Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Hector Guimard in PD

To anyone interested, Hector Guimard's work entered public domain on the 1st January 2013, thus formerly deleted images have been restored on Commons and new images uploaded including some of his drawings. --ELEKHH^T 06:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I created User:Canoe1967/List of acute angle buildings a while ago. I am wondering if the term 'acute angle buildings' is correct. Is their a codified term for this type of building?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If this were me doing it, I'd start an article Acute angle buildings and go from there. A google search pulls up quite a few hits, including one that looks as if you asked the question elsewhere and got "Flatiron" as the answer. Be bold, and be sure that if you do the article that you define whether on not you are referring to the building's foot print (sounds as if you are) or, for example, the top of the building, or something else. Of course you might be challenged as presenting original research, so be ready for that. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As per my comments at the AfC Talk, 'acute angle buildings' is a problematic term because it could describe any building that is off-square. And looking at your current draft, the Montana Club seems to be made up of obtuse angles, so you can see how important it is to get the selection criteria for a list article correct.

'Flatiron' is a term used in the States for acute triangular buildings similar to the Flatiron Building in New York. However, this seems restricted to the early part of the C20th in the USA. 'Triangular' buildings are sometimes noteworthy by their uncommon shape, a possible alternative? Overall, you need to avoid making up a list of things that is not of wide interest or study. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about Horizontal triangular buildings constrained by a triangular parcel? Kidding. Acute angle (flatiron) buildings may be more apt, with re-directs. Commons seems to be confused on the term as well, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_called_flatiron

Thoughts? --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm liking Triangular footprint buildings more and more. Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem with me. Are we  Done here and continue at the article talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're quick..., I would suggest waiting more than a couple of hours for input. How are you going to deal with the fact that while triangular footprint buildings are rare in cities with grid structure (and therefore outstanding and possibly notable), they are common in cities with irregular street networks? Do you know of any book dedicated to the topic? --ELEKHH^T 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant the discussion may be better at the draft talk page. I did come across at least one book written on them when I was trying to find a codified title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the term Flatiron better than Acute Angle because it is commonly used (not just in the US, we have one in Toronto with this name) and indicates that the building has only three sides. Plenty of otherwise ordinary buildings have a side that is out of square. It's also a more interesting name! However, if you look for Google Images of flatiron buildings, you'll see that they are not just triangular, but have one corner which is very acute compared to the others.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Priorities for 2013

Maybe a good way to focus the WikiProject's efforts would be to establish some priorities for the year, possibly a list of ten articles which than we should aim to get to at least B and preferably GA class. These could be pursued together or one by one as a Collaboration of the Month, or it can be six articles on a bi-monthly basis. My criteria would be (a) topic importance: articles rates as top and high importance; (b) reader impact: articles with broad readership as listed here, (c) Currently poor quality: stub or start class, cleanup tags. Based on this criteria I would suggest:

• Acropolis of Athens, World Heritage, 40,000 views. Improvement drive has started on this in December by Ipigott.
• Ancient Roman architecture, start-class, 20,000 views.
• Arch, start-class, cleanup tags, 25,000 views.
• Architect, start-class, 50,000 views per month
• Mughal architecture, start-class, cleanup tags, 18,000 views.
• Oculus, stub, cleanup tag, 8,000 views
• Plinth, stub, 10,000 views
• Patio, stub, 10,000 views
• Stairs, rated C-class, but is mostly a long list with a large gallery, 30,000 views.
• Victorian architecture, start-class, 20,000 views.

