|WikiProject Home Living||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|Floor has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Architecture||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|Text and/or other creative content from Floor was copied or moved into Flooring with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
While I agree that the number 4 is considered unlucky by most Chinese people, it is interesting to note that if you type in the words "Chinese 14th floor" into a Google search, you get some interesting results. The first result of such a search at the present moment is a link to a Hong Kong government website on the Companies Registry and in fact directs you the 14th floor of a building if you wish to incorporate or register a company.
Also, perhaps the choice to number floors with or without a "ground floor" is more a result of culture than language, and the use of the distinction between "American English and British English" suggests the latter. For example, Singapore students are taught British English and even have to sit British 'O'-levels and 'A'-levels, yet anyone who has spent some time in Singapore can tell you that the culture has strong American influence. It is no suprise therefore that Singapore adopts the American style of naming floors -- omitting the "ground floor".
Should information in Wikipedia be stolen from Brittanica? Oven Fresh 16:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why do you say "stolen"? I don't think credited use of an out of copyright source is usually described as theft. Notinasnaid 09:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Information must be stolen, blatantly and without shame, from everywhere. That is the principle of academic freedom. Text must not be copied, that is the principle of copyright. It is not difficult to reconcile the two principles. That is academia, and by extension, Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed this bit and I'll explain why.
- Floors in buildings are often renamed or renumbered depending on the superstitions of the local population. In much of the European world, for example, the number 13 is considered unlucky (triskaidekaphobia), so the floor is renumbered to 12A or 12B, or even directly to 14.
- In Chinese culture, 4 is considered unlucky, so 4 would be renamed 3A or 3B, and further up the building, the floors would be numbered 12, 13, 13A, 15. Interestingly, this results in two floors numbered 13, whereas Europeans would prefer none!
Well what gets me wondering about this is that I am European, have been for nearly fifty years, and I know of no buildings missing a thirteenth floor, in fact I find the idea rather suspect, given European phlegmatism.
And also (wincing a little) because I heard the same story. And when I heard it, it was about American buildings missing a floor 13...
- I can vouch that many US highrise hotels, appartment buildings, etc, go directly from floor 12 to floor 14. -- Infrogmation 07:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing in here about actual floor materials or construction?
Um, I just added a footnote and it ain't there. Anyone have a clue? JackLumber. 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Acoustic concrete is designed for sound damping. It is mixed with an air entraining agent, which results in a significantly lighter concrete that still possesses excellent acoustic damping properties. LorenzoB 00:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to add material on this to the article. Please make sure it is referenced, such as with a link to a webpage, or if not available online, with references to books or similar. Cheers. MadMaxDog 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The subject of Flooring is already dealt with in Floor covering and all that really remains is a definition of 'Flooring', so I think Flooring should probably be redirected to this article and removed. Dmcq 14:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, I think it could make a good article on its own with just a reference from Floor. Go for it, I can see there's all sorts of stuff like stripping the surface and putting on a new protective layer, getting the right traction, what leaving a wood floor wet can do, what the various types of brushes do and those opening V sweepers with replaceable covers, the history of it. Well there's a fair amount. Floor enthusiast, hmmm, I think perhaps I'll just join Bert's rubber band and paper clip enthusiasts society instead. Do you know your rubber band collection lasts better if you keep it in the fridge? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on it but it is a very important aspect of floors, so I'll put in a short introductory section into this article saying what the purpose of floor cleaning is and see if it can't reference a couple of non-commercial sites about it. Dmcq (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Still rather a stub but I really feel floor cleaning should be separated out so it can be referenced from cleaning- so I'll go ahead and split it out. I can't see anyone having much objection as no-one else has written anything in that section. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"Floor" is a common English word. It might be good to recognize that beginning readers, English students, and people confused about international word usage might seek help in this article. Instead, the article launches immediately into quite technical concepts such as "I-beam", "building code", "joist", and includes information extracted from building codes, such "joists that are centered no more that 16 inches apart". Such specificity also seems not reflect the POV of the majority of English-speaking countries.
