Talk:Architect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Architecture (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been nominated in the Article improvement drive.

Naval architecture[edit]

Excuse me, I am new to this Wikipedia thing and my special interest is Naval Architecture, does that branch properly belong here under Architect? --Bruce Hallman

New project proposal related to this article[edit]

There is a new project proposal that some of you here may be interested in: Wikibuilder - a knowledge base covering the design and construction of the built environment, in its entirety, in all languages. See meta:Proposals for new projects#Wikibuilder and meta:Wikibuilder for more information, and feel free to add your comments to meta:Talk:WikibuilderChristiaan - 09:40, 18 Jan 2005

Not all architects can be classified in those categories... The stub definition still needs some more info to flesh this out into a proper stub so that the list can be moved to List of notable architects. --maveric149
I think the convention is (correct me if I missed something) that the name of the profession (architect, dramatist, etc) is a brief intro and then a list of people in that category, rather than needing a list titled List of notable architects which seems cumbersome.

--David Levinson

That's not the convention, that's just the way things start. One could write a great deal on any profession and the quasi-convention is to have lists named lists. Lists are not encyclopedic and the only place these lists would be linked is from the article on the profession anyway. For example, if someone were reading an article about Frank Lloyd Wright that said he was an architect, the natural thing for that person to expect upon clicking on the link to the article "architect" would be an article explaining what an architect is, not a list. A list does not an article make. Furthermore, lists should not be named as if they were articles -- that is, unless the only thing on that page is a list. Lists are also inherently plural so having them on a properly named (read: singularized) page title is counter-intuitive and confuses newcommers about our naming conventions. Unfortunetely, most of the profession articles are little more than just lists so moving the list (the only real content of the page) at this time doesn't make sense until a proper stub for the profession article can first be made (breaking things up is also another quasi-convention around here). Sorry, I'm always looking ahead about 20 steps in the process, cross-checking those changes with established conventions and working-through exceptions. In this process I often fail to explain my reasoning for doing the first few steps. Cheers! --maveric149, Wednesday, May 29, 2002

Link suggestions[edit]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Architect article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Architect}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not mention the Architect from the Matrix?[edit]

"The Architect" from the Matrix movies oughtta be referenced here ... You know, the one that said, "Ergo" and "vis-a-vie" alot? I'm not really that good at writing encyclopedias ...

Because it's not an appropriate topic for this article. - UtherSRG 19:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

no no no - I was searching for "Architect Matrix Character" and this page came up. I'm thinking of a bit of a redirect thingy thatz all. Under "See also". i'm new at Wikipedia. I'm from h2g2.

The article you are looking for is here: Architect (Matrix character). -CobaltBlueTony 19:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
... and is accessible from Architect page via the link at the top.mikka (t) 20:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Professional qualification[edit]

User:69.3.117.220 wrote: One aspect of this profession, however, is that architects do not evaluate a building's success or the work of their peers by those qualities which require professional credentials--such as a building's safety or the public's well being. Instead, prestigous awards are based on a building's visual, artistic or cultural qualities. Unlike publications for professionals such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, the official publication of the American Institute of Architects can be easily understood by a bright lay person, as most of the content is simply fashionable imagery.

I have to vehemently disagree with this statement. Are you only reviewing cutesy, pretty periodicals that come off of the newsstand? Or are you a professional with some sort of justification?

I have to think that you are the former, because all of the architects I have worked for have been architectural engineers, bound by their clients to produce a safe structure. Structures' benefits to the well-being of the public is a highly subjective point to try to summarily evaluate, and everyone will have a different feeling about it.

Our society's letigious nature seems to preclude too many grave errors going so unnoticed so as to justify a statement such as yours. If you have a serious problem with the well-being of those affected by structures in your area, then be present at the pulic meetings in which these builders must answer questions like this and others before granting permission for them to erect said structures.

- CobaltBlueTony July 7, 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Re: Professional Qualification[edit]

Thank you CobaltBlueTony for your comments. Unfortunately, you assumed incorrectly.

