Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Complexe Desjardins

There is a disagreement over having a building infobox at Complexe Desjardins, can someone provide additional input? 64.229.101.119 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Beekman Tower vs. 8 Spruce Street

Input from this project is requested here for a requested move discussion about the proper name for the article on this building. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack and Jill bathroom

I found the Jack and Jill bathroom article after seeing an old house for sale whose brochure states that it has one (and I had not come across one or the term before). The article was very stubby, appeared biased to modern trends and its only references were of questionable reliability.

I have expanded the article to try to make it less biased and less stubby, but could not easily find any reliable sources. I have added an {{Unreliable sources}} tag and a few {{expand section}} tags (to sections I created), but I think there is still plenty of scope for improvement, including a possible merge into the bathroom article (which I have also tackled but still needs much improvement).

I have made more expansive individual comments at Talk:Jack and Jill bathroom. Tim PF (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic Architecture

Kinetic Architecture.- Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion"),Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). Is an architectural design concept where a building is transforming, moving or changing by the use of natural or unnatural sources through technological innovations. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities. kitaro, 18 February 2011

www.imagesofengland.org.uk

This English Heritage-operated website has been used on many articles relating to listed buildings. Not sure when, but it seems to have been revamped, and URLs in the form (e.g.) http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=302261&mode=quick no longer work. I can't find what the new, correct version of such links should be. I recommend Heritage Gateway as a suitable replacement; this is also operated by English Heritage, and is updated with new and changed listed buildings (unlike IoE, which is static as of 2001). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Links would need to change as folllows (using the above as an example):

• From http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=302261&mode=quick
• To http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=302261&resourceID=5

As at February 27th 2011, the search facility of English Heritage no longer seems to be working Wilsonlaidlaw (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Also cross-posted to WT:UKGEO.

Sydness Architects page: False fact - East 49th NOT canceled

Dear WikiProject Architecture...

Was reading about Architects in NYC and noticed the Sydness Architects page. I wondered if you created it? If so, the citation about "East 49th Street" being canceled is false. My friend lives in that building and knows that Sydness Architects designed it. On your source page for that quote...I believe the first design wasn't used but the second design was. Check out the external website and you can see East 49th Street live photos, designed by Sydness Architects. East 49th street, The Alexander, is built and has residents...so it was not canceled. Just so you are aware of the false entry. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kklemonet (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Delhi Akshardham Fire in 2009

There is a ongoing discussion on inclusion of this information at Talk:Akshardham (Delhi). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Gerrards Cross collapse

Suggested move. See talk:Gerrards Cross tunnel collapse. Simply south...... 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Largest residence in Beverly Hills is in need of repair

The Largest residence in Beverly Hills is in need of repairs. It may be big, but the article is a stub. It's the Michael Jackson, Elton John, etc. house. PPdd (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

New article - Notable homes of the Beverly Hills area. Please participate with your knowledge.

New article - Notable homes of the Beverly Hills area. Please participate with your knowledge. PPdd (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Architect as a term or Title

Id like someone who knows a bit more than I about how to and where to post the information about the legal use of the term and title architect. Try as I might I can't seem to do it correctly. Please let me know if you would like to help.Jerry20112011 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is covered reasonably well in Professional requirements for architects, which is linked from the Professional requirements section of the architect article.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_March_31#File:1966Cuacpue.jpg

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Culture.si - 2000+ free text articles

Culture.si This is a portal by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia with over 2000 articles about Slovene culture. The text is under the same license as Wikipedia; you have to atrivute the source. Just wanted to let you know about this. --U5K0 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi I just want to add steel building terminology page to the external links section on the Steel Building page

This terminology is used across the US and is very helpful to anyone who is learning about steel buildings. The link would redirect the user from with the anchor Steel Buildings Terminology is this good to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.231.82 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mfd for Wikipedia:WikiProject Piers

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Piers. Thank you. --Kleinzach 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This MFD closed as "Merge to WikiProject Architecture". I have moved the Piers project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Piers, and all instances of its project template on article talk pages have been replaced with {{WikiProject Architecture}}. What to do beyond that is up to the members of this project. The Piers page is still marked as inactive. You could leave it as such, or try to make it an active task force, or do something else. If you come up with a plan that requires administrator assistance, feel free to contact me. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Tallest Buildings in Minnesota

Hi, I am a resident of Minneapolis, and while browsing the lists of tallest buildings in my area I noticed that on the page "List of Tallest Buildings in Minnesota" the Midtown Exchange building in Minneapolis is not listed. Even though, according to the Midtown Exchange's Wikipedia page, it is plenty tall to make it onto the list. I just thought someone should know and hopefully fix it. I would have myself if I could. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.167.28 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Buildings named after clergy

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Buildings named after saints might be of interest to you people. Moray An Par (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Architectural terminology

I have created Category:Architectural terminology as an attempt to clean up Category:Architecture. There may be more terms out there that could be used to further populate the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Architecture Ambassador for WikiProject MoMA

As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject Architecture folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking for anyone to be an Architecture Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations currently has a backlog!

