Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcginnly (talk | contribs) at 10:42, 10 September 2007 (→‎Temporary page for WikiProject Engineering created). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconArchitecture Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Error?

When you click edit in the section of Participants it goes to edit section 36, when it actually is supposed to go to section 31. --Parker007 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Parker, I've fixed it for now. The problem was the new article announcements are transcluded into the project page - each section header in the transclusion (January 2007 December 2006 etc) was being read as a section header within the main page. I've just removed all section headers from the new article announcements for now, but perhaps a knowledgeable code bunny can work out a more elegant solution. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 12:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander "Greek" Thomson images

Would anyone mind putting in their opinion, either way, on the debate at Talk:Alexander Thomson. We're clearly not getting anywhere. Maccoinnich 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Architectural missing topics

Could anyone have a look at my page about missing architectural topics? I've tried to find any obvious redirects but I'm still not sure about the rest - Skysmith 12:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

New template for architectural practice

I've just created a new infobox for architectural practices, as the one for architects is slightly inappropriate in places. It is, however, closely based on the architect box.

See Template:Infobox Architectural Practice. Please refine, and use it if you think it's useful.

I've tried it out at Bennetts Associates. (Article I created, and not many other editors, so I'm probably not going to annoy anyone by testing it there).

Maccoinnich 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Peer review

A request has been made for Joseph F. Glidden House to undergo a peer review. Please help out at the article's peer review page. Thanks.A mcmurray 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see much feedback on the peer review for the Joseph F. Glidden house. I don't know if that means it shines or not, I got little from the regular peer review as well. Anyway, if no one had anything to add I was going to archive the review and submit it for GA. Of course, if you have something to add, by all means . . . A mcmurray 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New daughter project?

Am interested in a daughter project here involving agricultural buildings and architecture. I have significantly expanded the number of articles in Category:Barns, am looking for collaborators and/or support from WikiProject Architecture. What does everyone think?A mcmurray 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for your life - I'm a bit overcommitted to help I'm afraid though. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be. I just thought the coverage was kind of lacking, maybe a section that just has broad goals such as, improve coverage?A mcmurray 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bots

Rather than bug the people at WP:BOTREQ every time we want the architecture tag adding to a category, It's been suggested I apply for my own bot approval which I've done. It will just add the tags to architecture categories. Does anyone have any objections? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! Warofdreams talk 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! --Matthewcl375 11:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC) :-)

Gabriele Tagliaventi

I removed a deletion proposal (PROD) from Gabriele Tagliaventi ("a main figure of the movement for the European Urban Renaissance and the New Urbanism in Europe"), but it still seems that it may need some assistance from experienced wikipedians, particularly those involved in this project. The author may or may not be identical to the subject, but I don't know how important that is as long as everything can be cited in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I also added a tag for this project (I hope that was OK). Pharamond 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Goan Architecture

Hello. If anyone feels like taking on a small stub project, I've just blanked Goan Architecture as a blatant copyright violation. Perhaps someone from the project has the tools to write a proper stub in its place. It would be sad to just let that article get deleted. Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New articles

There's an experiment at User:AlexNewArtBot to automatically find new articles which are of interest to a specific WikiProject. I've created a ruleset for Sheffield at User:AlexNewArtBot/architecture, and new articles should appear listed at Portal:Architecture/New article announcements. Please feel free to add new keywords to the ruleset (instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot, or ask me, and give feedback on its accuracy. Warofdreams talk 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Access to books (John/Jeffry/Jeffrey Wyattville/Wyatville).

I'm trying to figure out if John and Jeffry's the same person. If anyone here has access to the following books:

  • Lloyd, Thomas; Julian Orbach; Robert Scourfield, The buildings of Wales Pembrokeshire, 2004, p. 462.
  • Newman, John; Nikolaus Pevsner, The buildings of England Shropshire, 2nd edition, 2006, p. 326.
  • Richards, Eric, The leviathan of wealth: the sutherland fortune in the industrial revolution, University of Toronto Press, 1973, ISBN 0710074557, p. 15.

and/or something better, please source Jeffry Wyattville. Ta. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-23t08:23z

NO - they were brothers! John was not as well known as his brother Sir Jeffry, but equally architecturally adapt as well as being a better gardiner. Rgds, - Trident13 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A project related collaboration at NRHP

Check out the new WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Frank Lloyd Wright Collaboration. An effort to expand Wikipedia's coverage of Registered Historic Places designed by this most important architect.