First, it is my understanding that wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you are some sort of self-appointed judge, jury and editor-in-chief, please notify those in charge of the wikipedia project so that others don't waste their time and so that the public won't be misled into believing the effort to represent some sort of concensus opinion or broad group effort.

Second, many professions have legitimate controversies within them, and I find your procilivity to edit other people's work because you think you are "right" to be highly offensive and grossly disrespectful. It is typical of the sort of snotty, upper crust, stuffed shirt, blowhard mentality of which this profession needs to divest itself, no?

Third, I am a professional architect, licensed in the litigious USA and have been working in and around the profession for many years, but agree that there may, in fact, be some regional variations in practices, viewpoints and conventions around the world. Since this encyclopedia is intended for public consumption, however, I think it is worth including some perspective that is slightly broader than the way a narrow segment of the profession in one part of the world chooses to narrowly portray, (mis)understand and (mis)represent itself.

Fourth, the "cutesy, pretty periodicals" that I am referring to are available only to industry professionals and are delivered to my mailbox. Architectural Record is the "Official Publication" of the American Institute of Architects, and I, frankly, am embarrassed and disgusted by the gross idiocy and blatant promotional aspect of its content. Nevertheless, I think it accurately reflects the mindset of its professional readers.

Fifth, if you would like to engage in some discussion about appropriate content for this entry, or the way certain thoughts have been organized or presented, I would welcome your input so that we can arrive at content that is mutually agreeable. On the other hand, I could easily challenge some of the basic premises here and find grounds for deletion of your sincere efforts. At this point, I will show some respect, excercise restraint and refrain from so doing.

For example: Architecture isn't really "science", is it? Science uses an investigative methodology to establish facts (or generally accepted principles of nature), usually by research. Name one Pritzker-Prize winning architect that has had a single research paper published in a scientific journal. Have you or any of your employers ever published a research paper in a scientific journal? Name a Law of Architecture, such as "Corbusier's Law" that is actually true and that serves as a foundation for further research, investigation or discussion. Books of architecture ARE cutesy and pretty and are usually sold in the same stores as are books of art, not books of science or engineering.

Sixth, as you point out, all of the "architects" you have worked for are actually engineers, and engineering is a decidedly different profession and has a different emphasis. Personally, I have never worked for an architect that did not shield their practice from litigation by hiring qualified engineers to perform often difficult and complex structural analyses required for seismic safety. Suing an architect in the USA is actually a complicated issue--no matter how bad their work product is--because it can give rise to much more (economically) damaging suits from the construction contractor as a result. As in, "See? The design and the drawings were so bad the client even sued his own consultant--that's why the roof leaked!" So clients tend not to go there, and architects tend to hire "specialists" for absolutely everything that lets them get away with gross breaches of professional ethics. But I digress.

Mr. Tony, I would be most appreciative if you would kindly restore the material that you edited and engage in some constructive dialog as to how the concepts I expressed can be reasonably included in the brief space available, because I believe they factually supportable. If you don't believe they are factually supportable, please provide some parameters or threshold so that other participants may be able to evaluate whether or not my arguments persuasively address your objections and concerns. I would be interested in comments from others as well.

Thank you very much.

Seldomly

afka User:69.3.117.220

afka
  The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to present every single point of view. A main article, such as this is, is not intended to present points of view. In fact, upon reviewing Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, many editors will conclude that your acrimonious, divisive statements do not belong in this article at all. I agree that the AIA definitely has its own agenda, and that there are many architects out there that do not view as their own responsibility many results of their own process. However, there are architects and architectural engineers (licensed as architects as well) who are involved in continuing education, and employ engineers, not as consultants, but as members and even partners of their firms. Your statements are pejorative without sufficient evidence to support them; such information is not meant to be part of a main article. I would suggest collecting your evidence, facts, resources, etcetera, and write an article about this particular topic with the most neutral point of view that you can muster. Or, find an editor who can do this for you if you find it difficult to separate your conclusions about the facts, which obviously come from your personal attachment to the issue. Objectivity is crucial in Wikipedia, and I gather from your words that this might prove to be difficult to you. - CobaltBlueTony 02:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Tony, I retracted a long-winded rant. Instead, I made some minor revisions to the entry for two purposes: One is to acknowledge the long-established role of the architect in aesthetic decisions; the other to include the fact that architects actually make decisions. I believe this strengthens the aspect of "involvement", acknowledges realities within the profession about aesthetics, and does so in a constructive manner. If you would still like supporting references, I would refer you to the very long discussion in the entry on Architecture, and would welcome any comments about the edit I made, including substance, grammar, and syntax. Thanks for your input. --Seldomly 04:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Scott Sutherland School[edit]

