Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 1191578823 by Deltaspace42 (talk)
Line 7: Line 7:
==Architecture==
==Architecture==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Bay Tower}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fortress_walls_and_gates_of_Bukhara}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fortress_walls_and_gates_of_Bukhara}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wall_dormer}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wall_dormer}}

Revision as of 01:19, 25 December 2023

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Architecture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Architecture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Bay Tower

South Bay Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article hasn't had any substantial updates since 2016 and I can't find any news about the tower after 2011-ish, so I think it can assumed this project was scrapped, and in that case, it's probably not notable enough to remain. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Massachusetts. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with your assessment Sgroey (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any further news (or anything) about this proposed tower that I think was never built. The small one paragraph now hardly seems worth keeping. Nothing has appeared since the two sources used, and I don't think anything will at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and others. I'm not convinced work for this tower was ever even started based on an apparent lack of news coverage. Bsoyka (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Bukhara. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress walls and gates of Bukhara

Fortress walls and gates of Bukhara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, is an unneeded CFORK of Ark of Bukhara. Sources in article are blogs/travel websites, not archeological sources. BEFORE found nothing that makes this notable apart from the main article. Sourcing in the article shows there is nothing to merge, no objection if there is a consensus to redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  10:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, CFORK is sufficient for an immediate WP:BOLD redirect, AfD is not even necessary in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Weak keep Ark of Bukhara seems to be about the fortress or citadel, while this one is more about the outer walls of the city, which would be appropriate to have an article on, perhaps City walls of Bukhara. At present this seems to be a poor article, but the solution is to improve, not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I have studied the city in detail (I took Siege of Bukhara to featured article quality last year), and believe that the best solution is redirecting to Bukhara. As Peterkingiron points out, Ark of Bukhara refers to the inner citadel TimothyBlue—not the walls of the city itself. I do not believe that there is sufficient detail for this article to stand independent—e.g. Pugachenkova in Bosworth and Asimov's UNESCO history summarizes (p.508) the walls and gates of the whole Transoxiana region in around a page, and I have not seen enough scholarship elsewhere. Per WP:NOPAGE, I thus think that redirecting to Bukhara is the best solution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bukhara per ~~ AirshipJungleman29 above. Any appropriately sourced content can be merged from the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Dormer. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wall dormer

Wall dormer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Architects Collaborative. History is preserved if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 21:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Architects Collaborative, 1945–1965

The Architects Collaborative, 1945–1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Agree. Merge into The Architects Collaborative ? SSR07 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Many "keep" votes are based on Bengal as a region having a coherent heritage - which isn't in question - rather than whether World Heritage sites specifically, in this region, are treated as a group by reliable sources, which is what would make this a viable topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Heritage of Bengal

The World Heritage of Bengal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India already exist. This list is just a grouping of the sites in West Bengal and Bangladesh (previously known as East Bengal). The sources are for the individual sites and none mention the list as a whole. Recommend converting this into a disambiguation page. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above articles only list World Heritage Sites. But, the Bengal region has both cultural and world heritage. As the region is linked by language, culture and emotion (see Bengal article), there may be separate articles on the heritage sites, culture of the region. And, not just a list, each topic is described in detail. This article provides a lot of rich information about the Bengal region. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. People come here to get knowledge, and knowledge is never divided politically! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Bangladesh, and West Bengal. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Region of Bengal" consisting of Bangladesh and West Bengal. And this region of Bengal has a distinct identity. And the culture of this region is Bengali. And the world heritages that exist in this region can have a separate article. There is nothing wrong with that. রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this is quite hard. On the one hand it seems to be repeating information from other pages in a slightly different form. But on the other hand, it is clearly correct to say that Bengal - as a region - has coherence over national boundaries. In terms of sources, I'm not sure it is true to say that none cover the region as a whole - for example this paper discussed a subsection of the world heritage sites together, despite being either side of the international border. There remains the difficulty of whether this turns Wikipedia into a gazetteer, but in general for me I think there are likely sources that discuss the cultural heritage region as a whole in enough detail to show it is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this type of synthesis article is appropriate or necessary. There aren't any other examples of combining the WH sites and [[UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists|intangible heritage in an article, nor combining regions. The citation above is about the dual WHS listing of the bordering Sundarbans and Sundarbans National Park, but this natural site being transboundary does not extend to the cultural sites that don't necessarily have that connection (and while these are two designations, there are many other multinational sites). Like, Jamdani, Mangal Shobhajatra, and 'Rickshaws and Rickshaw painting in Dhaka' all appear to be specific to Bangladesh, not Bengal in general, while 'Durga Puja in Kolkata' is specific to India – UNESCO designated that city's celebration of the festival, not the broader region's. This article does not add any information that is not already in the two lists of WHSes and intangible list/individual articles or content that ties them together at all. Also, sites are given the name "World Heritage" while the intangible heritage is not. This just doesn't come together cohesively as a notable topic. We don't need this to be an example for "The World Heritage of Korea", "The World Heritage of the British Isles", or other multinational regions that merely duplicate content elsewhere without being a particularly useful new overlay of presentation or navigation. Moreover, even if there are "likely sources that discuss the cultural heritage region as a whole", that's not the same as just listing the specific heritage places and activities that are UNESCO-designated, for which we do not have such broader regional sources. Reywas92Talk 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to your logic, there should not be an article on Akhand Bharat too? রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a childish comment. According to my logic, there should not be an article on "The World Heritage of Akhand Bharat" or even "The World Heritage of South Asia". Reywas92Talk 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above explanation is well detailed and convincing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Reywas92, this is purely synthesis. Although Bengal is a distinct region, it being one doesn't justify this sort of thing, and wouldn't for other cultural regions across national boundaries either. ― novov (t c) 04:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does Wikipedia have a "Bengal" article? Because the region is divided politically & both has national boundaries! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reywas92 and already covered List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India.Bengal politically is not a distinct region it is divided.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does Wikipedia have a "Bengal" article? Because the region is divided politically! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bengal existed until the Partition of Bengal (1947) and similarly Punjab existed till 1947 hence they articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article provides a comprehensive overview of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites located within the cultural and historical region of Bengal. The sources can be improved in the article, this is not a reason for a good article to be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand that Bengal is divided politically. But, political division cannot be the reason for deletion of this article. Cultural existence is never determined by political area! Authority refers to political boundaries. And, no one's authority is undermined by this article. Bengali culture is a culture of thousands of years. I am a Bengali. And, speaking as a Bengali, if this article is in Wikipedia, it will be possible for us to gain more knowledge about Bengalis. This article is full of knowledge and information. So, please correct the mistakes in the article without deleting the article. And, look at Bengali Wikipedia, there are Bengalis in both Bangladesh and India in favor of this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firozahmedht (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — Firozahmedht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, I find Reywas92's argument that this is OR/synthesis to be the most compelling and agree with his assessment of the article on that basis. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Giving this another week to see if a rough consensus can be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom and Reywas92.The sources are for the individual sites and none mention it as Bengal. Sources refer to it as Bangladesh ,West Bengal and India and not Bengal. This is duplication of content of List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India.Bengal's history comes to end after the Partition of 1947.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history of Bengal ended in 1971, not in 1947! When Bangladesh emerged as independent Bengal. Know the history and then talk! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ultimately this comes down to a question of OR: do reliable sources group together all of Bengal when discussing UNESCO World Heritage sites? While there are plenty of reliable sources covering the history, religion and culture of the transnational region, this is not the case for world heritage sites specifically as a category; the only source that I could find that even uses the term Bengal to discuss heritage sites this way appears to be the exception that proves the rule [1], as despite its framing it then proceeds to exclusively discuss locations in West Bengal. Consequently, this topic falls short of WP:LISTN. signed, Rosguill talk 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natekarwada