There are enough basic concepts to warrant an elementary article on floors. More sophisticated architectural and construction details might well be explored in new articles for a more specialized audience. Perhaps "Floors (North American building codes)" and "Flooring techniques" and "Floors (structural variations)". I'd also enjoy reading "Floors (historical usage)". Piano non troppo (User talk:Piano non troppo) 22:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe the edits were helpful and have added comments to User talk:Piano_non_troppo#Your_edits_toFloor Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- (Comments from Dmcq copied from Piano non troppo's talk page):
- I've been trying to find some good in your edits to floor because I believe it is rather clunky. However I just can't agree with most of what you've done.
- You removed wikilnks on cross references to common things like joists and basement, now that may be reasonable on something not about basic building but they are useful and relevant on an article like this.
- You cut down on verbiage by sticking a number of things into one paragraph. There is no need to start on about what a sub-floor might contain when just starting to describe a floor. Simplifying is good but there is such a thing as cutting out so much as to make things indigestible. If as you say you want the article to be read by people who want simple language and no technicalities then the technical bits need careful introduction and separate definition as in the original.
- Even on you business of removing a reference to a place as commercial that is to another entry in wikipedia and people may be interested in seeing what kind of place would use such a floor - it gives context.
- About the only thing I really can agree with is that 'bottom surface' is much better than 'lower horizontal surface'. I intend reverting most of the stuff to what was there before in the next day or so. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (end copied comments) Piano non troppo (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments.
- 1) I started editing this article at all because a commercial interest, SKYCITY, Auckland, had manipulated it so that a photo of its (atypical) floor work appeared at the top, along with a link to its business. I can barely make out what I'm looking at, even now, and I was hoping some later editor would replace it, once the commercial reference was removed. That was my original motivation.
- 2) The phrase you liked ("bottom surface") is almost straight from Webster's dictionary, so it's good we agree on that. Also, I agree that "joist" and "basement" might reasonably be Wiki links. As for the rest, I was guided by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible.
- "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience."
- And that's exactly what this article was not. It was (and is) a rambling essay of uncited original research written by professionals for a professional audience.
- 3) The article immediately launched into building codes, I-beams and H-beams -- all technical subjects. Note this is completely contrary to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible. Quotes about a Wiki article's target audience:
- "People who will simply not understand the concept. Hopefully this is a limited group — elementary school students, for example."
- "The general public, with no technical background."
- The article, as it stands, is useless for these two groups.
- The article isn't about "floors", it is about "Things that are Under our Feet in Modern Floors". Floors have been around before the dawn of recorded history. There are earth floors, stone floors, reed floors, and wood floors, cave floors and boat floors -- And that's what this article should emphasize. Since it is the most basic Wiki article on floors, it should start with the basics. What is a floor? What is it for? What role does it play in buildings and vehicles?
- That's why I suggested creating several articles out of this. Building codes, sub-floors and, good grief, "Seamless chemical flooring", belong in other articles. An example: Performance surface. (The Sprung floor article you contributed to is another good example.) A special purpose floor. It deserves it's own Wiki article? Absolutely. Should be included in this article? No more than it is: a link with a handful of words of explanation.
- This article should be entirely rewritten to provide a context for articles like Performance surface and Sprung floor. I've rewritten the opening paragraph to nudge the article in this direction, see what you think.
Splitting up Floor
I've had a look at splitting up Floor as suggested in the previous Talk section, and a split I see as reasonable is:
- Flooring for the floor covering - there were three areas dealing with this before which were consolidated but I think it can all be split out again
- Building utilities for all the stuff like wiring and plumbing. This is mainly common to what is above the ceiling or behind the walls.
- Subfloor - there is lot more to this like for instance cantilevered floors used in modern skyscrapers. This could refer back to floor for other special constructions like floating floors.
- Cleaning is already separate and both Floor and the Flooring articles can have a short paragraph pointing to it.