All editors willing and able to review articles are needed! Please contribute to the consensus of these articles by choosing 3 or more nominations to review in any of the catagories of interest to this project!

Please visit Wikipedia:Good article nominations now and begin! Thanks you!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Roof style

There's an old farmhouse north of Cattistock, dating from roughly the 1600s, which has a rather peculiar roof design. I wonder if anyone here knows what its form and function would be. On Google Maps it shows as 50.807925,-2.588892. It looks kind of like a modified hipped-roof, except that it appears to dip downward in the middle. I don't think it's an optical illusion, as the south portion of the roof casts a shadow into that "dipped" area. Does anyone here know anything about this type of construction? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Point Park Civic Center

Since the article was promoted to FA five years ago, I have a few problems with it. I have addressed them here. Please feel free to chime in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Point Park Civic Center for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles on architectural firms

Should articles on firms have the constituent architects redirecting to them, listing the architects' works regardless of whether they were designed by the firm or not? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I think the general answer is pretty obvious: it depends. If two architects worked primarily in partnership, or as father and son in one firm, then an article at the firm name with redirects from the two individual names often makes sense. If there is more information about one or both can be handled comfortably in one article, then editors developing the material may choose to split out another article, following usual wikipedia guidelines on mergers vs. splits. --doncram 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

:I suspect your asking this here is an attempt to cover for your edit-warring at George P. Washburn, as if you have a point to your repeated removal of a list of works of George P. Washburn, his firm with his son, and the renamed firm of his son with another partner. In that case, a single article seems to make the most sense so far, especially as there is only one so-far-known notable work by the renamed firm. I suspect the fault in the list of works of the firm, in my version of the new article, that you claim exists in edit summaries and in the talk page, but do not deign to explain at Talk:George P. Washburn is that you see -- as I always did see before I put the list into the article--that there is one item in that list by the successor firm, based on the source that i included in the article. I knew that. Your removal of the entire list of works, based on your questioning one item and not even explaining that, seems wp:POINTY or worse. I'd appreciate your returning the list to the article and helping in its development. If other editors would care to help that article, I'd appreciate that too. --doncram 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Closely related question: should articles on architects include buildings designed after the architect's death by the firm they were associated with? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not unless the building is demonstrably related to the dead architect, and even then the building should not go in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends. If the article is about the architect alone, then probably no. If the article is about an architectural group, then yes: the death of the first architect involved in the group does not end the group. By the way, I don't think SarekOfVulcan is asking about an infobox. If an editor wishes to dispute whether a single architect should be split out of an article about the group, then that should be discussed at the Talk page of the article. Usual wikipedia guidelines about splitting vs. merging topics would apply.

In the edit just before opening this discussion, SarekOfVulcan opened the same topic at another WikiProject's talk page. wp:FORUMSHOP? The reason for wp:FORUMSHOP as a guideline, AFAIK, is that it seems wrong to fish for different answers when you might not get the answer you want at one place. --doncram 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. I opened the discussion here before anyone answered the other one, because I figured both Wikiprojects would have valuable input -- therefore, no FORUMSHOPping. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please actually read wp:FORUMSHOP. It states: "Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue.". So, yes, it seems you are wp:FORUMSHOPing. (Do you really not understand? To spell it out more: you could have given a short neutral notice of one discussion, at the other wikiproject.) --doncram 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox request

Can someone create, and should there be, an infobox for architectural styles? I am specifically looking for one for the pages Territorial architecture, Greek Revival architecture, and Territorial Revival architecture. Some parameters would probably include the time period it was used in, the location it was prevalent in, and notable buildings of the style. There should also be an image parameter. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in architectural design

Hi WikiProject Architecture members! The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a class for the upcoming term on Architectural Design, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable architect?

How notable is Kunlé Adeyemi? --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentmore Towers Architectural Style

Hi, Are there one or more skilled practitioners in architectural styles who can help out Here. There a difference of opinion between two editors on the main architectural style employed on the design of Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire, which could benefit from some involvement of a third party, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 photo contest

There is a photo contest regarding National Heritage Sites in Europe running throughout September at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011, so it is a good time to upload high quality images of architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Francis Petre

I have nominated Francis Petre for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge of 4 World Trade Center and Four World Trade Center

Please discuss. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge of 5 World Trade Center and Five World Trade Center

Please discuss. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"ArchDaily" question at RSN

Hello architecture people. I've left a query at WP:RSN#Opinions on "ArchDaily" as a RS about using articles from the website "archDaily" as sources. Input would be welcome. The Interior (Talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Article assessments

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Assessment#Requests for assessment as probably few are watching the page. It is however discouraging for editors not to receive feedback on their work when requested. Any help with assessments would be appreciated. --Elekhh (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion re "Firewall"

Readers here may be interested in contributing to a discussion at Talk:Firewall (computing)#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Landscape architect parameter for Infobox park?

