Talk:List of architecture firms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Architecture (Rated List-class, Low-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Yellow Pages[edit]

Wikipedia as a Yellow Pages?

Hardly, we are not listing addresses and phone numbers here. -- œ 04:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing individual architects[edit]

Should we really have people like Jean Nouvel and Santiago Calatrava listed here? Obviously, they have employ other people, and therefore have a firm behind them, but every architect working on projects larger than a loft conversion does. The only logical exception I think of is when we have separate articles for the firm as opposed to the individual, ie Office for Metropolitan Architecture to Rem Koolhaas, or Foster and Partners. Maccoinnich 13:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, no one objected, so I did it... Maccoinnich 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

P & T Architects (Parmer and Turner)[edit]

Palmer and Turner built most of the famous buildings on the Bund: the HSBC Building, the Peace Hotel, the Yokohama Specie Bank, the Bank of China Building, etc. Yet there isn't a page on them. Does anyone know anything about this firm and what became of them? --Sumple (Talk) 10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I find myself[edit]

more and more wanting to make this a list of firms in wikipedia (blue) as opposed to a list of every firm in the universe (red). So towards that end I am psychologically and emotionally preparing myself to go in a DELETE all the red ink i see. Any thoughts on the subject? Carptrash 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This (and every other such list of companies/firms) should be a list of notable companies and firms. If they are notable, they should have a Wikipedia article. If a firm doesn't have an article, write it first (an article that survives afd), then list it here. I'll go ahead and remove every redlink and weblink/spamlink now. Shanes 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So, with the blue laws in effect, I am deleting the most recent entry. Carptrash 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, obviously, you are not an architect: Gensler and EHDD are both large firms who have produced many noteable projects. What is the use of an encyclopedia if there is now room for growth? Not everyone has time to write epic articles; this is why red links are usefull since they focus attention on articles that do not exist yet. I used to start such articles, but I am highly put off the the negativity and air of exclusivity that I find on wikipedia. Good luck with your project. 69.226.221.113 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You obviously are an architect [well, perhaps a doctor] if you find an "air of exclusivity" in a place that will allow pretty much anyone in the world to edit it. So . ... since you are not registered, where/how would i begin to search for the articles that you've started? Clicking on your address [or whatever] shows quite a few edits, but very few, if any, new articles. Carptrash 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Redlinked entries[edit]

I have once again removed all the redlinked entries (except for those with citations) from the list and added a commented-out notice not to add red links to the list (similar to the notice on pages covering a single date, eg January 31). Please do not re-add any entry until its notability has been proven. Best, shoy 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One of main advantages of list articles over mere categories is there ability to have red linked entries. Removing all of them is not desirable. Rmhermen (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as any redlinked entry is accompanied by enough sources to show it meets notability guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I wandered over here from the Village Pump. Red links for articles that should be written are good things that help the Encyclopedia grow. They help a new article not start off as an orphan. They point out holes in coverage, and encourage new editors to realize that the encyclopedia isn't yet complete and still has room for their contributions. Indiscriminately removing all redlinked entries from a list like this isn't a good idea; just as indiscriminately adding every single architecture firm that was just started by 2 guys right out of school last week and hasn't actually designed any buildings yet isn't a good idea. 16:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)