I'm not sure what to do with the issues section. It could just be removed and any useful bits distributed but the concept is orthogonal to the other sections. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Building services engineering seems appropriate for the utilities. It is rather an undeveloped article mainly a list of services, which is probably what it should mainly be but it rather like the way the public utilities dig up the road one after the other without ever talking to one another. Dmcq (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think floor and flooring should be separated, but at the moment there is not enough quality information about ether issue. Perhaps it would be good to allow the page develop a bit more, before it is split - not sure what is the success with wider topics- do they develop better and faster? I have noticed there is heavy handed policing by a small number of people on this page- who do not seem to posses any expertise, and do not contribute to the page in any way, I think it would help to allow people edit the page, and let it evolve - rather than keep it basic and poor , as it is now. I don't have much time, but as I have a background in architecture and civil engineering, and currently work on sustainable homes project, I would be happy to help with findings from my research- however, my time is very limited. --WDIAROM (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please keep to the subject of the section header. There is another section below where you can badmouth people. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The sustainable flooring section looks like an ad to me. And besides that it is not about floors or flooring as such but about sustainable flooring. If the originator thinks it is notable can I suggest they set up a separate article and it can be linked to from here. I shall therefore be removing the whole section. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like they are determined to stick the stuff in despite my and tedders objections. I'll ask for administrator mediation. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks- I was just thinking the same thing. Link it up as soon as you post it, please. tedder (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There was no attempt from ether of you (or is it just one?) to improve the page in any way. There was no constructive input at all, and you don't seem to have any expertise in the area. You have also failed to justify your wild accusation of spam, however, the links you disliked were removed. One of you requested newspaper articles as a suitable and credible reference, that I find ridiculous, one day you will learn that trusting newspapers is not a good thing- after all, they are designed to sell a story. Wikipedia is not to play policemen, it is to provide information, and collaborate in the process- this requires research and constructive discussion/ edits. Please reflect on that- and if you find this response patronising, reflect even more on your activities.WDIAROM (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- As to Tedder and me being sockpuppets I did not accuse you of that before, but I have found that people say of others what is true of themselves so that is now my strong suspicion of you.
- You contributed nothing of note to the subject of floors, only to something that could possibly be made into a separate article as I said before. If you really are a new editor like you say might I suggest you take a bit of advice and try out what I said?
- Your contribution had a reference to a flooring company on every paragraph and the citations did not contribute significantly to Floors never mind sustainable floors. There were a few citation which could be good but as I said before a separate article would be best.
- I am sorry if removing linkspam seems heavy handed to you but Wikipedia has rules about advertisements and allowing loads of them and turning wikipedia into a link farm is no what an encyclopaedia is about. Please see WP:SPAM. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I made no accusation of any kind, please only read what I wrote, reading between the lines may show you what you want to see, but rarely helps. I am not interested in any personal conversation, I apologise. Reading what you wrote just confirms my point- you failed to check the sources completely. Judging a book by its cover is not wise. There was no spam of any kind entered by me. Also, I explained to you the purpose of the entry, just because you are not interested, it does not mean other people are not. This is not your Wikipedia, this is not your decision. Ether you contribute and improve an article, or you don't- the rest is not up to you, but everyone who wants to have a go, the way they see fit. Good stuff will survive and evolve, poor stuff will be replaced. There is no need for drama and imaginary heroism- who would want to vandalise a flooring entry ? Find a more interesting area to play like politics ...and let boring articles to evolve by trial and error, in the true spirit of Wikipedia - NOT CENTRALLY controlled -get that? --17:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDIAROM (talk • contribs)
By the way, if you are not capable to check references now, I have a hard time to believe you checked the very first edits - that did link to a single source- as explained to the person you claim not to be - a temporary solution- in hope someone well informed will come with a credible research, that i had difficult time to source ( if you don't count subscription journals articles, that were my original source and are not suitable references). The page you talk about- and failed to check- is not a flooring company- it is simple a green information site, nothing else, does not advertise anything at all - anyway,by the time you were summoned to help bully me- those links were all gone, so what are you on about? I don't care if you are one, two or three people or personalities, but please if you have nothing constructive to add, say or produce, let others do so. I already explained that I appreciated beeing alerted to a few issues, and I was happy to discuss and make changes- however, your actions were: rush in - accuses- fail to check - fail to correct- fail to contribute...REFLECT!!! I will not waste any more time discussing this.WDIAROM (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll add a Request for comment below for this addition to the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding about the company I objected to was that it was one of the www.pts.com sites which stick in some content so as to get ad money. Not that I have too much trouble with the concept but it just didn't seem worth linking to and I'm sure any primary sources would be better citations. My primary objection to the sustainable flooring inclusion in the Floors article is that it is just hijacking the article to push an agenda. It is a separate subject and you should set up a separate article that can be linked to. Dmcq (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to respond to a constructive message: My objection is: You both failed to check the website, and made accusations. Despite this- every link to that site was removed promptly.