There is a discussion about including a designer / landscape architect parameter in Infobox park at Template talk:Infobox park#Designer?. Input would be welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Architectural sketches

Architectural sketches are essential for communicating architectural ideas, and consequently are integral to most architectural publications, from magazines to monographs. Sketches can help explain a specific design, design idea or architectural approach. I think many Wikipedia articles would benefit enormously if such sketches could be included. Just think of sketches of Gehry, Mies van der Rohe's iconic Friedrichstrasse sketch or Utzon's conceptual sketches of the Sydney Opera House, Bagsværd Church, Can Lis, etc... I think it would be acceptable to upload such images under WP:FAIRUSE, given that these have very high educational value and cannot be replaced until will enter public domain. So far uploads of portraits of deceased architects have been allowed, but I think sketches are at least equally important. Before proceeding with such uploads, I would welcome any comments and feedback. --Elekhh (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully support this initiative. It seems to me that if Wikipedia allows artwork to be used under fair use to illustrate the work of contemporary painters, the same reasoning should apply to the sketches made by architects. Is there in fact any real difference? After all, many architects are also adept artists. - Ipigott (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, as well as anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos to the NRHP county lists of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites that include modern or post-modern architecture." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Architecture-related CfD discussion

... is here at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_13#Category:Museum_architects, for all those interested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Antoni Gaudí GA review

The article Antoni Gaudí is currently under Good Article review. There are just a few more cleanup details left so it can pass. Any help would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Visual identity

I updated visual identity of this WikiProject. Removed several colors, that didnt look nice, and added only classical gray. Also, added pillars as look like logo of architecture. And, frame, to point wiki projects content. Hope you like it. All best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I did not like it and reverted your version. I find it less contemporary and with too many frames. I suggest you build up an alternative model(s) in a sandbox, and wait for feedback from others prior to changing it. I am not against change, just not convinced of this particular proposal. --Elekhh (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Templon

I have nominated Templon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested Building Diagrams

I've noticed there are a few articles in category: requested building diagrams. I was just wondering what exactly is meant by the tag? What sort of diagrams would be appropriate for a wikipedia article? I would be willing to create a few. Ahp378 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! Looking to what is tagged (mostly skyscrapers) probably a section is what was meant by the editor tagging the articles. In fact almost all architecture articles would be enhanced if would had floor plans and other relevant drawings. That being said, I am not sure about copyright, and where would be the threshold between copyright infringement of an architectural drawing and an useful diagrammatic representation of that drawing. Maybe others know. But if you would look to illustrate designs in the public domain (architect died over 70 years ago) than either a scan of the original plan or a diagram of it would be great additions to any article. As an example, here a nice plan of Amiens Cathedral. --Elekhh (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do! Ahp378 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bavinger House

More editors' eyes would be appreciated at the Bavinger House article. This important Bruce Goff house in Norman, Oklahoma, a winner of the AIA Twenty-five Year Award, recently suffered serious damage of uncertain origin and is now closed; the article has seen a series of edits from a variety of IP addresses making a variety of changes, some of which delete reliable sources and replace them with unreliable ones, some of which make unsourced accusations, and many of which appear to violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and/or (in some earlier versions) WP:BLP. (See this comparison [1] showing the cumulative changes by the IP editors over the last week.) Engaging constructively with the IP editor(s) has proven difficult. The situation could benefit from some fresh eyes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP sock for disruptive editing, and it appears that they're using proxies. I'd semi-protect the article, but other IPs are making useful contributions. I'll keep an eye on the article. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Article now semi-protected due to return of IP socks. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to take a crack at repairing some of the other less-than-constructive IP changes (deletions of reliable sources, unsourced accusations against OU, etc.) and, of course, will very much appreciate additional perspectives. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

National Register nominations are now available for Oklahoma. I've dropped a link on the article's talkpage if you want to use that for sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New articles