To join the collaboration or help out you can visit the collaboration subpage or the collaboration talk page.

Encouraging cross project participation to be sure. Please consider participating. Thanks. IvoShandor 08:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

When should the architecture tag be added? I saw some being removed with edit summaries stating "not globally important." Then, at the same time, some articles that would seemingly be "not globally important" (but still in some way about architecture, get the tag added by other users. I am just curious as to when to add it to talk pages, I didn't see anything specific about global importance in the project scope. For instance, should DeKalb County Courthouse (Illinois), a current good article, be tagged or not? Thanks ahead of time. : ) IvoShandor 08:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecture articles don't have to be globally important to receive a tag - naturally globally important movements, buildings and architects get a higher rating in the 'importance' field - where have you seen tags removed like that? I think the tag you removed here should be reinstated. The only rule really is 'if it's architecture' it gets a tag. There's a very long standing debate however about what is and what isn't architecture - so it's not always cut and dried - certain structures and buildings aren't architecture, but the distinction is probably subjective. For me, architecture is construction expressed as an 'art' - so if it has some aspirations other than just fulfilling the functions required of it, then it's architecture. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I gotcha. I removed that tag because some other articles had them removed, they were kind of related, so I guess I just assumed . . . I saw some tags on some of the articles I created somewhere, maybe Sycamore Historic District, which, on second look needs to have many of its articles on its list just combined and set up for WP:SUMMARY should it be necessary, I just haven't gotten around to it. I just wasn't sure what to do, and maybe this should be clarified in the scope because I think I saw it happen more than once, to other pages, just on my watchlist, I think (there's about 2100 pages there, so its hard to sort it all out) and if I ever find the diffs I will show you. Anyway thanks. IvoShandor 10:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Moorgate FAR

Moorgate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Category:Year in architecture missing

Just a heads up that I added Category:Year in architecture missing as a subcategory of Category:Years in architecture. This is analogous to Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of work missing. It is meant to be a placeholder category until the appropriate year of construction of the article's structure can be included in the article. I noticed this administrative category was apparently missing in the scheme when I was categorizing a museum article that forgot to include the year of construction. Dugwiki 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Tower house requirements

What does a building have to be/have to be called a tower house? Thanks for any answers --Matthewcl375 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace FAR

Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parthenon FAR

Parthenon has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre

If anyone is interested in helping me bring Chicago Theatre to the WP:GA standards at WP:WIAGA please see the comments on its failed GA Review at its talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with Forbidden City

Hello architects. I've been working on the article Forbidden City recently. Being an amateur enthusiast with no architectural training, I wonder if members of this project could have a look at the article and add/correct facts in the article? Any suggestions for further improvement is also appreciated. --Sumple (Talk) 07:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPChi Collaboration notice

Soon after the clock strikes midnight (UTC) tonight I will update the WP:CHICOTW. This weeks project is a stubification drive that should benefit WP:WPChi, WP:Illinois, WP:NRHP and WP:WPARCH. This week we will be creating stubs for Chicago Landmark which includes about 230 Chicago Landmarks and about a dozen National Historic Landmarks that are not Chicago Landmarks. Only about 25% of the Chicago Landmarks have articles. In order to pursue a WP:FL we need to get at 50-60%. This week I posted stubification instructions Yesterday, I created Old Colony Building (Chicago), Fisher Building (Chicago), McGraw-Hill Building (Chicago), & Victory Monument (Chicago). These were pages that I had earlier discovered had some ambiguities (which you can see by the parenthetical names). These are all examples of what the most basic Chicago Landmark Category:Stub-Class Chicago articles should look like. Stubs can look better than this, but I hope each page will at least look like these. If you get adventurous you may also attempt to add {{Infobox Skyscraper}}, {{Infobox nrhp}}, and some images and take the article to Category:Start-Class Chicago articles. I will be adding such infoboxes in the coming weeks. We would appreciate any assistance you may be able to lend in the stubification drive. If you stumble upon something interesting nominate it for WP:CHICOTW by naming it with a 25 word or less explanation of its import here. Also, list all newly created articles from the stubification drive here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If any of the landmarks is at least 12 stories please add it to Template:Chicago Skyscrapers like I did here. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Louvre

