to be or have been some institutional reality to the association between any of several decorative arts and architecture. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some implication to allied that is not in the words related or connected. Architecture seems to be dominant with a changing cast of decorative arts. Are they all in common cause under the leadership of architecture?
 * The following made me doubt my intuition: "to say nothing of those near neighbors and practitioners of the allied arts, Fan Dancer Sally Rand and Philosopher John Dewey." DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The last time I searched for citations, to avoid the SoP you and others are concerned about, I asked Google Books to exclude any references to "and the allied arts" or "and allied arts". <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that all of these examples still read like sum-of-parts to me, because the only way you can tell which arts are allied is by reference to the subject under discussion. And then all it means is "whatever arts are similar to or involved with the main topic."  For instance, with the architectural journal, it probably means arts related to building; such as tile or mosaic laying, carving decorative figures such as cornices or molding, design of lighting fixtures, plumbing fixtures, decorative woodwork or ironwork for stairways, elevators, grates, railings; painting, wallpapering, paneling; design of carpets and rugs, furniture and other accessories that may not be integral to the building's structure or overall layout, but which might be coördinated to match or compliment those things.  There's not going to be a fixed list; it just means any art closely related to architecture.  If you see an article describing the "allied arts" of architectural design, you might see a dozen different categories listed; but another article using the same phase might give only 9, and only partial overlap; or maybe 15; and over time some might not be important enough to describe, while others might.  For example, the design of gas jets and gas lighting fixtures might have been considered an allied art in 1890, but not in 1920; while electrical fixtures and outlets might just have been a minor matter in 1890, but an allied art in 1920.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the context of US primary and secondary education there might be a group of subjects of an artistic nature which are allied in the common cause of seeking restoration to the curriculum from which they have been driven by the Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core). DCDuring TALK 21:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the phrase "allied arts" is used on its own, without any context that would limit or identify which arts are meant, to mean a specific and regular group of arts? In all of the examples given, there is context: the humanities, an artists' colony, an architectural institute.  I don't believe that the phrase is synonymous with "fine arts", or any other identifiable subset.  Its meaning always seems to depend on the context in which it is used.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added two more cites that are not of the form "X and the allied arts", and am calling this one cited. Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)