I have added manually to the list a few new articles created in the last couple of months. I see that there is a line on the portal which says: "This list is produced by an automated bot programmed to find all new articles about architecture topics." I would be interested to know how this bot makes its selection as it doesn't seem to have been very effective recently. I would also like to know if it is possible to view the other new articles added to WikiProject Architecture, perhaps simply on the basis of recent talk pages. What are the search parameters to be used here and why can't they simply be provided in the portal so that anyone can find new articles? - Ipigott (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The "new article bot" provides a list of new architecure articles here: User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchitectureSearchResult. It is currently operated by User:TedderBot (see User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch) since the original bot ceased operation. The rules are here: User:AlexNewArtBot/Architecture. They can be edited, but frankly I don't understand them. There is a guide of sorts here, or you could ask Tedder. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a confused message and I corrected it. The list at Portal:Architecture/New article announcements which is currently transcluded into the Architecture bulletin but does not appear on the Portal was always manually maintained. It was very active in 2006-07 but usage dropped afterwards. The bot generated list linked on the page and also referred to by Jonathan above I find too broad in scope to be useful, as it includes all buildings regardless of architectural notability, and also completely irrelevant stuff like Emilie Ortlöpp to take just the one at the top of the list right now. --Elekhh (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you answer my other question, namely whether it is possible to search for articles recently added to WikiProject Architecture, for example by searching new additions over a period of, say, a month? Perhaps searches can also be made on the basis of categories?? - Ipigott (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I run User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch. It looks at new pages once for each project. It doesn't look at existing pages, redirects turned into pages, etc. As far as rules go, they use regular expressions, which are complicated to the average programmer. However, it's not bad if you think in a couple of terms: keywords, inclusions/exclusions, and points. If you want to add keywords, change points, or anything else, be bold and let me know to check the results. I'll watch this talk page for a little while for questions. tedder (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder for responding so promptly. Our aim is to get a more useful list with more relevant findings, that is, to narrow down the search formula to exclude articles which currently are included only because the word "architecture" appears in them (as with Emilie Ortlöpp or ANAT Technology) or appear in a category like Buildings and structures in... (as Eagle Borax Works) but are of no relevance to the wikiproject. This later is a much reoccurring problem as "Buildings and structures in..." categories are a subcategory of "Architecture in..." but not all articles within them are really relevant. The focus of the search should be on articles added to the WikiProject via {{WikiProject Architecture}} as well as very obvious cases such as articles in Category:Architects. --Elekhh (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The NewPageSearch is really meant to look for keywords or content that matches/doesn't match. Categories can be used to exclude things- for instance, "remove a lot of points if a category begins with "Building". It isn't designed to give authoritative/canonical/perfect results though- simply to give a list of articles the project may not be aware of.

As far as "why didn't this page appear?", it's been on my list to make an interface- give a search and an article, show what the score would be (so you can determine why it didn't match). Real life has been limiting. tedder (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So from what you are saying it appears that the bot is simply set up to scan the new articles, identify words (which can include "category:..." at the bottom of the page), add points for each match and than list articles which reach a certain score (30?). So EU Referendum Rebels gets included as for each mention of "House" (of Commons) receives 5 points. And I understand that we can also define words which attract minus point such as "computer" to exclude computer architecture related articles, although I can't identify any on the rules page. As the current formula (created 2007 and never optimised afterwards) is not entirely wrong (most irrelevant articles get 30-50 pt while the more relevant ones score 50+pts), my suggestion would be to test some changes to the rules and try to imrove the result. I would reduce the points given to common words which can appear in any context (i.e. "house", "wall", "bridge" be 2 pt instead of 5pt, tunnel be 0pt instead of 5pt) add more points for clear cases such as "Category:Architect" 30pt, add big minuses for "computer architecture" -30pt. Would that be possible? Any other suggestions? I could go on with such changes if I would better understand the codes. If in the rules page there is no number in front of the word like "/facade/" does that mean 1pt? And what does "/\" and "/\[\[" do? --Elekhh (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're doing fantastically. No number on the rule means a default score is applied (10 points). Multiple /searches/ on the same line are because they are exclusions.. so "/architecture/ /computer architecture/" says "match pages that say 'architecture' but not 'computer architecture'. It's an alternative to a negative score. They are documented here: User:AlexNewArtBot#Compile_the_rules.

So yeah, change the scoring all you want, add or remove searches, I'll clean them up if they aren't quite right. What I don't know is the content you are trying to include or exclude for this project. tedder (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh there it was the explanation to the codes, all much clearer now. To clarify the aim, is to have a more exact list of articles matching the scope of this wikiproject, that is Architecture as the "art and science of design and erecting buildings", but exclude articles on engineering (which may be related to buildings), history (which may be related to castles, palaces, etc), simple structures not notable in architecture (buildings notable as location of institutions), IT (use of word architecture in computer science) etc. Articles such as Emilie Ortlöpp, ANAT Technology, EU Referendum Rebels, Denis Julien Inscription (Moffat County, Colorado), Timeline of the 2011 Yemeni uprising (3 June – October), Wuppertal-Oberbarmen–Solingen railway etc shouldn't have been included in the list, while Henri Maclaine Pont, Rødovre Town Hall, etc. are good. --Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like perfect use of the search rules- feel free to modify them and I'll support you technically. tedder (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have been bold and did some changes. But here a problem: looking to Denis Julien Inscription (Moffat County, Colorado) this has been included with a score of 42 although none of the words in the visible text are included in the rules. What seems to have happened is that the empty fields of the infobox template have been counted as lead words, thus 20pt for "architect = " and 20 pt for "architecture =" both blank as non applicable. What's the best way to exclude these to be counted? --Elekhh (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes (and the NRHP infobox in particular) should be excluded, since while many National Register of Historic Places properties are buildings, just as many are archeological sites, battlefields, or miscellaneous explorer graffiti like the Julien inscription with a null entry for the architect field. If an NRHP property has architectural significance, the architect should be mentioned in the body of the article. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Better would be to have a configurable option. I'll added that to the list of things to do. tedder (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I improved the formula quite a bit so the list we have now seems much more accurate. If there are any issues (missing articles, or false listings) let me know, and see if can be further fine-tuned. Regarding the earlier question of listing new articles tagged as part of the WikiProject, found that the 1.0 bot managing the assessments does generate a list at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Architecture articles by quality log where newly assessed articles are listed. --Elekhh (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see so much progress is being made here. The bot really seems to be doing quite a good job. It might also be interesting to automate a sort on the length of the articles. Many in the list are very brief, even if the bot gives them top marks. As for the quality assessment, while some interesting progress is evident, the importance rating is often incorrect but I don't see at this stage how it could be improved. In any case, we are now getting a much more reliable basis for adding interesting new articles to Wikiproject Architecture and possibly nominating more to DYK. Thanks for all the hard work. - Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. That distortion of how points are given to articles has to do with the general programming of Alex/Tedder bot. Stubs which are unstructured are assessed as lead sections, hence for every word match get double points, whereas a short article with only one sentence in the lead and the rest in sections will likely get less points. Than again very long articles will get many points even if less relevant as the chance of using common words related to architecture is greater (like that long story about the mistress who lived in a palace and met an architect...) . Perhaps you're right, and instead of quantity of words related to architecture an assessment of the density of relevant keywords (i.e. word matches divided by article length) could lead to better results, but that's up to the bot operator. Regarding importance assessments, I'm starting a new section below. --Elekhh (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some help