The quality of the article on Louvre had been deteriorating since a couple of months. Help and hints are needed in improving it. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request

Wikipedia:Peer review/Design and construction of the World Trade Center - This article is a subarticle of the main World Trade Center article, and one of a series of articles (see my user page for a list) on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. Before going to WP:FAC, this article can use some folks to look it over and make suggestions. Any help with reviewing the article would be most appreciated. --Aude (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Architecture, engineering and construction

The above article is currently a prod but has some string incoming links. The trouble is it is a stub and needs work. I'll not delete it just yet, but hopefully someone can work out what best to do with it. Steve block Talk 10:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 16:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Leo J. Ryan Federal Building

-- I have nominated the article Leo J. Ryan Federal Building as a Wikipedia:Good articles candidate. If you can review it and either pass it as a Good Article, and/or give a Review on the article's talk page as to how the article can be improved to increase its article quality eventually to Featured Article Status, it would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

  • The article passed, and is now a GA article. I did not know of the specialized Architecture Peer Review, so I put it up for a regular Peer Review, which is at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Leo J. Ryan Federal Building. However, perhaps at a later point in time I could also put it up for a Architecture Peer Review. Any comments on how to improve the quality of the article towards FA status would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Carport Dispute

I dont have much knowledge of Architecture History, but i was interested in reseaching into a long standing dispute regarding the useage of carports in housing designs. So i spent time trying to find anything that may help to resolve this issue and have posted it on the articles for Talk:Walter Burley Griffin and Talk:Carport. Not sure if that resolves it or not, so have posted here for anyone interested into looking further into this that maybe able to help resolve this dispute. Boylo 07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Have found at the archives of the National Library of Austalia a copy of original architectural drawings and a early photo 1910 (probably taken by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin noted) which also shows a carport was designed and built.

architectural drawings

early photo 1910

The discussion continues on Talk:Walter Burley Griffin Boylo 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Casagrande Labs astroturfing

There is an astroturfing campaign coing on regarding Marco Casagrande and his firm, Casagrande Labs. It's been suggested that I ask you to look into some of what's been going on to see what's legit or not. The users in question regarding the campaign are: User:Britisharchitecturefoundation23 User:Martta1 User:OscarHansen User:61.229.181.19 User:61.229.173.79 User:Matthiasmatthias User:Jurefrancetiz User:DrBulthaup User:Chichenshui DarkAudit 03:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tech Tower

My project, WikiProject Georgia Tech, recently improved Tech Tower to FA status. It seems to fall within your project scope, so you may wish to add it to your list of featured project articles and improve on aspects of the article. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The bulletin template

Your bulletin template (and thus the talk pages that it is transcluded too) all seem to be linking to Siege of Malakand for some reason, see here. I can't work out why I can't find any link in the template... SGGH speak! 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Octagons

This discussion concerns two related issues: a) the wikipedia article titled Octagon house ; and b) creation of a category for octagon buildings and structures.

Point "b": As my fellow architects know from architectural history classes, there is a 19th Century (maybe as late as early 20th Century?) architectural movement/fad that centered around the octagon as an organizing concept. Longwood House in Natchez and the Octagon House in Watertown, Wisconsin are probably the largest examples of this, but there are other structures (most notably Midwestern barns) that were part of this. I created a category that linked octagon buildings, along with European buildings that may have provided the genesis for this movement. I was told a building shape was not a good enough reason for a category, and the category was slated for deletion. I think the category could have been more focused (the category should have said "octagon structures", not houses, and it should have been limited to 19th Century American Architecture). I also think some of the criticism was by well-meaning wikipedians who are not architects nor have a background in architecture, and had no idea that the octagon was a 19th Century American movement - much more than a building shape category. (To be succinct, Longwood House in Natchez is notable for it's floor plan and the movement it was a part of; the Parthenon is not notable for being a rectangle.) The category is now deleted. Not being an expert on Wiki-protocol, I did not stand in the way of that. You are the experts. Should there be a category?

