Talk:Architecture

Semi protected

This article has attracted a fair amount of vandalism so I have semi protected it for a month. I noted that the article was protected in 2009 and 2008, so it may need indefinite protection. SilkTork *^YES! 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

critique of the Architecture article

HIST406-10cpaho1 Article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture Critique link:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architecture&action=edit&section=new Overall, I think that the article was well written. There are no grammatical errors, and the author seems to have separated each relevant topic in its sub category. This method of organization allows the reader to obtain brief information about the topic, but also gives them the ability to read more about a specific topic they may be interested in which may be, the definition of architecture, the theories, the history, or contemporary architecture. As far as the sources used in this article, they are complete because each category illustrations can be related to some of the sources used. For instance, the history of architecture category illustration can be traced to the medieval times and the author does have sources to support his points, which makes his illustration useful and accurate to the readers. The article hasn’t been marred by frivolous or spurious contribution because every main point is relevant to the topic and is accurate. As compared to other articles in other encyclopedia such as the Columbia encyclopedia, I think that the sources there are more credible because they are not only strictly related to architecture, but the authors of those sources historians who seem to have specialized in each category or illustration of architecture listed in the article. In conclusion, I think that the article is well written but could use a substantial amount of architecture historians sources to make the argument more credible to the audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10cpaho1 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading this article please come visit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardman123 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Further critique: I made some minor edits, adding dates and architect name blue links to photo captions in the 'History' section of the article. In the process, I noticed what are (to me) some problems with the writing and organization of the article. In general, the section's organization needs to agree with the 'History of Architecture' article. Here's a list, along with proposals for corrections:

• Subsection:Origins and the ancient world. Ankgor Wat is Asian, and not a good example of ancient architecture (see the date). I'd like to replace the photo with something from Egypt, as mentioned in the text.
• Subsection:Origins and the ancient world. Asian architecture could have its own section (perhaps including Ankgor Wat); Asian and European periodization don't match up.
• Subsection:The medieval builder. The term medieval is difficult to apply outside of Europe. A date range would be better. Classical is not medieval. The Taj Majal is not a good example of purely Islamic architecture.
• Subsection:The medieval builder. The entire last paragraph in incorrect. The Greeks and/or Romans built all of these things.
• Subsection:Renaissance and the architect. Definition of 'Renaissance'; citation and/or revision needed.
• Subsections, Early modern and the industrial age and following: No citations until last paragraph of 'Architecture Today'.
• Subsection:Modernism and reaction of architecture. 'Fallingwater' is not a good example of modernism. Wright is not mentioned in the text.

Comments on these suggestions are welcome here. I'd like to hear other opinions before proceeding with edits. WCCasey (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Architecture → Architecture (building) — disambiguation Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Use of the term for computer-related things was based on the term for building. The use for buildings is the original and basic meaning of the term. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose a move per above, but totally Support having a hat note. Architecture is a primary topic (I'd even say a vital article) and merits the Architecture title pointing to this article. But other uses of the word must be linked, and since computer architecture seems to be the only other major use of the term a disambiguation page may be overkill there's no reason at all not to link to the existing disambiguation page. BTW a hatnote is not clutter, is required by Wikipedia style in order to help navigation. Diego Moya (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – Article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Architecture is primary topic. --Elekhh (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)*
• Oppose, this is obviously the primary topic. Powers ^T 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Valid WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - piling it on now. "architecture" gets 146m hits while "computer architecture" gets 1m hits. --Merbabu (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, All other uses of the term architecture stem from this one. Amandajm (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The term architecture is widely used for computer hardware and computer software. Accordingly, there should be disambiguation for the term. I am treating this as controversial because a hatnote was twice reverted. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the disambig notice, do you really believe someone looking for "Computer architecture" would type in "architecture" and then get stuck? (and, Google hits for "architecture" top 146m, and "computer architecture" around 1m). Redundant and unnecessary clutter. --Merbabu (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that I came across the article while researching buildings? A hatnote is not clutter and, in fact, is required by Wiki policy. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a hatnote. It goes to Architecture (disambiguation), which is all "Wiki policy" demands. Powers ^T 12:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That was added recently. Before that, a link to "computer architecture" was added. Note that "Computer architecture" is one of many alternative links on the disambig page. --Merbabu (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case a revert summary explaining that "Computer architecture" was too specific would have been more useful that "so not necessary, just clutter". Just IMHO. Diego Moya (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need for a navigation link to disambiguation page