I would need some help editing my article. It look like it is wiki original research (WOR) and not an article. Could someone have a look and suggest solutions for improvements? I would appreciate your help and reply. Jsivira (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spatial_Intelligence_a_new_approach_for_architecture_and_design

WTC 7 RfC

I have submitted a request for comment on a subject of interest to this WikiProject. Please feel free to provide your input on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance assessments

It has been noted that the WikiProject importance assessments are not coherent, and need improvement. I think the key problem is that the importance rating guidelines are somewhat vague and lack detail. The result is that there are IMO too many "top importance" rated articles (443), representing ca. 4% of rated articles, compared to ca. 1.5% by other WikiProjects. Any suggestions for improvement welcome! --Elekhh (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree! As an example, it seems any noteworthy architect is automatically 'high' importance, while noteworthy buildings are 'mid' importance. There may be a logic behind this, but it is not clear. And there is no guideines for assessing organisations, awards, training systems, universities etc.

In the 'top' importance there do indeed seem to be several candidates raised above their warranted status, who are certainly not 'world famous', internationally important or attracting some superlative. If I come across them I tend to demote them. In my view, the description of what is 'top' importance is less ambivalent. Sionk (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see several biases: (a) bias for size, with large buildings like skyscrapers often rated in accordance with their coverage in popular media rather than architectural significance, (b) bias for locally important architects but without major historical influence, (c) US bias, again rather proportional with media coverage (i.e. World Trade Center) rather than architectural significance, (d) recentism, i.e. rating based on importance in the news now, not historically. The difficulty is that all these mean that articles tend to be overrated, and is hard to de-rate them without upsetting creators. That's why we need a very clear criteria, which will give a useful classification. It would be easy if there was a single authoritative source for the history of world architecture from the beginning until present... I think the current criteria for "Top importance" which includes the peacocky "most famous or beautiful" may also contribute to the problem. A building can be famous for many reasons not related to architectural expression. --Elekhh (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

'World famous' is a tricky one too - since the late 20th century it has become much easier to work internationally and have global significance. Top importance modern architects definitely need to be globally recognised, but architects working 100+ years ago need to be cut some slack because the world they could influence was far smaller.

I've no qualms with altering assessments. WP encourages us to be bold in our editing. I would tend to explain my re-assessment on the Discussion page.Obviously the 'Top importance' articles need prioritising for improvement and we will discover discrepancies if and when we delve deeper into them.

Who wrote the assessment guidelines? Do we need to get agreement amongst the Project on a form of wording? Sionk (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

St. Rumbold's Tower

Is there really a possibility that St. Rumbold's Cathedral tower may be finished? Can anyone find some sources for that? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi WhiteWriter. I've had a good look at the article and I must say I am quite impressed with its coverage. I've added just one additional source on the tower but was unable to find more on the catherdral's interior. It seems to me that the best person to contact on this would be User:SomeHuman who not only is from Mechelen but has been by far the biggest contributor to the article. He should surely be able to reference the additions he made himself. Why not contact him on his talk page and/or on the article's talk page, perhaps specifying a little more clearly what you think still needs to be done? - Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Тhanks for your response, Ipigott, i will do that! All best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

References to the former Field Building and Illinois Merchants Bank Building in Chicago, both by Graham, Anderson, Probst and White