Point "a": If other members of this project (Architecture) concur that a category is not appropriate for a 19th Century fad/movement, we still have an article called "Octagon house". However, the article is about the movement - a movement that was as strong in barns as it was in residences and also may include other octagon structures. How do we best identify the movement? Should the article title be changed? (I have started a discussion at that article's page) Should there be a second article on barns and other structures, while keeping the "house' article "as is"? --Baxterguy 14:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting dilemma, because certainly the Octagon house is something of a fad or movement within American residential design. You brought up barns, multi-sided round barns weren't always necessarily octagons, as George Washington's round barn at Mount Vernon demonstrates, but it seems from my reading and research that the octagon (or any polygonal shape) barn is most often classified as a round barn. Clearly these categories are used by those who study and practice within the field. I agree that the category should probably be more specific. Category:19th century American octagonal houses might work.
Anyway, according to: McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, New York: 1984, (ISBN 0394739698), p. 235.
The book goes on: This is a very rare style; probably only a few thousand were originally built, mostly in New York, Massachusetts, and the Midwest. Several hundred of these survive; most were built in the decades of the 1850s and '60s.
In short, I concur with Baxterguy, there is much more to the 19th century American octagonal houses than shape. This was clearly an aesthetic movement regardless of the limited quantity that were designed in this style. The fact that only a few hundred remain would make the category all the more useful. Hope this helps. IvoShandor 15:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AIC Building

I am wondering whether important buildings should have separate articles from the institutions they may house. WP:CHICOTW did a good Chicago Board of Trade Building article. I am thinking the Art Institute of Chicago Building should have a separate article that talks about the sequential building additions leading up to the new modern wing and landscape architecture of the north and south gardens. What do you think? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope

This has been bothering me for awhile, but this edit on a user talk page has made me decide to bring it up. What exactly is the scope of this project, since the term "architecture" is obviously subjective and defined differently by different people. I have received differing opinions on this in the past from other users. The scope on the project page would seem to imply that the above comment on TonyTheTiger's user talk page is incorrect. This should be rectified so that tags are not arbitrarily added and removed based upon different editors opinions of what constitutes architecture. IvoShandor 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well some time ago I had a stab at this in Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) it died from lack of interest and perception that it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist - so I'm delighted you bring it up!

The answer of course isn't clear cut, but most architects draw a distinction between architecture and construction. In most descriptions we can probably say that architecture is construction that has made an attempt to transcend a simple solution to the functions the building or structure is trying to provide. A dictionary is different to a poem - both use the same words but one try's to elevate in some way. Architecture is the same. We can say that if it's been published in an architecture journal or written about by an architecture writer - it's architecture. If it's prosaic and of no interest to the discourse of architectural theory or progress - then it's probably not.

The situation is muddied of course when we come to early C20 modernism - here engineering and industrial buildings became venerated. As Robert Venturi succintly pointed out, if for Vetruvius, architecture was firmness + Commodity + delight; for Walter Gropius firmness + commodity = delight. But it would be wrong to suggest that every telephone mast is architecture in Gropius's view - Gropius's extra value construction, was in no small part about revolution; it had theoretical, philosophical and socialogical weight to it. By then architecture was built by architects - so C20/C21 architecture is more easily identified - if it was built by a notable architect - it's architecture worthy of inclusion.

Vernacular architecture is a more thorny problem, essentially the architecture of local building traditions, often without a designer as such. Each type of vernacular architecture should certainly be included in our encyclopaedia. But to suggest every 'example' is notable just for it's architectural merit is surely folly - Many buildings on the NRHP are not notable for their architecture - but for other reasons.

I wanted some discussion on this, perhaps now is the time?

Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course the project as it currently stands, also acts as an umbrella for civil engineering and construction - is it time to break out new wikiprojects? Any takers? --Mcginnly | Natter 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember where this came from, but one definition is that architecture is any construction for human occupancy. Therefore a vernacular house would be architecture but a box culvert or transmission tower would not. Construction technology related to architecture should be included. The only problem I can think of with this framework is that some bridges and unoccupied structures are very sculptural and could easily be thought of as "architecture." Newell Post 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It would also mean that a folly would not be architecture - where clearly some of them are. --Mcginnly | Natter 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Would this make sense?: "Any large construction which involves elements of both technology and art. In most cases 'architecture' refers to construction for human occupancy, but occasionally may refer to unoccupied structures such as bridges or towers which are designed in a particularly artistic manner." --Newell Post 14:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
mmmmm. I think the problem there is that to say architecture is building technology+art then begs the question 'what is art' which has exactly the same problems as the one we are dealing with - circular logic, if you will. This has been bugging me and I've just got out of bed to suggest that Architecture is construction+ideas - let others decide whether or not it's art (but if it's architecture it's almost certainly art of some kind). So a bus shelter is usually just construction - but if you put an ironic thatched roof on a steel one (as FAT architects did a few years ago in London) then it's playing with ideas of rural vs. urban, the prosaic becoming extraordinary, twee vs. cool, context juxtaposition and probably a load of other postmodern gobbledygook. So calatrava's bridges are definitely in - being (often) an exploration of how biomorphic forms and their inherant evolved efficiencies, can be harnessed to solve technological problems.
This is just construction - albeit possibly interesting to architects of the last and this century who might find inspiration from its functional rationality, or who are interested in ideas of the technologically 'new' - but the structures themselves make no comment on an idea - and make no pretence to
 Whereas
This is architecture - because, amongst other things, it was stretching the possibilities of a new architectural material, embodies a national optomism, was built specifically as a landmark, plays a role in its urban context, is beautiful, that beauty is in part generated from mathematical beauty and the eye and brain recognise both simultaneously it creates more than the sum of the parts, the The 72 names on the Eiffel Tower help explain some of the above and point to a slightly interesting paradox - that the celebration of these french scientists, has become a piece of french art ...etc.etc.etc. - it has ideas and meanings in spades

So off to bed now I've got that off my chest. Mcginnly | Natter 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Searching through some definitions, I quite like "designing buildings and environments with consideration for their [a]esthetic effect".[1] So perhaps a broad, inclusive definition would be any structure designed with consideration for its aesthetic effect. Of course, this could include pretty much any structure - as the diverse range of bus shelters proves. Warofdreams talk 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there is some truth in that definition. Obviously not all buildings can be defined as architecture. I think some Child Projects of this WikiProject might be a good idea as "Architecture" is quite broad, and as we have seen, has varying definitions. NRHP listed places should be easy, if they are included for their architectural significance or merit (many places you wouldn't expect are) then they should get the Architecture tag (which is basically how I have been approaching it-but have run into disagreement in the past, though the way I currently edit and create articles I think that opposition would probably be non-existent now). I really like the idea of some child projects though. IvoShandor 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. The National Register database lists four criteria for listing:
  • A: A significant contribution to the broad patterns of American history
  • B: Association with a significant person in American history
  • C: Architectural or engineering significance
  • D: Information potential (e.g. archaeological sites)
It seems like buildings and structures listed under criteria "C" could be part of the Architecture project. However, what about something like the James J. Hill House, which is listed under its significance of a person, but could also be interpreted as a bold architectural statement? In this case, the Hill House is the largest private residence in Minnesota and a good example of Richardsonian Romanesque architecture. Any thoughts? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with much of what Mcginnly pointed out. Fact of the matter is some things are just construction, and while an architect may have designed them that doesn't make them architecture regardless of which of the two definitions we are using from above. Good examples are in the way certain building types proliferate the American landscape, for example McMansions or Mini-malls. While there are certainly exceptions I think that almost every mini-mall I see is not an example of architecture.
Another argument for a more exclusive definition of "architecture" is that too broad a scope renders the project essentially overwhelmed and useless as far as ever hoping to, say, categorize articles, as Warofdreams spends much time doing. IvoShandor 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere Lucknow

I wonder if some people from the WikiProject Architecture could take a look at this article and assess it. La Martiniere Lucknow is a most fascinating building with an extraordinary history. It is the only school in the world to be awarded Battle Honours. It has featured in numerous films and is also believed to be the setting for Kipling's novel Kim. We could really do with some help from someone who knows something about the architecture as this section is currently very poor. Dahliarose