Why is the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture mentioned in the list of Schools of Architecture (I am assuming this is the Scott Sutherland School in Aberdeen, Scotland)? Which notable Architects has it produced? --Cactus.man 20:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Notable Schools of Architecture[edit]

This section needs to be edited to remove the city links, and replace them with links to the schools located in them, as per what I think was the intent. Berlin's Technical University of Berlin could be done right now, but the other schools do not appear to have articles, at lest in English. Moreover, where are notable schools from other countries? I like the intent of theis section, but it needs real attention. - CobaltBlueTony 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be good to develop some sort of dialogue for what constitutes "notable" to prevent budding architecture students everywhere from just listing their own schools. May be someone with way more motivation than I have right now can rewrite the section in terms of the development of architecture as a profession and an academic fields, noting the "hotspots" along the way. (That is, as a text instead of a list.) For example, a discussion on the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in the 1800s (formation of the professional arch. school), MIT in the late 1800s/early 1900s (role, as the first professional school in the U.S., in legitimizing architectural practice as a profession), Harvard & IIT in the 1930s-50s (introduction of Gropius & Mies and Modernism in the academic context to the U.S.), Berkeley & the AA in the 1960s (creation of the 4+2 BA/M.Arch system and Archigram, respectively), Princeton & Cooper Union in the late 1970s-1980s (pedagogical innovation, Education of an Architect), Columbia and Sci-Arc in the 1990s (rise of formalism, implementation and influence of new computer tools, conceptual refocusing), etc., would be much more valuable than a list of every vaguely recognizable arch school in the world. - Gku 20:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Australian professional body[edit]

An edit has been made to the Australian section which suggests that Australian architects belong to RIBA, not a local body. I haven't reverted this because it could for all I know be right, but it certainly sounds unlikely - can someone with certain knowledge comment and change if necessary? Barnabypage 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian architects generally belong to the AIA Australian Institute of Architects, but there are other architect bodies in Australia & none of them are British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.29.132 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ExSqueeze me, why do we care[edit]

What archiotects say? Do we all klisten to accountants? Why are Architects the wiosdom and all philospohy of the world. Surely the Real Esatate developers whose money and resources these arhcitects use to foist their views are more important that the architetcs themselves? Chivista 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, no need to comment here! JoeConsumer 11/30/06

Great... a heading quoting Wayne's World and a very, very clever statement (that's sarcasm, by the way- hence the two "very"s) . Why if this fellow is not already an architect (or more likely, architecture student) he should consider Law school.

There's Some Here for Everyone[edit]

Since Vitruvius covers instruments of war in his Ten Books on Architecture, naval architecture arguably bears intrinsic value in the art of designing and the science of building.

De facto, to suggest that architectural awards are given based on cultural qualities is to at once give credence to the idea that safety and the public's well-being are intrinsically rooted in their being given. The reigning professional body in the profession, the AIA, states it is the architect's prime responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. In affixation of construction documents with the architect's seal, he or she is swearing oath that the building will inherently serve these functions. As such, any award given to an architect in recognition of a building for which he or she "stamped drawings" is at once an award given on the merit of the building's safety and concern for the public's well being. Thereby, an award honoring a "safe" building would in effect undermine that which is inherently expected of the architect from the outset.

