Talk:Floor plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

split into two stubs[edit]

I've played around with the size and posistioning of the images as best I can, but I still think that its less than ideal. My proposed solution to this is to split the two stubs, one for the archeticural term and one for the electronics term, but I would like input into the new locations. The options are presented in decresing order of preference for me (ie. my first choice is 1, my 2nd choice is 2 and my third choice is 3). Thryduulf 21:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

option 1[edit]

option 2[edit]

  • the electronics stub is moved to Floor plan (electronics)
  • the architecture stub stays here and a link to the electronics stub is placed at the top.

option 3[edit]

  • the artichecture stub is moved to Floor plan (architecture)
  • the electronics stub stays here and a link to the architecture stub is placed at the top.


There's not enough detail here at the moment to warrant splitting up. So contrary to the above, I propose merging this article into the more general Plan view. - Sticki 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


I started with this article after plan view had been merged with floor plan, and after a great deal of stuff had been added regarding house plans. Because plan view is geometry related and is applicable to more disciplines than floor plans, I have split it out again and expanded it. It is still a stub, but is a good companion to elevation (view) and cross section (geometry). The lists related to house plans were so specific to that discipline, they needed to be removed from floor plan, which I have done. Perhaps there it can successfully become a larger article related to House design without bogging down floor plan. What floor plan could use is some history. Otherwise perhaps it just gets merged into Plans (drawings).--Jrsnarn 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Keep in mind that the PNG file format is much more suitable than the JPG file format for floor plans and technical drawings. JPG is more suited for photographies.

US Floor Plan[edit]

I'm curious as to why clarification is needed (on the first floorplan example) to state that it is a U.S. floorplan. If it _is_ needed, I'm curious why the second isn't also listed as a U.S. floorplan example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As no one answered this, I'm going to remove the "US" out of the first image. Greg Vernon —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I added U.S. to the first floor plan again, as I think it's a very atypical plan for say, a European house. This is mainly because of the enormous garage attached to it, which is rarely seen in Europe (a.f.a.i.k. being Dutch myself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How does the term 'line' fit into this?[edit]

I'm wondering why there is a redirect from "Line (building)" when the term line is not mentioned in the article. How is the term used, what relation does it have to the article? Rexparry sydney 03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, when creating a floor plan several different lineweights are used, that's all I can think of. Greg Vernon

Height of Plane Cut-through[edit]

In the first paragraph, we see that "a plan is understood to be drawn at a particular vertical position (commonly at about mid-level between floors)." It was my assumption all these years that the cut is about belt-high. Am I wrong? Frunobulax (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Netherlands architects commonly draw at a level of about 1 - 1.5m above the floor. Structural engineers on the other hand draw at the level of the floor, showing only the floor and the underlying structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The plan drawn by a structural engineer is refered to as a floor framing plan. Framing plans are almost different enough that any discussion on them could warrant a new article. Framing Plans are drawn through the floor and only structural walls show up with in dark lines. Other walls and features may be drawn in lightly or completely left out.
As an architect, the general rule is to place the cut somewhere between 3 and 4 feet (or 1 meter) which is fairly consistent with what I have observed. However, the architect has some leway with this height depending on certain special features of the building. Also even at a standard 3-4 foor elevation, some things such as a window which might be 5 feet off the floor may still appear on the plan for practical reasons (i.e. the horizontal dimension may not be shown anywhere else).
So basically all that means I agree with the change from "mid-level" to four feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox69 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More "Complex" Floor Plan[edit]

The plans that we have right now are fairly simple, which is fine, but for balance I think we also need a graphic of a professional (i.e. construction grade) floor plan. If I have the time, I may offer one of my own (of an existing building of course; I don't really want to release any of my personal designs into the public domain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox69 (talkcontribs) 00:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)