Natekarwada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NBUILD fail. I could not find any sources at all covering the building online (all hits appear to be wikis/travel websites of sorts). Fermiboson (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrika Tbilisi

Fabrika Tbilisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP: GNG, drafted because of promotional tone, found its way back and hides it's promotional tone under the design heading Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. Hmm. I was the one who got that draft back into mainspace. Except I left the tag "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement", which has since been removed. Personally, I've been to the city and I know the place is notable. So I would not delete the page, but try to get a neutral view (Moving to drafts, I think, is not the best way to fix an article's tone, as the AfC reviewer's rules instruct not to reject an article when its flaws can be resolved by tagging it). Suitskvarts (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage in English sources. That does not preclude the possibility that there is significant coverage in Georgian, however there is no corresponding page in the Georgian Wikipedia - so I can only conclude that this factory is not notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has some statements that suggest notability of the place, for example "Fabrika is considered one of Tbilisi's biggest success stories". I don't really want to try and figure this one out when there is a literal mountain of other articles that are more in need of deleting.James.folsom (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Three relists in I'm not seeing a consensus here. The arguments to delete are stronger; sources counting WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV have not been explicitly listed. However, I don't believe the imbalance is strong enough for a delete verdict; there are sources in the article that aren't so obviously disqualified that I can discount them as a closer, and no comprehensive source analysis was provided of these either. No prejudice to speedy renomination, but I suggest that those advocating to keep make an effort to find more sources that may render this unnecessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MKSK

MKSK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR for non notable local business. Coverage from local paper and business journal falls short of Audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Gosh I disagree about this AfD, particularly as one of the few Columbus/Ohio-based editors. MKSK is incredibly influencial, particularly in Central Ohio. Their work is the foundation of what has made the city what it is today, having worked on most city planning projects in Columbus. Columbus is also the largest city in Ohio, so the media sourced would meet the regional reqs in WP:AUD. As I mentioned earlier, it is incredibly unfortunate that the firm co-opted the article for their PR purposes but that is not a reason to delete. 9H48F (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep it appears to meet GNG. I've seen less notable companies kept for sketchier corporate biographies. I saw a bunch of sources on a cursory look through that aren't in the article from publications of local and regional interest. I do not know much about Columbus, Ohio, but since this firm is getting huge city contracts to build public stuff, they get some press. Andre🚐 07:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: clearly filled with reliable sources that are about the firm itself and not about its projects – more notability than most architecture firms get. Sure there might be a few sentences that could be reworked to be less PR-speak but in terms of notability this passes. Dan • ✉ 21:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. I am unable to locate any references that do not rely entirely on information provided in this manner. HighKing++ 14:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No references provide the trifecta of IS, RS and SIGCOV, so fails notability policies. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture&oldid=1191678280"