While I believe the nature of mainstream contemporary architectural periodicals (or any mainstream periodical for that matter) lends itself almost entirely to senseless promotion through advertisement and bias (perhaps even moreso than other professional periodicals) there is some recompense in the fact that these periodicals do for the architectural profession what medical and legal periodicals presumably do for their respective professions: discuss those issues related to the field that will strengthen circulation, that is to say, prevailing mainstream issues of the day. If one's issue is with the material between the covers of such magazines as Architectural Record (which is open to any and all willing to pay the subscription price, not solely those in the profession) perhaps it isn't the magazine that should be indicted but the architect's acceptance of what has been deemed "good" architecture, in other words, the reason contemporary mainstream architecture has achieved such noble status. Furthermore, what sets other professional periodicals apart from those concerning themselves with design is the mere fact that they discuss topics (current events, health or leagal issues, politics, social themes, etc.) that are more imminent. That is to say, health, law, news, and politics shape the ethereal world in which we live in a deeper, more intrinsic, and arguably more important way than the buildings in which we live. In architecture there is no human necessity which extends beyond a roof and four walls. The situation isn't as simple when discussing these other issues.

As a second-year professional and a graduate from a classical architecture school, it seems pretty clear to me how one ought to diagnose and treat the embattled profession.

Blackwell 582 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Structural engineering article[edit]

This might just be me, but I feel that the article is better served by defining what an architect is, rather than what an architect is not. I removed the paragraph as it seems to belong on an article describing the profession of engineering. beekman 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

schools of architecture[edit]

why isn't Taliesin (Frank Lloyd Wright's own school) not on the list of "Notable Architecture schools"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.6.143.157 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

schools of architecture[edit]

why isn't Taliesin (Frank Lloyd Wright's own school) not on the list of "Notable Architecture schools"? 64.6.143.157 14:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) phil@rawfoods.com

Because Taliesin follows a unique course of study that has never caught on elsewhere; while Taliesin is well-known, no other significant schools have emulated their methods. That is the criterion for notability in the context of this list. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

question[edit]

overall, how many years of college/interning/etc. would it take to become an architect?

In the UK[edit]

3 years to a degree (RIBA Part I) followed by 12 months in practice (earning, not a freebie), then 2 years diploma (RIBA Part II) followed by a further year in practice and a practice examination (RIBA Part III). (There are variations on this - but 7 years total.) If you train in any other EU or EEA country, you only need the eqivalalent of RIBA Part II to qualify. (Work that one out!) Salisian 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UK note - you can get a B.Arch as a first degree or a second degree - depending on which university you study at. And some first degrees are more than 3 years. Ammended accordingly. 172.201.177.77 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

there are just a coouple of points i would like to contribute, 1. to my knowlege the system in the uk does not require any degrees, it is dependant on passing the criteria the RIBA set but the ARB check. Now most courses are riba acreditied so when you get your degree or MA or Dip you automatically gain part 1 or 2. 2. it is not a requirement to gain 1 years experience between part 1 and part 2 or to even work for an architects.You can work for up to 6 months in the construction industry or at a journal etc. it is only a requirement of part 3 that you have 24 months logged experience, not part 2 or 1, the reasons for people assuming that you do have to have a years experience in practice are because; you used too but the rules changed, most universities state it as requirement to get into their part 2 course and it is the quickest way to qualify. sorry i am very dylexic and not really sure my consice writing skills are up to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.163.35 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In the US[edit]

Since the IP resolves to Texas, I'll add (even though it's been a while):

Four years to an undergraduate degree plus two years for M.Arch., or five years of undergraduate to a B.Arch., plus three years (two in some states) internship with a registered architect, then a licensing exam. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of editing here[edit]

Why have there been more than 500 edits to the article this year? I am wondering about all those edits. Why were they necessary?StatesmanVelocicaptor 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Please answer my question.

Speaking from the experience of having the article on my watchlist for the past couple of months, I'd say that at least 220 of them have been vandalism edits by students researching careers; 220 more were reverts of said vandals. That would leave about 60 legitimate edits, which seems reasonable for a high-profile (but mature) article. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not examine the edits. Thank you for explaining why the total number of edits is so great.StatesmanVelocicaptor 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Look at what is currently the lead sentence of the article. An absolute horror show. Someone from Kathmandu, on hashish I'm guessing? 71.176.227.26 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite right - I've changed it. You can change it yourself if you prefer - just click the "Edit" tab at the top of any page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Nations?[edit]

There is good information on qualification requirements in the US, Canada, Singapore, the UK and Australia - can anyone provide qualification information from other nations? Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how up to date it is, but try UIA/COAC research. Salisian 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That's awfully useful - I'll see what I can extract. This sort of thing doesn't change very quickly, so I doubt it's too out-of-date, and in any case, it would be a useful link. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This article obviously concentrates on English-speaking jurisdictions. But a brief (very brief!) overview of others might be interesting- perhaps some editors can translate from other language Wikipedias?Dionix (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


What about "design babes"? This article makes no mention of the usually hot chicks that work in the profession.