This can only work is multiple editors are interested in the same topic. Anyone interested, in an improvement drive along these lines, please make suggestions on how to organise this process, and which articles to select. --ELEKHH^T 22:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found an interesting book on medieval building design (and professionals) and might be able to add something to the "Architect" article. The Wikipdia article's problematic because it is mainly restricted to describing the modern architect's role in developed countries only. And it's largely unsourced, of course.Sionk (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I will probably take a look at the list of articles here and try and improve them. Starting (maybe) with references at Arch. But not at work (where the heat was off last night at around 0 degrees - real American degrees, not whimppy Eurodegrees) Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you are moving ahead with this Elekhh. We do indeed need to concentrate on improving these articles. On Mughal architecture, I see that the Hungarian and German articles offer an excellent basis for improvement. I believe you speak Hungarian Elekhh and I speak German -- so between the two of us we should be able to move forward. The German article on Ancient Roman architecture could also help us down the line. Victorian architecture is a more difficult one to improve, especially as the Victorian style has different implications depending on whether you live in North America or Europe. However there is quite a lot of literature on the subject for those able to draw on English-language library services. I'm still waiting, by the way, for support in improving the Acropolis of Athens article. I've added quite a bit of content and many references but for an icon such as this, I do not think it should be a one-man assignment. Any offers? Or have the classicists completely disappeared from the Wikipedia scene? --Ipigott (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC) And for Oculus, I see there is quite a good explanation here. --Ipigott (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad there is significant interest already. It sounds like the best approach is to go on with multiple articles, so I reinstated in the Bulletin the collaboration of the month section, except I renamed it to "season", and listed the first five from the list above, which were mentioned as being of interest. --ELEKHH^T 06:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated three of the above for the main page advertised Today's article for improvement. It might take months tough until it comes to that, even if gets sufficient support. --ELEKHH^T 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have done what I can for the time being with Oculus and Acropolis of Athens although I would have welcomed more assistance from other contributors. I also see there has been a bit of work on Architect. Maybe, in connection with women in history, a short section could also be included on "Women in architecture"? I'll perhaps try to do something about it. The next priority aeems to be Ancient Roman architecture although before I start on this one I would appeciate hearing from anyone else interested in assisting. One of the main problems is of course lack of referencing. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles)#Suggested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Treasury big2.jpg

File:Treasury big2.jpg, a former featured picture candidate from 2005, has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving a file to Commons is not "deletion" is it? Jim Derby (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Was previously tagged for speedy deletion but I removed the tag as alternate versions exist with source information. --ELEKHH^T 04:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomtown Architecture

Is Boomtown Architecture too obscure to have an article? I searched for books using the term and only found a few so it would likely be hard to source. Jim Derby (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In Australian architecture history and heritage registers the term "boom style" is often used, but can't find any single book dedicated to the topic. --ELEKHH^T 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Architecture!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

• Women architects and related figures in architecture that had an impact on women's history
• Buildings and works that have significance in women's history[ - women's hospitals, religious sites, political sites, homes

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and stop by my talk page with any questions! SarahStierch (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We had Elizabeth Wilbraham and Julia Morgan featured on the Portal last year, and I think it would be a good idea to feature a related article in March again. Any suggestions? --ELEKHH^T 06:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want a really "historical" woman, I would suggest Elisabeth Scott but it would also be good to have someone who is not part of the English-speaking world. Maybe Margaret Staal-Kropholler or the Austrian Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky (although her article, like many of the older contributions, needs to be properly referenced).--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chose the Frankfurt kitchen by Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, as seems most notable and is best illustrated, although the article is much improvable as well! Is now up on the Portal:Architecture. --ELEKHH^T 03:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go with sourcing the Schütte-Lihotzky article. There's plenty available about her online. Now she is deceased I expect there will also be a 'fair use' photo of her available somewhere. Sionk (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Since she graduated 1919, there might be pre-1923 images which could be uploaded as US-PD on en.wiki only. If not, this seems to be a good candidate for fair use. --ELEKHH^T 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the chance of having a PD image soon seem to be nil, I uploaded the above as fair-use. Also maybe some of these images could be uploaded as fair-use given that have been released for the media. --ELEKHH^T 03:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Cambridge

In light of this discussion it would be fantastic if somebody with some knowledge about the architectural history and features of the University of Cambridge could give me some help in writing a small paragraph or so about it. Thanks! --Mark91it's my world 23:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Today's Article for Improvement notifications: Wonders of the World, Novelty architecture, Church (building)

Hello, Please note that Wonders of the World, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team) Hello, Please note that Novelty architecture, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team) Hello, Please note that Church (building), which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Roof