{{Structurae firm}}

Hi folks, I've added a template to provide quick links to firms in the structurae database. Usage is the same as {{Structurae}} and {{Structurae person}}  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I suggest you make an announcement on the bulletin. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hello to all the WikiProject Architecture users! I am from the hebrew wikipedia [2] and unofficially the main user handling the architecture topic there and the responsible for the hebrew architecture portal. I noticed recently that all the images of Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye and the Notre Dame du Haut have been deleted from commons and left all the wikipedia's lacking of these most improtant images of the buildings! Because of the improtance of these images, the problem cannot be left untreated. These images were (still are actually) linked from dozens of articles and portal pages in the hebrew-wiki only (articles about the buildings, le corbusier, architecture history etc.) and probably links from hunderds of more places in all other wikis. I personally don't have any self-photos of the buildings and not knowing how to solve the problem, I hope you guys would find a quick solution. Thank you! (if this message was placed in the wrong place, please correct me kindly) Smbh 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I don't know why they decided to do that - I thought the licenses were ok? I had to change an image on the Portal to another one - all I can do is make an announcement on the bulletin for those that haven't read it here. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that at least one of the architecture project users has been to these sites once and has good photos. This person must be found and help us with new free photos. BTW, don't you know an alternative website that such free photos of the buildings might be found in? Smbh 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
NO! THE SITUATION IS MUCH WORSE - see here tonnes of images are being deleted in the commons because of the lack of "freedom of panorama" in various countries - essentially, the copyright of a building - including it's representation in photography - remains the copyright of the architect or his estate.......shit! Sketches anyone? --Mcginnly | Natter 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
WHAT?! I thought that the copyrights of any photograph of a public space belong to the photographer. There are thousands of images in this category... (!?) Smbh 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New related project

I am interested in creating WikiProject:Engineering that will cover topics like Construction, civil and structural engineering as listed on the main architecture project page under Sidebar Projects. This project has been already proposed but nobody has taken incentive on creating the project. I am looking for collaborators and/or supporters from WikiProject Architecture but first I would like for some feedback on this new project. Thanks. Hydrogen Iodide 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea and have been (wishing) arguing for it for some time. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of building names

Is there any consensus within the Architecture Project about the naming of buildings with ambiguous names? I've found a historical page called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture). I've tried browsing through some of the sub-categories within Category:Buildings and structures by country but there is no clear pattern. There seem to be two main formats: St. Peter's Church, Anytown and St. Peter's Church (Anytown). As far as I can establish the comma format seems to be the most prevalent for buildings. Place names are already disambiguated with the comma format but most other disambiguation pages (books, films, TV programmes etc) use the parentheses format. WikiProject Schools is trying to formulate a policy for the naming of schools at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools). The current suggestion is that the parentheses format should be used. Does this policy go against existing practice and consensus? Dahliarose 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever really been defined, I prefer the comma myself as it looks less visually incumbered. Perhaps a good process would be to survey the existing usage for all buildings, not just churches - the various World trade centers spring to mind - and adopt the majority usage. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be a huge job to compare the practice of naming for all existing buildings as there are simply so many of them. Even if we were to do such a survey, how would we interpret the results, bearing in mind that countries such as America numerically probably have more entries than tiny countries, so a numerical count could possibly reflect the American viewpoint and not necessarily a global consensus? It does make sense to me to have a consistent policy for all buildings. It's interesting that most of the World Trade Centres/Centers seem to have adopted the comma- and bracket-free approach. To my mind this looks distinctly odd. I agree that the comma is the most visually appealing format. What do others think?Dahliarose 13:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The parentheses emphasize that the disambiguator is not actually part of the building name. Entry names containing commas, such as Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar indicate full exact titles, whereas Yours Truly (Johnny Dollar) would be a version of Yours Truly (perhaps a book or song) done by Johnny Dollar. Building names should follow this convention as well, to avoid misunderstandings. Matchups 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Please see my related query below.)
Sorry Dahl, I meant - have a look and get a feel - not scientifically survey them :-) --Mcginnly | Natter 11:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Matchups. I generally use the Building {North, America) or Building (North) if its a city like New York or Chicago. This seems to be the standard convention for most things on wikipedian such as Bob (architect) and Bob (homicidal maniac), so I just go with that. IvoShandor 11:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a good general principle. The church example at the start of this thread is of particular interest. In the UK, at least, when it is necessary to distinguish between several churches with the same dedication, their names are traditionally given in the form "St Mary, ATown" or "Holy Trinity, BTown". A convention on this might be useful, as there are currently articles in this format, with the town name in brackets, or in "St Mary's Church, ATown" format. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Building article names