Architecture has a fairly low number of women working in it, so would be interested in any evidence to support this... 172.201.177.77 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-Try looking for data from or articles based on the annual AIA Salary Survey - it typically includes data on the gender gap.ITABWODI (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please people![edit]

Please try to keep this talk page coherent and readable by a) using ==Topic== as your question topic, remembering to sign your comments with four tildes and indent with : your answers. If everyone adds a bunch of horizontal rules, <big>-tags and bold formatting here and there this page turns incomprehensible and messy to read. By using the topic wikisyntax your question will be listed in the table of contents automatically. Learn from other people's wikisyntax and try to keep it clear and simple. --piksi (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Salaries: comparisons[edit]

In terms of the comparisons listed in this article, I don't think it's realistic to say the median salary of a university professor in the US is 50K. For beginning assistant professors, salaries are closer to 60K in humanities fields---higher in the sciences, law, business, etc. I know this since I was on the job market this year and did extensive research into the subject. Minarees25 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find proper sources, go ahead and update the information. In my opinion the whole salary & education section needs an overhaul as we just can't add a subentry for each country (it will eventually need a separate article for both salary and education, it's messy already as it is). Besides, imo the whole article should be clarified and polished, part of it is from an US POV only and part is quite general and hazy. --piksi (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that data the comes from the US Department of Labor and are just *averages* that likely have a very wide standard deviation. Professorships I'm sure widely vary in pay based on the school's location and prestige, a community college in Nebraska will pay differently than an Ivy League. Most people in architecture that I know that make $60k are junior level (e.g job captains, designers, etc.) - the actual architects /PMs are in the $80 to $120k range, but I also work in an large urban area as well.

structural design for architects[edit]

For every building projects, architects need a civil engineer to do the structural design. Some exemples of structural design : http://structural-design-for-architecture.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.7.97 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Picture of an Arcitect, Arcetects have been on mostly computers for 15 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.154.88 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

An architect is trained and licensed in planning and designing buildings, and participates in supervising the construction of a building.

Change to An architect is trained and licensed in the planning and designing of buildings with unproven designs, and participates in supervising the construction of a building.

This as building designs which are proven to work and which have already been used in other buildings don't need to be verified yet again by an architect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.191.64 (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

They do in have to be verified North America - every building that is not a one or two-family dwelling or an agricultural structure must be certified by an architect and/or engineer, depending on the jurisdiction. There is no provision for repeat design of an existing design, largely due to significant differences between regional code modifications and climatic or geological effects. Any modification to the definition must take care to distinguish between regional practices, and I am wary of introducing a statement that may apply only to Belgium, or at most to the EU. There is room to discuss such regional variations in the subsections on national differences. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It may be worth expanding the definition a bit, though, to make it clear that architects are not only involved in the construction of new buildings from scratch - they also work on extensions, adaptations, conservation, etc. etc. etc.

An architect (or sometimes an engineer or surveyor may suffice) is required for any construction anywhere in the EU, probably moreso than in North America. An architect seals the submissiom and then an architect provides construction oversight (not always the same architect). I don't know where this misunderstanding about Belgium came from. It doesn't matter if it's a repeated design.

I think the author meant that architects are not really required if the person wishing to construct a house does this by simply taking a model that is certain to work (thus by completely taking over an already drawn and frequently used complete design). For example, several Turnkey models are already proven to work. As such, architects are only required to draw out models of constructions that really need to be handmade, ie hydropower plants, ... where the shape of the waterway also determines the shape of the building. However dwellings, ... do not need to be drawn out yet again by architects. Instead, a certified model can simply be used.

