Jump to content

Talk:New World Queen Anne Revival architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

usage of this article vs. Queen Anne architecture in the United States

[edit]
what a nice pic, who took that? of the James Alldis House in the U.S.  :)

I see User:Rodw and perhaps others are disambiguating links to here for some places in the United States such as Brooke Mansion (Birdsboro, Pennsylvania), which I think should not be done. All new inbound links from places in the U.S. should go to Queen Anne style architecture in the United States, instead. I am a tad dubious about this article, as it appears to be coining a term "New World Queen Anne Revival" which does not exist in real life. It includes a section covering the U.S. with a "main" link to the U.S.-focused article Queen Anne style architecture in the United States (which i have linked to in probably thousands of NRHP articles over a number of years). I am open to that article being renamed, perhaps to "Queen Anne Revival architecture in the United States" if "Revival" or "revival" should properly be used as the term. But please Rodw and others do not start, or please stop, linking U.S. articles to this amorphous-in-my-opinion article, please link to the specifically U.S. one (which maybe should be developed more or differently, but that is a different discussion). It is my fairly strong belief that all new (or any old) inbound links from U.S. places should be revised; please help with that and don't make more work or cause unnecessary churning. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re the linking. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I was not aware of he article Queen Anne style architecture in the United States as it was not included on the dab page Queen Anne Revival architecture (I see it has since been added). The creation of the dab page had lead to over 100 links to disambiguation pages which I was trying to resolve. I don't know enough about the similarities and differences in the different architectural styles to comment on the relative merits of the different articles.— Rod talk 07:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rename/move needed?

[edit]

I suspect that "New World Queen Anne Revival" as a term is a new coinage, which should be avoided, and therefore think that this article should be moved/renamed to be "Queen Anne Revival architecture in the New World" or "Queen Anne Revival architecture in the British empire" or "Queen Anne Revival architecture outside the United Kingdom and outside the United States" or something else instead. Please note long existence of article Queen Anne architecture in the United States. Also please note that Australia, covered in this article, is not part of the New World.

Similarly, see Talk:British Queen Anne Revival architecture about renaming that article too. I do appreciate good development having gone on here, am just questioning the best titles for the articles. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers the US as well (with a "main" to the dedicated article). I think the current title is ok, but Queen Anne Revival architecture outside Britain might be the best alternative if it needs to move. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'New World' properly includes Australia, I checked, so it fits the required meaning well. I have no objection to a rename if the phrase has to be 'in the'. However, since the British and other styles are very different, we should not choose a title that implies they are the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Johnbod and Chiswick Chap. It would be sorta nice for article naming purpose if "New World" did include Australia, but currently to me it seems that is not the case. The New World article would have to mention Australia in its lede, IMO, and it does not, and it only mentions/asserts the term includes Australia when one is talking about wine. I was just thinking that "New World" should comment about Australia one way or the other in its lede, and that we should adjourn to a new discussion at its Talk page, but then I see there is a discussion Talk:New World#Reference / Australasia (during 2014) which could be revived. Maybe a new section at that Talk page should be opened. I do tend to believe Chiswick Chap that New World includes Australia for more than just wine; maybe/probably there are sources available online now, or other sources, for a new discussion there. Can we adjourn to there, for this, for Chiswick Chap to share the sources they checked? Unless/until there is a change in the Wikipedia New World article (at least establishing "architecture is like wine"), i think "in the New World" doesn't work in name for this article.
IMO "outside Britain" isn't a great term; I see that disambiguation page Britain says differently but I would think "Britain" means Great Britain. Others may disagree but I'd prefer to avoid that phrasing. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does mean GB (minus a few islands) - what's the problem with that? You could use "outside the UK". I don't like New World either. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a new naming scheme

[edit]

Could I suggest a new naming scheme based on using "Queen Anne" alone (no "style") for the 18th century (in architecture and furniture) and "Queen Anne Revival" for the 19th and early 20th centuries (multiple architectural styles across different countries)? This is consistent with the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, which divides "Queen Anne" into these two sub-topics and states that "[Queen Anne] Revival" can be used interchangeably with "Queen Anne style" for the latter. (Also, it would be best to avoid using "Queen Anne style" as a compound modifier – otherwise, per MOS:SUFFIXDASH, the titles would have to be Queen Anne–style architecture and so on.) So:

What do you think? Ham II (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ham II, that's pretty good. I agree most strongly with removing "New World Queen Anne Revival architecture" as a topic, because it is pretty clear there is no such thing, there is little no commonality between "New World" styles. I understand they were only grouped together in order to separate/emphasize that British revival(s) were different than "elsewhere" (but all the others are also different than elsewhere, so it would be just as natural to have American vs. non-American and have Australian vs. non-Australian and so on. And having one Queen Anne architecture overview article, however, that includes the revival style in the U.K. is good. But note it can naturally start with, and I think should include, the Queen Anne architecture (18th century) too. I believe that the U.S. style was called, in the U.S., "Queen Anne architecture" and not "Queen Anne Revival", whether or not one overview perspective classifies it as "revival"; the issue of correct name for the U.S. version should not be much of a barrier however. --Doncram (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: No objection at all to titling the American article Queen Anne architecture in the United States (already a redirect), so long as it's still treated as a child article to the proposed "Queen Anne Revival architecture" article formed from a merger of New World Queen Anne Revival architecture and one or more sections of Queen Anne style architecture.
My first preference would still be to keep the 18th-century style separate, with "Queen Anne architecture" redirecting to the Queen Anne style dab page explaining all the different styles. This is partly so that the Wikipedia articles will align neatly with the Wikidata items: the current Queen Anne style architecture links to the Wikidata item Queen Anne style architecture (Q529819), for the 18th-century style, while the current New World Queen Anne Revival architecture has the item Queen Anne Revival architecture (Q55164904), for the revivalist style(s). Removing the revivalist style(s) from the current Queen Anne style architecture would also highlight how brief our coverage of the original style is, and possibly encourage more to be added. It would also help emphasise that the "revivals" have little in common with the original style except for the name. Ham II (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and Johnbod: What do you think of this proposal? Ham II (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as good as anything, though it does sort of imply that there is a unified thing called QAA which may occur in US, UK, etc whereas these styles are actually quite unlike. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II, i think that's as much of a concession as anyone can hope for. [Sure, in covering QA styles, we now all seem to agree that it is necessary to emphasize upfront that there is no unified thing. It is not necessary for CC to explicitly concede that their creating/renaming an article on "NWQAA" was obviously implying that there is such a unified thing called NWQAA whereas we now all agree, i think, that QA-associated styles in Australia, U.S., and other countries were/are actually quite unlike. Nor is it necessary for CC to concede explicitly that edits in relating articles suggesting that NWQAA is a thing, were not really helpful. Or maybe CC has conceded more explicitly somewhere; it does not matter.] So anyhow do let's say there is agreement to reorganize the Wikipedia coverage of Queen Anne architectural styles.
About the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture explanation which Ham II refers to, I have now accessed that, and have just a very little different interpretation. It states or implies, by my reading, that the "original" architecture or furniture during the 1702-14 reign of Queen Anne may be referred to as "Queen Anne", while "Queen Anne style" or "Queen Anne Revival" may be used to refer to all the later versions. So "Queen Anne architecture", per them, might mean only the architecture during 1702-14. The explanation is pretty clear to me that the "original" really means ending in 1714, and not extending at all through more of the 18th century. Then the later things started in the 1860s apparently. But per many other sources, and general if imperfect usage in the United States, the term "Queen Anne architecture" means later style(s). We cannot give over the term to mean only the 1702-14 architecture. I sort of like Ham II's suggested limiting term "Queen Anne architecture (18th century)" but would prefer it to be more limiting to only the 1702-14 period, so I suggest something like "Queen Anne architecture (during reign of Queen Anne only)". Or, I think i prefer: "Queen Anne architecture (1702-14)". And for the later stuff, or as title to the more general article, how about "Queen Anne style architectures" (note the use of plural) or "Queen Anne and Queen Anne Revival styles". I suggest this addresses Ham II's preference "to avoid using "Queen Anne style" as a compound modifier", because the plural form avoids that and prevents anyone from compounding it at all, and all the subtopics (and names of other articles) would all be worded to avoid the term "Queen Anne style":
  • "Federation architecture" for Australia,
  • "Queen Anne architecture in the United States", and
  • "Queen Anne Revival architecture (Britain)" or "Queen Anne Revival architecture in the United Kingdom" or "Domestic Revival architecture" or similar.
About Canada, by the way, I honestly cannot really guess whether "Queen Anne" was used for U.S.-style deliberately assymetrical design which would have come over, or whether it was used for British-type explicitly symmetric designs. I suggest we leave coverage for Canada and for South Africa and for other places to other editors in the future.
For all of these ones, we are to emphasize they are not really Revivals of the "original" at all. The Dictionary states "The Queen Anne style or Revival evolved from the 1860s, and was not really what its label suggests. Some details were derived from C17 and C18 English and Flemish domestic architecture, but eclectic motifs were drawn from many..."
User:Ham II, others, does this meet your agreement? --Doncram (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too happy with some of these, I'm afraid. I don't think the American style should be called a "revival" when it isn't reviving anything. Nor do I think British stuff that actually is "revival" should be lumped in with the almost completely different New World stuff. We'd never do this were it not for the unfortunate customary names, & I think we should concentrate on getting the various topics right first, then work out what to call them (as indeed we have mostly done so far). Ok with the furniture, but that isn't much of an issue. I don't really like Queen Anne architecture (18th century), especially as I think the style actually begins before 1700. I suggested Queen Anne Revival architecture in the United Kingdom, so that's fine. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap, Doncram, and Johnbod: OK, here's a modified proposal that tries to take the concerns above into account:

Is this better? Ham II (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything except:
1) There is no effing such thing as "Queen Anne architecture in the Americas and Australia", so that cannot be an article. Further, what about South Africa and various British colonial places like Kenya and Afghanistan and India and France? What about, per a 2008 Archictectural Digest article, the "Queen Anne style" house built in 1895 near Christchurch, New Zealand?
2) Also, as I have been asserting, "Queen Anne architecture" is a style in the United States (and probably other places). So a "Queen Anne architecture" article has to be an overview article that discusses:
a) Queen Anne architecture (1703-1714) [about the term's usage in England narrowly or perhaps more broadly in the United Kingdom during reign of Queen Anne]
b) Queen Anne Revival architecture in the United Kingdom [which happens to start in the 1860s i think, and is also known as Domestic Revival, and I think is very symmetrical]
c) Queen Anne architecture in the United States [which is deliberately assymetrical]
d) Federation architecture [in Australia, also known as Queen Anne architecture or possibly Queen Anne Revival, i dunno]
e) Queen Anne architecture elsewhere [about which we don't know much, but we have to suppose the term "Queen Anne architecture" or "Queen Anne style" has been used in other places like Pakistan or wherever, probably referring to different looks in those varied places.
Maybe this does not sound like I am really agreeing? But I think we are making progress, and I appreciate Ham II's efforts. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I do agree to:
  • moving Queen Anne style furniture → Queen Anne furniture
  • moving British Queen Anne Revival architecture → Queen Anne Revival architecture in the United Kingdom
  • moving Queen Anne style architecture in the United States → Queen Anne architecture in the United States
In fact I tried just implementing the latter but cannot do so. Would any one here who is an administrator please just boldly implement these 3 moves? --Doncram (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Re point 1, you can see why I didn't want an article of this scope! (Incorporating New Zealand would be easy as "Australia" would become "Australasia", but I don't know how widely the eclectic style spread, to be honest.) Is Queen Anne architecture outside the United Kingdom viable? Re point 2, my "no change to the scope" should be read as "scope not restricted to the 18th century".
I've boldly moved the article on the British revival style, but the rest are moves over redirects, which I can't do. I'd be inclined to do a WP:RM for Queen Anne style architecture, Queen Anne style architecture in the United States and Queen Anne style furniture, which could bring any possible furniture contributors in. Ham II (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap, Doncram, and Johnbod: I've started an RM for the "Queen Anne style [X]" articles here. Ham II (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_World_Queen_Anne_Revival_architecture&oldid=1204266942"