I came across Cambridge Medical School - Edward Schroeder Prior while looking at Category:articles needing sections. The title of the article seemed a bit strange to me, but I wanted to check with folks who dealt with this sort of thing more regularly. The article is on the architecture of the school, which was designed by Edward Schroeder Prior. I would have expected something like Cambridge Medical School architecture or just a section within Cambridge Medical School. I'm happy to do the move myself if there's a consensus on the proper name. (FWIW, there are three inbound links, from the school, the architect, and a different wikiproject.) Matchups 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some similar ones and decided to move the article to Cambridge Medical School building.Matchups 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Board of Trade Building

Chicago Board of Trade Building is a current WP:FAC--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tony - you chicago guys are really banging them out....--Mcginnly | Natter 11:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I don't know very much about architecture. In what architectural style would you say this building is? --DLandTALK 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly call it postmodern. It may well have been designed by someone influenced by deconstructivism. Warofdreams talk 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent error on the "Landscape Design" page ?

The Landscape Design page is tied-into this discusssion and project. Landscape Design The article states that Landscape Architecture "requires" a license and that Landscape Design does not...

Quick background - I served 2 terms on the Oregon State Landscape Contractors Board and reviewed what work can and can't be done by Landscapers, Landscape Architects, and Landscape Designers, in Oregon and other areas.

At least in Oregon, Landscape Design cannot be done without a license if the plans include more than "conceptual design". There is a level of detail that's the "cut-off" point, where the landscape designer must get either a landcape architect license or a landscape contractor license, which both involve a high level of testing. So some landscape designing requires a license, and some may not. In Oregon, licensed landscape contractors may provide landscape plans (landscape architecture) at virtually the level of detail as a landscape architect, provided they don't CALL themselves "landscape architects" - a few exceptions like public works are outside the scope of landscape contractors doing that level of design. It's not common, but that's the way the laws sit. The LA's reciprocate some high-level planning to landscape contractors, and the landscape board likewise reciprocates the realm of installation to the LAs without them having to get the landcape contracting license. Anyhow, for the article to be correct, it must be applicable to virtually all of the USA, but maybe even other countries, as the article is on "landscape design" not "United States Landscape Designer".

The comments about landscape architecture embracing more details are on the right track, but need some modification. For example, in Oregon, no good professional designer, landscaper or architect, provides a landscape design, or a garden design, without assessing the site - often with soil samples. Virtually every member of the Association of Pacific Northwest Landscape Designers, are providing a lot of "landscape design" that is not just for corporate customers.

I think that the "engineering" comments, etc.. are on the right track. But something is amiss in the definitions. It's not a very easy realm to clearly define the boundaries sometimes.Mdvaden 00:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the encylopedia anyone can edit - If you have some knowledge in the area, or see errors - please fix them, I've yet to come across any landscape architects here yet. I personally consider it good etiquette to discuss matters with the original editor of an article (check out the article history and see who the main contributor was) although this is not essential. Referencing specific sources for the information is desirable for quality articles. The only other thing to bear in mind is that articles are hopefully global in their scope - although most editors seem to be from the US so there tends to be a little skew in the fullness of information towards matters american. If you can write with global scope that's brilliant, if you can't, don't worry too much - hopefully someone else from overseas will fill in the gaps. good luck --Joopercoopers 01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you for the reply. Global is a good suggestion. M.D. Vaden of OregonMdvaden 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