Add this info to the article. KVDP (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Words architect and architecture as metaphor[edit]

The concept "architect" is widely used as a metaphor just like any other word (architects of war, Devil's advocate etc). Similarily the concept "architecture" is used as metaphor. It should be clear that when used as metaphor there is a plethora of uses for any word.

Anyhow, the use as a metaphor should not be mixed with the actual use and the explanations in disambiguation should also not mix the actual use. If the metaphorical use and the actual use of words is mixed any human communication will be difficult to comprehend.

Theaslak (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC), Finland

And licensed?[edit]

I've checked several dictionaries and none of them include this criteria in their definitions, here for instance, the article already discusses that most jurisdictions require architects to be licenced to use the title professionally so I don't think it's necessary or 100% accurate to use this in the opening sentence as an inherrent defining property. What about historically for instance, were the architects of the great pyramids registered and licensed, the Taj Mahal, the palaces of europe? Also, the 'most' suggests 'but not all'.121.72.156.31 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, the lead should be changed accordingly. --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary definition and jurisdiction's legal title are not necessary the same thing. To be an architect, one must be licenced as such in the vast majority of places. The title and the practice are protected- to varying degrees- much like a notary cannot call him/herself a lawyer or "practice law". In some places, one doesn't need to be an architect to "practice architecture"- but that is really the exception. I'm reverting the lead. Homo architectus (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but no. The lead is to define what the subject is & being licensed is not a defining quality to the term. The fact that you need to be licensed or that the title has special legal protection in differing jurisdictions in modern times (to different degrees and of different types) should be covered somewhere else in the body of the article and indeed is (also look at the use of the word in Intern Architect). Just as any other profession where in differing contexts you might need to be licensed, such as a physician, or anything that requires a license in a particular jurisdiction like a restaurant.121.72.133.108 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree with the comment from 121.72.133.108 and 121.72.156.31 (maybe they the same person?). A simple and effective solution would be to delete paragraph 2 completely and incorporate its contents into the body of the article i.e. paste it into the section 'Professional Requirements'. The paragraph seems to be written from a 20th/21st century US perspective and is not generic to the term 'Architect'. Sionk (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

use of the term "architect"[edit]

It needs to be noted in this article taht use of the term "architect" in the IT profession is not only illegal in most state but in many counties around the world. The following statement is incorrect and missleading.

The terms architect and architecture are also used in the disciplines of landscape architecture, naval architecture and often information technology (for example a software architect). In most of the world's jurisdictions, the professional and commercial uses of the term "architect", outside of the etymological variants noted, is legally protected.

Ive attempted to make this change but it seems the common use of the word in the IT industry has clouded peoples view and they insist on ignoring the actual truth and legality of it. I propose any reference to IT or the computer industry in this article be removed. Unless anyone objects here, I am removing it again next week at this time. Here is one of many articles article about it and if you doubt what I am saying please look up your states law on it. http://blog.aia.org/aiarchitect/2007/03/whats_in_a_name.html It is my position that Wikipedia should be about the truth and not just about comon perception ThanksJerry20112011 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've written on your talk page, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and a blog entry is not a suitable reliable source for your attempts to change the use of the word architect on Wikipedia. This change is highly unlikely to gain WP:CONSENSUS, which is what you will need in order to make it. You don't have such consensus - not here, not on your talk page, and not on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. Until you achieve a consensus that somehow bypasses the real-world fact that the word architect is commonly - indeed, widely - used in other contexts, your change will not be allowed to remain.  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the issue, being an architect myself, but like Frank, I suggest that you look for better sources than an AIA blog, preferably with a worldwide scope. I've never heard of anyone who faced litigation over the use of a term like "software architect" - I doubt many people would consider hiring one to design their house, nor do "information architects" offer such services. If a licensing organization has brought such action I'd think it'd have appeared in the news. The laws in question are about fifty years behind the English language, and while I find it personally irksome when the term is misused, I'm not convinced Wikipedia is the place to fight back against the use or misuse of "architect." Last week Barack Obama was described as the "architect" of some policy or other - do you think the newspaper was abusing the term? I think you're swimming against the tide of linguistic change. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