In discussing Chicago architecture, it's problematic, first, that the page for the Field Building at 135 S. La Salle St. (by Graham, Anderson, Probst and White, completed 1934) is listed instead as the LaSalle National Bank Building, and second, that the questionable practice of renaming a famous building to reflect its current occupants has now resulted in confusion because there are now TWO so-called Bank of America buildings in Chicago only a few blocks from each other. This is because BofA acquired and now owns both the Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building at 231 S. La Salle St. (when it bought Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust in 1994 from the federal government) and the former Field Building (LaSalle Bank, which owned the Field Building, was acquired in 1979 by ABN AMRO, then sold to Bank of America in 2007). The confusion has reached the point where the second edition of the AIA Guide to Chicago now refers to the Field Building primarily by its address, as well as all its former names, and to the Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building as the only Bank of America building in Chicago, along with its former names, in order to avoid that confusion. Even worse, Wikipedia only increases the confusion by having NO page for the former Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building and on other pages referring readers/users searching for information on that building to the section on Bank of America corporate buildings on the page for Bank of America -- then not even listing the Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building there at all! Yet this building, not the former Field Building, is the one in which BofA has its Chicago headquarters. This is crazy.

One would think that even those who insist on referring to a building by the name of its current occupants would take their cue from the Chicago chapter of the American Institute of Architects, which wrote the AIA Guide to Chicago, but there are plenty who don't. The Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building is important enough to the history of Chicago architecture in its own right that it should have its own Wikipedia page by that name -- a page wherein it is only secondarily referred to as the Bank of America building. Moreover, given that there are too many Bank of America buildings across the country anyway for anyone to know which one you mean at any given time, it's important to distinguish between the nondescript commercial buildings and the historically important ones. Finally, in dealing with historical buildings, both the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmarks list typically use historic buildings' original names, with very few exceptions. Surely these authorities are more important than local custom and corporate vanity. The former Field Building should be called such on its own Wikipedia page, as should the Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building on its own page. Both structures are important, but they are not one and the same building, and the way one page forwards automatically to the other causes confusion for people not well versed in Chicago architecture. Really, this mess has to be remedied. At the very least, inquiries for the Field Building should be redirected to the page for the LaSalle National Bank building, and a page for the Illinois Merchants Bank/Continental Illinois Bank Building should be created. Mrtraska (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Wiel Arets and Wiel Arets Architects

This has been proposed a while ago but no feedback so far. Any comments at Talk:Wiel Arets#Proposed merger welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hall-parlor plan architecture

Should Hall-parlor plan architecture be redirected to Hall and parlor house? It appears User:Doncram created the former (along with many others) without doing proper research beforehand.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good articles

It is a great opportunity to nominate articles for GA assessment as there are none in the queue. Would be nice to improve the present geographic bias in coverage: from 271 GAs almost three quarters (73%) relate to the UK and US. Asia has 13% while continental Europe has 7%. That leaves Africa, Australia, Central and South America together with only 5%. --Elekhh (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Improve the bird's eye view

The entire subject and Wikipedia's coverage of it is intended to be summarized in the Outline of architecture. It in turn is part of Wikipedia's outline system which is one of Wikipedia's main contents systems.

Please look it over and fill-in missing topics. If Wikipedia has an article or article section about those topics, please add links to them.

While analyzing the outline, please answer the following questions (and fix the outline as needed):

1. What's missing?
2. Is the structure of the outline (sections and indents) representative of the subject?
3. Does the outline help understand the relationships between the topics presented in the best way possible?

The overall purpose of the outline is to help readers comprehend the subject by showing what belongs to it, and within the subject what belongs to what.

The outline is a taxonomy of the subject, and also serves as a table of contents and navigation aid to browse Wikipedia's articles (and article sections) about the subject.

It is also a useful tool for the WikiProject to analyze, plan, develop, and revise architecture-related material. It is a hub from which to organize related topics.

It was built as a "reverse outline", a structural model of an existing work, which in addition to being a summary of the work, can reveal the gaps and other weaknesses for revision purposes.

Please help improve it.

It's our bird's eye view.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 31 January 2012

Expert needed

Copied from the talk page at Index of architecture articles which I'm in the process of editing in response to the recent request. Any views on the purpose of that article and what should be in it? an anyone tell me if it's in any way automatic? Lists of omissions?

I have requested an expert to look at this article. It contains several links to disambiguation pages that should be solved. An expert should know far quicker where to link to (or when to add additional links) then I do. Your effort will be much appreciated. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation

I will have a go at this. Had a go at B and E so far weeding out duplicates and completely useless stubs (just take a look at Experimental home and tell me if I'm wrong). There is a lot wrong with coverage of architecture on Wikipedia, partly because of wrong ideas about what constitutes proper subject matter, partly because many of the subjects that are covered are written by non-experts and consequently provide wrong or insubstantial information. So perhaps it would be useful if this page directed mainly to well developed articles that do contain useful information. How was this page was generated? Is it in any way automatic or just what people thought might belong here? because I can quite quickly dip into articles to see if they should be included, but if they are going to get added back automatically then I'm wasting my time. What about Outline of architecture - how does that relate to this article? It has the same problems and covers some of the same ground. Surely all the lists should go here, and that article should be more of a summary. I'm posting this on the Wikiproject page too. ProfDEH (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the history of the article, this is a manual effort which, in its present form, is mainly the work of Nexus Seven on 17 August 2006. It originally sought to address topics or concepts related to architecture but now seems to be a rather haphazard mix of various types of article related to architecture. Coverage though is by no means consistent. Just take the example Architecture of Normandy. Why should this be included in the first place and if it is included, why not all the other articles relating to architecture in various countries and regions? Ditto Association for Industrial Archaeology. So before we take things any further, I think it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the function of this page should be and which articles should be included. In the same context, we should decide whether or not it is a poor equivalent of the lists that can be obtained from the various categories related to architecture starting with Category:Architecture (and not forgetting the templates and nav boxes). And as you mention yourself, account should perhaps also be taken of Outline of architecture. - Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts since this morning:

- I think you're right, Index of architecture articles is actually rather redundant. As you say, there are other ways of finding articles on the subject - searching, lists, categories - and it's impossible to be comprehensive. - There is a lot of overlap between Portal:Architecture, Outline of architecture, Index of architecture articles and ideally at least one of those would go by way of a merge. Do we even need two roundup-type articles, especially since they are poorly maintained and worryingly incomplete? I think one is good to pick out some good articles on the basics, to give an overview of the subject. - It would be good to develop the Outline with a proper logical structure, as other examples of outlines have managed. - One problem is that while you'd aim for reasonably complete coverage, the quality of articles varies widely, so some don't really deserve to be mentioned excpet that the subject matter is important. How do you resolve that? ProfDEH (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the original intention of revealing red links which deserve coverage has now been served. I would suggest that if the index is maintained, it should be limited to the coverage of Category:Architectural elements and its subcategories. An alphabetical listing here could be useful particularly for educational purposes. Perhaps it could be merged or incorporated into the outline. I do not agree that articles that are not yet up to standard should be eliminated. The fact that they are included could lead to further development. I think it might be useful to copy this discussion to the Outline of architecture talk page. Any further comments or have we exhausted the discussion? - Ipigott (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's exhausted. I'm suggesting the index is redundant. I don't think it's good for Wikipedia to have a bad list and I've come to conclusion that a bit of easy editing is not going to make it even reasonably comprehensive.ProfDEH (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

All three types of guides to articles (portal, outline and index) are part of a general structure of Wikipedia. All three systems are struggling to some extent, in terms of both maintenance and readership. Portals are intended to readers and are focused on quality content and the Architecture Portal is featured and has a reasonable nr of viewers, so I would keep that. Outlines and Indexes are similar in scope but while outlines present content in a structured manner, Indexes only list content in alphabetic order. From the two, outlines have been far more successful with roughly about 300 topical outlines vs 150 topical indexes, and my impression has been that they are better maintained as well. Indexes are simply alphabetical lists, which I do not find very useful as they do not provide a structure (as outlines or categories), and are hard to maintain. In contrast an up to date list can be created with the toolserver any time. The index has been poorly maintained with currently ca. 1200 articles, when in fact WikiProject Architecture has 22,000 articles. So I am suggesting deleting the Index of architecture articles as too broad in scope to be useful. More focused indexes such as suggested by Ipigott for architectural elements might make more sense. I remember recently an Index of renewable energy articles has been deleted on similar grounds. --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, Elekhh. If there are no objections, could you use toolserver to create an "index of architectural elements" (maybe this is not the best name) along the lines I suggested above. I would also suggest that the index begins with two or three lines explaining its coverage. There could also be links to the outline and to the relevant categories. Once the new version is up and running the current index could be put forward for deletion. - Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The standard name would be "Index of architectural elements articles", but not sure if the best. Another question is whether that (i.e. alphabetic order) or a List of architectural elements (organised by types) would be better? In terms of scope I imagine you're thinking of something like Category:Architectural elements and its subcategories. Strangely enough the toolserver finds only 221 articles tagged as part of the Wikiproject while there are 341 articles in the category (not counting subcats). The difference might be articles which haven't been tagged as part of the WikiProject or wrongly categorized, so seems like it will need a bit of work to sort it out. In any case I think is a separate issue form the current Index of architecture articles, so would proceed with a deletion request independently. -Elekhh (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just duplicate the category list? ProfDEH (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from Category:Indexes of topics, there are lots of indexes of articles and topics, many closely related to the category classifications. One of the advantages of an index, is that it shows up in searches. People who are not familiar with Wikipedia's classification systems may not think of looking at categories when looking for topics. So perhaps it would be useful and in any case would represent an improvement over the current index. It might also lead to further suggestions for expansion. - Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If is only about searchability one can do a redirect as here. In any case that's a separate issue IMO, and while we are still at it, I nominated the index for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of architecture articles. --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

List of female architects

I've started a List of female architects. The general List of architects is pretty appalling and is almost entirely men! Because the vast, vast majority of female architects have been active during the 20th and 21st century it did not seem very informative to list chronologically. I've listed them by country, which has the added benefit of easily understanding the geographical spread, the first examples for each location etc. There are a very small number of individuals who are born in one country but generally practice in another. I've listed those twice.