Architecture is a primary topic and needs a link to the disambiguation page to facilitate navigation according to wp:disambig guidelines. Wikipedia is a hypertext. The only reason argued so far is that it's not necessary (which is the opposite to what guidelines say), superfluous and clutter (which the lean otheruses tag is not). Notice that the purpose of links to disambiguation is not just to avoid confusion between similar concepts, it's also to find those similar concepts if we land in the wrong page. This article can't be a stand-alone island, it needs to link out to comply with the manual of style. Someone looking for Architecture at Wikipedi might want to learn about Landscape architecture, Naval architecture, or Architecture (magazine). The current article would leave those users with the wrong impression that Wikipedia doesn't cover those topics. Diego Moya (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem might have been that a hatnote was added singling out computer architecture and that alone probably would be unnecessary. However, there is an Architecture (disambiguation) page, which includes the magazine named simply Architecture, so a hatnote is needed for that. Station1 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the standard {{otheruses}} hatnote. I agree it doesn't need to be cluttered with anything more specific than that, but the standard link to the dab page is clearly appropriate here, as with any primary-topic page that has an associated "... (disambiguation)" page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the disambig hatnote. I think a hatnote to computer architecture is inappropriate. Amandajm (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Had User:Amandajm or User:Merbabu replaced my hatnote with {{otheruses}}, I would have been perfectly happy. The issue was the removal of the hatnote without adding a more appropriate one. As long as nobody removes the {{otheruses}}, my concerns are satisfied. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So why did it cost so much to make everybody happy?? :-) Diego Moya (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

không gian kiến trúc tác động đến não bộ con người

-không gian kiến trúc tác động tới não bộ con người -chúng ta có nhận biết điều đó không?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.34.72 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC) 118.69.34.72 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)hung209110@yahoo.com

Unclear subsections - History?

The article is not well-organized into clear subsections. The only subsection that I see here is 'History'. People who seek - for instance - for domestic architecture, they can only get an article about House (not one of the best article in Wikipedia). Domestic architecture is listed as one of the three architectural type, the other being religious, governmental, recreational, education, and industrial (as proposed in Britannica), and I don't see this category anywhere in Wikipedia.

If I am allowed, I would reorganized the entire article (which takes time), putting extra careful intention especially on the current wiki definition of architecture (which I think very good) and removing the history subsection to the bottom, and placing a clear category of subsection: 1 USE, 2 TECHNIQUE, 3 EXPRESSION plus 4 THEORY (definition, etc, already there in wiki). This subsection is based on Britannica:

• USE
  • Architectural Type
    • Domestic Architecture (currently linked to House)
      • "Vernacular" architecture
      • "Power" architecture
      • Group housing
    • Religious architecture
      • Temple
      • Shrines
      • Funerary art
    • Governmental architecture
    • Recreational architecture
      • Theater
      • Auditorium
      • Athletic facilities
      • Museum and libraries
    • Architecture of welfare and education
    • Architecture of industry and commerce
  • Architectural planning
• TECHNIQUE
  • Material
  • Method
• EXPRESSION
• THEORY (currently in Architecture#Theory_of_architecture)
• HISTORY(currently in Architecture#History)

I will start placing this category one by one without completely copying that is there in Britannica and place important citations. I have some nice architecture books e.g. Cornelis van de Ven's Space in Architecture, and all basic architecture books. Please help me regarding this, and make critiques or corrections if necessary --Rochelimit (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the article Outline of architecture, although important as list of available wiki articles, the article is not noticeable, especially for regular browser and not a wiki editor. --Rochelimit (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

No, I don't think rewriting this one is a good idea.

If you look at this article, you will see that

1. it's concise. It covers a great deal in a small package.
2. it's stable. The only changes occur when students shove in the name or pet theory of their teacher. These get deleted unless highly notable.
3. it's consistent. It was put together in the first place in a clear and concise manner. Later additions have accepted the the style and content of the original as a guide.
4. it's well written. It was written, editted, written and editted by a several architectural writers and a couple of very good editors.