So Ive offered real fact from stated law websites, Ive offered multiple articles from Microsoft website and the official AIA website (though its mentioned in a blog that sites law!!!!) Yet We will promote the missuse of a term because its common? Frank et al please name a source you will not dispute as it seems actual law means nothing to you....Jerry20112011 (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources you've quoted are careful to frame the term with respect to building design and construction. Can you provide a specific instance where the use of "systems architect", "information architect" or the like has ever been disputed in any formal way? The blog you quote entirely contradicts your edits. Wikipedia isn't the place to fight this battle. I'm actually sympathetic to your position, but if you're goig to selectively quote sources or just plain misquote them, and edit-war to keep it in your preferred version against consensus, I'm going to have to insist that you stop. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Jerry - you really need to read the linked policies which explain how Wikipedia works and what policies apply. As you've been told elsewhere, edit-warring is not going to get you what you want, and in fact is likely to get you blocked.  Frank  |  talk  14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding sources that we will "not dispute", I suggest you read WP:RS for more details on that. Blogs, self-published sources (including Microsoft) and primary sources rarely qualify. And, the thing about law is that it's not the last word on many subjects. If you read the U.S. Constitution as it was originally enacted, and as it stood for decades, women could not vote, nobody directly voted for U.S. Senators, and, most unfortunate of all, an entire group of people was marginalized by law. If I tried to claim that the law states that women cannot vote in the U.S., I would be properly reprimanded; if I tried to say "but it's the law and here's the citation", I'd be reprimanded even more strongly. I'm not saying the laws you are citing are no longer in effect, so I understand the situation is slightly different, but you see, WP:V and WP:RS are really what apply. We are NOT expected to interpret law; that's why we use secondary and tertiary sources. Yes, it's true that many jurisdictions around the world regulate the professional use (and attempted mis-use) of the term architect. No, we are not going to stop using it to describe similar activities that people do as a daily part of their professional lives and advertising. In addition, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the topic is covered in an entire article dedicated to it: professional requirements for architects.  Frank  |  talk  14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I side with Acroterion on this, I believe Jerry is correct in the most rigid sense. At least in most of N. America and Europe (not sure about elsewhere, but I would guess this is the case in most developed places) the exemptions to the title's protection do not include "software architect". In Canada, for example, the Architect's Act lays out the rules, and an excerpt from the Act in British Columbia clearly notes that the title is protected except in the case of Naval Architects and Landscape Architects [1]. It makes no mention of "software architect" or anything else for that matter. Nonetheless, we all agree the term "software architect" is very common in the IT world, and the stance of the regulating bodies is to tolerate the term so long as there can be no confusion in the eyes of the public. I can probably source this this, but in due course (no time soon!). By the way, in Canada there is a network of mortgage brokers called the "Mortgage Architects" [2]. Again, although illegal under the Act- this is tolerated by the regulating bodies because there can be no confusion as to the services they offer.Homo architectus (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Citations Anyone?[edit]

There seems to be a paucity of citations for such a large article. Methinks a 'Refimprove' box is required. Anyone else agree? Sionk (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. An Architect is a person that does more than devise concepts for buildings. --173.69.135.105 (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Room for improvement[edit]

Apart from the dire lack of sources, there are a number of key aspects to the article that are still missing, in my view. The article currently dwells in great detail on the role of modern (C20th/C21st?) architects in developed countries.

I've begun to expand the section on 'Origins', but it is a drop-in-the-ocean so far. The rise of the profession of architecture, hand-in-hand and later separately from the master masons and craftsmen, seems a fairly key aspect to improve.

Secondly, the rise of architectural education could be covered in more depth ...well, at least covered. For example the Grand Tours that architects used to educate themselves in classical fashions of the day (C18th?). Followed by the rise of education and qualification at university (C19th).

It's a struggle to find good sources, but they must be out there somewhere! Sionk (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, agree that the article is unbalanced in terms of undue weight on 20th century and slightly US-centric. In terms of citation, I don't think generic tags help much, is better to place inline citation request if statements are reasonably questionable. This seems to be the book we need. --ELEKHHT 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)