I just had occasion to remove some spam links from this article, and was shocked by the absolutely abysmal state of an article on such a basic architectural topic. Surely people who are interested in architecture can do better than this? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sure they can, but as long as pages are not protected it will remain a question of whether constructive edits can outnumber non-constructive edits. Just look at the mess of vandalism in the edit history of that article, and consider how much editing time is consumed by reverting that shit - surely not an attractive job to volunteer for. In the meanwhile even individual requests for page protection are routinely dismissed with justifications like "not enough vandalism". --ELEKHH^T 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On rereading my comment I see that I came across as a little more combative than I intended. Sorry for that. I think the main problem has been that none of the constructive edits have come with references, so it's difficult to distinguish them from the non-constructive edits. I'm certainly no expert in this field, so would find it difficult to improve this article myself, but if anyone more knowledgeable would like to do so on the basis of reliable sources I'll keep it watchlisted and do my bit when it comes to reverting vandalism and spam, which is the way we manage to handle things in much more controversial articles without resorting to page protection. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

3D printing of buildings

Someone has started an article on 3D printing of buildings, currently titled: Building printing. It was started with text split out of the 3D printing article a few days ago. I've made a few edits to it today.

This article clearly needs some help from the more architectural and building-oriented Wikipedia editors. Please come on over and help if the topic interests you. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc.

Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc. looks like it is an advertisement for a non-notable small practice, and more or less repeats the text on their website. Should we look at deleting it? I removed the category Architecture but not sure it should be in WP at all. ProfDEH (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The article is hanging its notability of the fact that Gwynne Pugh used to work for a (possibly) notable practice. Like you say, Gwynne Pugh's Urban Studio doesn't seem to have made much impact yet outside of Santa Monica. I'd be inclined to nominate it for AfD. Sionk (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've subsequently noticed there is already a poorly sourced lengthy article about Pugh's previous (award winning) company Pugh + Scarpa. In addition, Lawrence Scarpa has a problematic and lengthy article about himself as well as his new 2010 company Brooks + Scarpa! They all seem to be claiming notability on the back of the awards won by Pugh + Scarpa!! Sionk (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems that architecture firms start to discover Wikipedia. I noticed recently an increase in promotional articles on companies, sometimes proven COI edits by their PR. I nominated both Brooks + Scarpa and Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio for deletion, given that both articles are promoting recently established firms which didn't even had the time to become notable on their own. As usual after such splits, both claim Pugh + Scarpa's legacy. --ELEKHH^T 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, a lot happens in one week! Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc. and Brooks + Scarpa have been deleted, following AfD's. I've spent some time editing and improving Pugh + Scarpa, adding some sources and rehabilitating Gwynne Pugh. The Lawrence Scarpa article is still wildly promotional and will need work. Sionk (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Architecture

Category:Architecture seems to be a repository of stubs, half-baked articles and advertising matter because any decent article gets into the right subcategory. How worthwhile the exercise is I don't know but I'm working my way through the list to find appropriate categorization? Unfortunately nearly everything in the top level category needs reclassifying. It's quite a long job since it involves reading each article and looking for similar material to decide where it belongs - so if anyone else might feel inspired to help out that would be greatly appreciated.

I will try to flag doubtful articles here, starting with Architectural management and Opera Design Matters which so far are just tagged as adverts. ProfDEH (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure how the subject of Architectural management can 'advertise' itself :) But I removed the embedded url in the lead paragraph, if that is what you were referring to. Sionk (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a promotion for a consultancy selling a publication, Architectural Management - A Practical Guide and offering some taster guides. ProfDEH (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Frank Lloyd Wright