To be honest, I'd strongly oppose listing chronologically for the above reasons. Unless you are looking for someone specifically and know when they were born, it won't help much.Sionk (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are several good reasons for listing in chronological sections: (1) the notability of the list itself is linked to chronology (a profession historically dominated by men is becoming more gender-balanced in time); (2) consistency with List of architects; (3) avoid over-structuring (there are 180+ countries! while less than 90 Category:Women architects); (4) avoid confusion (i.e. Denise Scott Brown in Zambia or South Africa or UK or USA ?; Marion Mahony Griffin USA or Australia? Zaha Hadid Iraq or UK ? Benedetta Tagliabue Italy or Spain, Eileen Gray .....etc.) --ELEKHH^T 04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent initiative and will certainly help to encourage coverage of female architects. Two problems for the time being: I note that the list is built essentially on articles in Category:Women architects. Unfortunately this has not been used systematically. In the case of Denmark, for example, there are several articles which needed to be added (see the revised list). The other problem is that it does not include red links, i.e. the names of female architects who deserve English WP articles, including some of those included in the other language Wikipedias but not yet in English. Again to take Denmark as an example, I would emphasise the need to include Eva Koppel (1916-2006), Karen Clemmensen (1917-2001), Ragna Grubb (1903-1961) and Hanne Kjærholm (1930-2009) for a start. I know that some lists are restricted to existing articles but in this case I think it would be useful to include red links too, adding these names to the list for Denmark. Any views on this? Should they be included in chronological order with the blue links or should there be a separate section for the red links? - Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be that is a case of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Development. Than I would suggest moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/List of female architects, in which case I would not object to whatever sorting those who are using the list choose. However as long is in article namespace I find the current order highly problematic (as explained above) and disappointing. --ELEKHH^T 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not too sure, Elekhh, what your objections to the list are. As far as I can see, the listing for each country is more or less in chronological order. I have certainly tried to maintain this for Denmark and have decided not to include red links but rather to write short articles on those who should be included. If others do the same, the list could become really useful. If you think all the women architects should be listed in chronological order, then I suppose this could also be done in the same list as an additional section. Would that be a sensible way to go forward? - Ipigott (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That would require double maintenance. To deal with multiple sorting requirements sortable tables are good tools, but a bit more complicated. My objection was relating to sections by country, rather than century. I wasn't suggesting to chronological order within country sections, but alphabetic order within chronological sections. For instance listing Denise Scott Brown in Africa>Zambia is ridiculous as her place of birth has nothing to do with her notability as architect. --ELEKHH^T 21:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you are aiming for. Unfortunately we are now faced with a rapidly expanding list with more and more red links. I've looked at the reference given for most of the American additions and see they all come from just one book. It's not going to be an easy matter to write useful biographies on all of these. But perhaps this discussion should be on the article's talk page where contributors are likely to be watching. Perhaps I'll also drop a message to SarahStierch. - Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree about all the new redlinks. If the person is only mentioned in one source I would agree the chances of a meaningful article being written are slim. They would be notable enough for the list but maybe not a separate article.

The idea of listing people by century is a complete non-starter in my view. As I've said, 99% of (recorded) woman architects have been active in the 20th and 21st century. This would result in two very long meaningless, unnavigable lists. It works better for other lists that cover a considerable period of history. But maybe this would be better continued on the article Talk page. Sionk (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Reed

I recently created an article about the first woman to be president of the UK's RIBA, Ruth Reed. Information I added has been repeatedly removed by newly created editors, one of them called 'RIBAPress'. One removed sentence was sourced from an extensive article in The Architects' Journal, which unequivically reported that her presidency had not been viewed as a success. I added a second sentence explaining Reed's response to her criticisms, from an extensive Building Design article at the end of her presidency (this has also been removed).
Before I reinstate the information I'd be interested to know whether anyone here has a suggestion about what can and cannot be said about Ruth Reed. I've had the impression, while working in the industry during her presidency, that she was continually criticised for lack of action. I was hoping to uncover some notable positive achievements but have been struggling. Thougn I realsie there are BLP issues here, I don't think Wikipedia should only report good news about prominent people. Sionk (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I too was rather surprised by the tone of the passage which has been removed from the article. We have to be careful about what we write about living people, even if the sources appear reliable. A quick search shows that not all the news of Reed's presidency was negative (see here). Maybe the best way to go about it is to add both positive and negative reactions to her performance, perhaps combining two or more references as applicable. Interesting to see, though, that the two editors in question joined WP specifically to remove your passage. - Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it then. The 'positive' news is a press release from RIBA, so I would not consider it reliable. I can't find anything particularly positive in any published press article, despite spending an hour searching in my local architecture library. Sionk (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe than she isn't notable at all, if she hasn't achieved anything other than holding a bureaucratic title. --ELEKHH^T 21:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say she was notable, but not for all the right reasons. Sionk (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)