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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
I would dispute that there is such a beast as Regency Architecture. As defined in the article this phenomenon is too vague to qualify as a style. In the Regency period we observe a number of competing styles, palladian, gothic, greek, chinoiserie, and the plain fanciful. Conflating them into a single movement is to make a nonsense out of each of them. There may be a Regency style in interiors, but there is no architectural movement called Regency. Twospoonfuls 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with twospoonsfuls. This is a meaningless heading. The title should be changed to Regency style, which reflects the eclecticism of the period, and should include furniture and objects. Only certain elements in architecture were influenced by the Regency style, which was heavily influenced by the artifacts that travelers brought back with them from trips abroad, England's burgeoning trade, and the spoils of war, such as the Elgin Marbles.Vsanborn (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just fixed lede, and removed non "regency" images. Style is, in fact, faily tightly defined, and is simply the British version of Federal, Biedermeier, and Empire style, as lede states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:UntilItSleeps PublicPC should refrain form removing sourced material without explanation. If Nikolaus Pevsner says so, the material should stay unless discussion agrees on a consensus to remove. However, the article does need significant expansion and more sources. I will not add some.Historicist (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