• What you are proposing is a large, cumbersome and draws mainly on a particular work.

The article is currently a very succinct treatment of a huge topic. It indicates changing attitudes, perceptions and goals in architecture, without attempting the sort of scope that you are suggesting.

• What you have written above reads like a very desirable list of links that lead to a series of articles, many of which are already written.
• I presume that you were intending a short paragraph on each section, with a link to the relevant page. I suggest that you create this as a separate page, and then provide links and a See also in this article.
• If you want to really get your teeth into something that desparately needs work, then don't attack an concise, well-expressed article. Go and find the one that needs it! History of architecture is crying out for a total overhaul.

Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What a coincidence...the article History of Architecture IS getting said total overhaul! (I was looking upstream during the overhaul, and found this) Morgan Riley (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of changes by unknown editor

This article has been stable for a long time, having been worked on b a number of teaching architects among others. The changes that you are making affect both the substance and the balance of the article.

• From the intro:

In relation to buildings, architecture has to do with the planning, designing and constructing form, space and ambience that reflect functional, technical, social, environmental, and aesthetic considerations. It requires the creative manipulation and coordination of material, technology, light and shadow. Architecture also encompasses the pragmatic aspects of realizing buildings and structures, including scheduling, cost estimating and construction administration. As documentation produced by architects, typically drawings, plans and technical specifications, architecture defines the structure and/or behavior of a building or any other kind of system that is to be or has been constructed.

You removed : ambience that reflect functional, technical, social, environmental, and aesthetic considerations.

You changed this description of the practice of architecture:Architecture also encompasses the pragmatic aspects of realizing buildings and structures, including scheduling, cost estimating and construction administration. to something about considering beauty.

• You added descriptions about style that were highly specific, but described vernacular building rather than "architecture" in England and Spain.
• Too much specific history that relates to the United States in particular. More and more about 20th century architecture, creating an imbalance.
• Frank Lloyd Wright was great but he doesn't need more than one mention.
• The notion of "beauty" was becoming laboured at the expense of other matters.
• Vitruvius, Alberti and so on are dealt with, fully, elsewhere.
• When Italian titles are quoted directly, rather than the English translation of the titles, they are written in sentence case, i.e. only one capital.

This article describes what architecture is. There is another whole article devoted to its history.

Every important architect, theory, building, style and period has its own page and is linked.

The reason I have reverted is not that there isn't some worthwhile changes. It was simply that they were swamped by the other stuff.

As an unnamed editor, you are making a lot of changes to a stable document, without adding any references.

What I wrote to the editor above still holds. The article is currently a very succinct treatment of a huge topic. It indicates changing attitudes, perceptions and goals in architecture. The above editor went away and did a major fix on a really needy article, namely History of architecture. There are a great number of articles around that likewise need urgent attention. This one is balanced and concise. Please leave it that way.

Amandajm (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Political

I removed the word "political" from the introduction. I don't think that more than one building in a thousand is designed to express a political statement. And "cultural" already covers it. Borock (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion that "cultural" subsumes it entirely, though many buildings with civic or governmental functions often have political rationales; for example, the use of Greek & Roman revivals in early Federal era (e.g. the Federal City of D.C. & the Virginia State Capitol) was in-part the desire to invoke the Greek democracy and Roman republicanism, breaking from the Georgian and Federal architectures of the period. Likewise, see the ideas embraced in Fascist architecture of Italy and the NAZI architecture of Germany, and with dispute those of the Soviet Union. But insofar as politics in inseparable from the broader cultural zeitgeist, I still agree that if "political" were separated, the many other facets of cultural would also need to be listed.Morgan Riley (talk)

Yes, there is no question that "Politics" is a significant part of the "cultural". One might argue that architecture as "works of art" is also contained within the "cultural". However, what is meant is quite different. There has been a long tradition of looking at important buildings as "works of Art", i.e. removing them from all cultural context and seeing them purely as objects of beauty, to be analysed in terms of form, mass, space, decoration etc. Amandajm (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)