My second objection is you have not shown any flooring expertise, or contributed to the page in any way - however, you want to remove information - this is antiwkipedia..remember, burning books because one did not like what is in them? I made changes becasue I agreed it was poorly writen, and sounded a bit like an advert. Now it does not - if you disagree, point it out, or correct it so it sounds neutral.
My third objection is - do not patronise wikipedia users, they can see when articles are poor, and they can see when references are poor too. They dont need to be told.
- In my estimation the section does not contribute to the floor article but pushes an agenda and is disproportionate. I believe a small comment like the one that reclaimed lumber is green is about the right amount in this article if anything is to be included at all. Set up a separate article on sustainable flooring and link to it. I've no objection to that and it can stand or fall by other's ideas on its notability. Please stop commenting on other people personally. Dmcq (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it a flooring company as was suggested? NO. I cant see any adds there- but perhaps it is because my browser stops them- I have no idea, will give you benefit of a doubt- I cant see a single add. Anyway, Tedder suggested newspaper articles instead- that HAVE every add type I can imagine all over them...so, was that really the issue, or was this all about something else, and the article, etc...was just a smokescreen? Tedder and their friend need to examine their behavior, and come to terms that their policing is not playing heroes, and that if they want to make this a better place, they need to lead by example, not be patronising, controlling and bullysh. They made no attempt to make any improvements, and no research, that speaks for their intentions clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- They were probably looking at one of the ones you'd left in like that rubber company. I was meaning one you'd cut out. I understand it is content commissioned to be put out on the web to get ad money, it leaves out ads until there's enough links to it. There is no feedback mechanism or review like for instance a trade organisation would have, and anyway unlike what you say green issues are discussed in trade magazines and their web equivalents. And personally I was not impressed with the content. I definitely agree with the comment that a newspaper would be better, they have a continuing discussion with their readers. Even an actual flooring company though slanted talks to people. Anyway I'm happy with it split off so you can try sticking in any questionable references you like into it now as far as I'm concerned without my interference. Might I suggest also that you'll avoid heart attack if you take the ideas in Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas to mind? Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for Comment: Sustainable flooring
- I agree that this section as it has been added should not remain. The types of flooring are mostly listed under "Resilient flooring", and the details should go in the individual articles. If there's enough of a "sustainable flooring" movement out there, then it should have its own article talking about the history.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Splitting up floor (again)
If no one objects I'm going to split up the Floor article again to move the Floor covering section to the 'Flooring' article. Flooring currently redirects to Floor. Floor covering will also be redirected to Flooring rather than Floor. Flooring would be the main article simply on the basis that Floor covering is two words rather than one, I've no better basis for distinguishing between them.
The sections on Floor features and floor cleaning would also be moved to Flooring, cut down versions of Floor covering, features and cleaning sections would be kept in the floor article. I think the sections to be split out are fairly self contained and hopefully this will leave space for a more structural oriented article in Floor.
Many links to floor should be disambiguated to somewhere else and this adds another place - flooring. Hopefully it should make the remainder more manageable. There's not many places where they actually mean an actual floor or subfloor rather than flooring or a storey or something else. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Name of article
The article was renames as Floor (surface) and is thankfully being moved back again. Could I ask if anyone else has a desire to rename it that they discuss it first. The (surface) was a particularly bad choice as Flooring is surfacing for a floor and there's other surfaces in maths just like there is a floor in maths. Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Question: structural function
Apart from a floor functioning as a sort of platform for people to live and work on, I suppose floors (and ceilings) must sometimes have the structural function of adding rigidity to a building. In this structural sense I daresay it doesn't matter whether the structure is called a floor or a ceiling, and may often be both. Do engineers, architects, builders etc. have any general term for a floor/ceiling with this specific function?Campolongo (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- They don't in general have such a function. However the beams under a floor do that sort of thing as well as holding up the floors and ceilings. Dmcq (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Article fails to consider exterior floors which are not in a room or vehicle, such as a floor that passes through a wall or opening to the exterior floor space. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)