There is a peer review posted for Pettit Memorial Chapel, a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Besides the lead what needs work? Any comments would be helpful, thanks. IvoShandor 01:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the Architectural wikiproject peer review where it should whip up some more interest. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 08:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

Someone needs to get to the Burj Dubai article and straighten things out there. The article has conflicting information and was even a featured article (in news) with that information.Gary Joseph 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed daughter wikiproject

Hi. I recently realised that there is no wikiproject which covers all event venues worldwide in general including arenas, stadiums and exhibition centres. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports facilities only covers sports venues in North America which have hosted professional or semi-professional sports teams and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music venues only covers music venues. There are many event venues which dont fit into these categories, for example the majority of sports stadiums and arena in continents other than North America or exhibition centres. Does anyone else think that there should be a more general wikiproject covering all venues worldwide?Tbo 157 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This wikiproject could be created by merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Music venues and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports facilities as they both lack participants.Tbo 157 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this belong under the scope of Wikiproject Architecture

Might Grace Cathedral, San Francisco belong under the scope of Wikiproject Architecture. If not, what Wikiprojects might it belong too? Thanks. Marlith T/C 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say so - you might be interested in Cathedral of Chartres which has the original labyrinth on the floor which appears to have been copied/referenced in San Francisco. --Joopercoopers 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Daqing tower

Hi everyone, there's an ongoing discussion on AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daqing Radio and Television Tower. I'm trying to defend the article because I think the tower deserves an article. Can anyone familiar with it have a look and comment? Thanks! --Targeman 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Civil Engineering

Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering has been created! Thought ya'll might like to know. ZueJay (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Forbidden City

Forbidden City has been put up for peer review. Comments from this WikiProject have been instrumental in improving the article so far, so any comments or suggestions with a view towards a featured article listing would be much appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the architecture peer review page and run it through the 'style checker' - At first glance it looks like a really good quality article - I'll have a proper look tonight. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

Can current featured list candidates be listed under "Featured article candidates" on this page? If not, is there someplace else they are listed? Thanks, Raime 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

sure, of course - just add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/FAC. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

One of this Project's Good Articles, Presidio of Santa Barbara has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 19:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review #2

One of this Project's Good Articles, St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 19:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

3 More Good Article reviews

Three articles within the scope of this Project, St. La Salle Hall, Onion dome, and Imbrex and tegula, have been nominated for Good Article review, which could result in a delisting of those articles from Good Article status. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussions. Drewcifer 04:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the last Good Article review

One of this project's Good Articles, Taj Mahal, has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

? Banner for archived Architecture peer reviews

Buildings and architecture of Bristol received a peer review from this project and I've now put up for FAC. The first comment was that I needed to archive the review which is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Buildings and architecture of Bristol/Archive 1 but there doesn't seem to be a banner to say "this article had a previous peer review by this project" as there is at {{oldpeerreview}}, to replace the banner on the articles talk page - Am I missing something or does one need to be created?— Rod talk 12:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming of buildings with brand names

A number of buildings are named by a brand such as the GE tower. These buildings have a tendency to change their brand name from time to time requiring a change in article name. To avoid this is convention to use the address name such as one canada square when referring to the canary wharf tower. please clear up this so article naming can be standadised as some articles use the address and others the brand name. I personally think the address name should be used.--Lucy-marie 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on whether Millennium Dome and The O2 should be remerged.

Since the 2 articles are within the scope of this project I just thought I'd let users know that an RFC has recently been put up at Talk:Millennium Dome#RFC: Should the article, Millennium Dome and The O2 be merged. on whether the 2 articles should be remerged, following a recent split after a long argument on whether the original, single article should have been named The O2 or the Millennium Dome. User input would be much appreciated. Tbo 157talk 11:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary page for WikiProject Engineering created

Hi. I have created a temporary page for WikiProject Engineering at User:Tbo 157/WikiProject Engineering. Interested users should add their name to the list and are encouraged to help improve the page so that it is ready to be moved to the Wikipedia space when there are enough participants. Thanks. Tbo 157talk 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal maintenance

After some thought, I'm off to edit citizendium instead. Would someone be willing to step up to the plate and maintain the portal? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture/Archive_4&oldid=156898299"