Talk:Communist chic

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Communist state#Former communist states|former]] The anchor (#Former communist states) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Removal of comparison of nazi chic and communist chic[edit]

the journalist raises a valid questin an offers reasonable explanations. therefore disagerree withte deletion. please explain why youthink it is undue weight. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the other journalists had/have a short sentence describing their views while this one in particular had a whole paragraph, i first attempted to shorten it but was unable to while keeping the point intact, if you could find a way to shorten the point to the length of the other journalists (or alternatively lengthen those of the others) it would be greatly appreciated! Corinal (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not a valid reason for deletion of of nontrivial referenced observation. Nowhere in wikipedia is required that quotations must be of comparable length. If you think that more text may be written on other references pleaase expand the article. decreasing the article is against the spirit of wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim quotations needed to be of similar length however the quotation goes into inordinate detail compared to other quotations, that being said if you'd like to expand upon the other quotations along with the one in question that'd be great! Corinal (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a valid answer based on wikipedia guidelines. The quote does not go into inordinate detail. You said yourself it cannot be shortened. And it explains an important aspect related to totatitarian "chics" and it goes precisely into level of detail to cover this. if you'd like to expand upon the other quotations along with the one in question that'd be great! 16:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: I'm a supporter of WP:BRD so see nothing wrong with reverting until consensus is formed. There does appear to be a bit of imbalance with that long paragraph from a single source (the 6 Sept edit comparing to Nazi chic) which was nearly 60% of the article by wordcount – making it the article's main thrust. However, I'm not sure that the spirit of WP:WEIGHT guidelines are meant to be applied to stubs which need expansion in all aspects. I ask myself: Would the paragraph be acceptable in a longer article? Does the subject have the potential for considerable expansion? I believe the answers to both are 'yes'. As a matter of practicality – if the article is actively undergoing expansion – I feel that it's inevitably going to have some momentary weight/balance issues, and that these issues will largely resolve themselves as material continues to be added. I also personally find it's easier to "go big" an add lots of material, paring it down only after achieving broad coverage of the subject (the paragraph in question could be stated more succinctly, but I feel such action may be premature at this time). If, however, the weight issues are felt to significantly impact neutrality (which is policy), then the solution would be to work on the expansions in a sandbox and move it to the article once editors are agreed that it is ready. The main problem with multiple-editor sandboxing is that someone would have to merge the edit history of the sandbox with that of the article in order to preserve attribution. So as an eventualist I just feel it's simpler to work on it in the mainspace. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]