Does anyone want to help me organize Template:Frank Lloyd Wright before I deploy it. Feel free to swap in more representative images or break up sections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally find such massive and overwhelming navbars of limited use, and doubt many readers use them. Similar navbars deployed in the past failed to increase the number of readers of the linked articles. The List of Frank Lloyd Wright works linked in the See also section is more useful and sufficient for me. If is a must, than the more it can be shortened the better IMHO. The structure is also a bit problematic as does not help orientation, some of the most notable buildings being hidden in the "other" category, while the most notable houses are hidden within a seemingly endless list of houses. --ELEKHH^T 01:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How would you measure increased readership. If a template increased readership 10%, it would be virtually imperceptible. The test is whether there are clickthroughs on the template links. The general perception is that lists of works of an artist ARE considered likely to be used by readers who often are intrigued by other works by the artist. I would love a suggestion for a name for the other category. I would also appreciate feedback on whether shorter names are possible in the other category. Maybe if we subdivided the other category, we could make the names shorter. E.g., if there were a category for places of worship, we might be able to use one or two word for each such as Annunciation, Beth Sholom, and Community.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just eliminated all redirects which makes the list somewhat shorter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Increased readership can be measured by comparing monthly views before and after the navbar was implemented. The problem with the structure is that is a mix of criteria including: functional types (houses, home), history (unbuilt, posthumous) and non-criteria ("other", "related"). Since what is notable here is architecture, I would suggest architectural notability would be a better inclusion and structuring criteria: Prairie Houses, Usonian Houses, Mature Organic style etc. As before, I would leave less notable stuff out even if there is an article. It is the role of lists (which we already have) to provide comprehensive overview.--ELEKHH^T 01:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing that is consistent across biographical navboxes is that they generally attempt to be comprehensive listings of bluelinked articles. I have created hundreds and hundreds of templates (although only a few dozen biographical ones, see User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created). I have done authors, composers, artists, and architects. In almost all cases I have included all bluelinked content. It is quite POV for one author to say which things are notable unless you have some rule that you think is reasonable. That being said, I have been involved in editing {{Ray Charles}}, which only includes his "notable" singles. Would people agree only to include Wright work that is on the National Register of Historic Places? I personally prefer the comprehensive style and do not think this current template is too large. I would rather remove all the images so that the links have more room than remove them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in the topic, but would never engage in navigating the very extensive list of his works following an alphabetic order (often relating to the name of his clients). Clearly no artist's works are equal, and treating them as that would be the case is POV in itself. Regarding F.L.Wright, hiding his key buildings -which are regularly included in books about world architecture history- such as the Guggenheim within a very long list which could potentially include 1,000 items is not helping navigation IMO. Regarding inclusion criteria, NRHP listing is both very broad and problematic as its scope probably does not include unbuilt and destroyed projects, which nevertheless could be quite notable (Broadacre City). --ELEKHH^T 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to cut down the current list with something that is non-POV like NRHP, then we should just try to arrange all the blue links we have. There are not 1000 bluelinked Frank Lloyd Wright works. In fact, I am guessing that I have 80% or so of them in the template already since I have included everything on the list article page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks very useful and personally I don't think the lists are over-long. I see the point about how you would find his most notable works but the article about Wright does that. I went thought the 'other' category and quite a few are private houses, notably Fallingwater. Others are housing in some form and that might be a useful intermediate category, not sure yet. I will try to find time to move the houses at least. ProfDEH (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ProfDEH, I see that you have made some refinements. Thanks. I will deploy this soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the template. Feel free to revert whatever parts of this you think were erroneous. I am curious about the following terms and whether they should be on the template: Rubble trench foundation, Organic architecture, Usonia, Prairie School.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Thanks for help organizing the template above. I have also created Template:Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Feel free to get involved in that one if you like too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, please, try to understand what I wrote above. If you really must go on and do such navbars, at least use architectural notability criteria for the categories. If you don't have good books about the subject to understand how best to organise the list of works, or don't have time to read the Wiki article even, maybe don't create a navbar. Categories based on geographic location are most appropriate at Wikivoyage. Here chronologic order would be more appropriate, per MOS. --ELEKHH^T 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is orgnanized per Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe#List_of_works. I am not an architects student or scholar. I may bow out of architect navboxes if I am causing harm to Wikipedia with my work as you seem to suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No harm, just confusion, and is not your fault, so please take no offense. Most architect articles are ridiculous indeed, and not a very good guide. In this case the FLW article is much better than the Mies one. I wish there would be more editors concerned about this topic participating in the discussion, to help establish some key principles for navbars, and have some consensus built around questions such as (a) is a navbar with 100+ items useful, (b) as many architects have a very large body of works covered by wiki articles, besides a List of works by and a Category of buildings by do we need a mega-navbar on each article, (c) when a navbar is considered useful, should it follow a principle consistent with that of architectural critique, or should be based on popular understanding, (d) should trivia be included in navbars. Most importantly the question should be asked what form and content of navbars do best contribute to the educational scope of Wikipedia, and what is more a distraction? --ELEKHH^T 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox museum

{{Infobox museum}} has been nominated for merger into {{Infobox building}}. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_30#Template:Infobox_museum -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Guibourd2855.jpg

file:Guibourd2855.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Brunelleschi not in list of renaissance architects

The page purporting to list "Renaissance Architects" seems to have no reference to Filipo Brunelleschi. Is there some obscure scholastic reasoning for this? Because I suspect that it would be a surprise to many visitors to the page.

--216.13.187.110 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)