Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 4

Comments first from April 2004

I think there a quite a few issues that have come up when I've tried to write about buildings:

Photographs - is it appropriate to use photographs of features of a building? The photographs you use to show shapes (for example with a brutalist building) are different from those you take to illustrate a touristy builidng for example. I used grey scale photos to illustrate Brunswick Centre as I felt that it brought out the shape better and was accused of violating NPOV!

We have a lot of articles on skyscrapers - at the moment they tend to consist of X is so high and has so many floors. We need more than this obviously.

Should we make a box with name of building, date of completion, architect etc?

We can't write about every listed building, do we want to concentrate on ones that are particularly notable in terms of style, famous architects etc?

Apologies for the random jottings. Secretlondon 09:27, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heck, don't apologize for random jotting. What else is a WikiProject talk page going to be used for? Anyway here are my thoughts on the above:

Picture are obviously important. Perhaps a mix of greyscale and color photographs? Alternatively, you could put the color photographs in and link to the grayscale, or vice versa. Color is prettier but greyscale shows buildings better.
It would make sense to me to have an architecture infobox. Standard stuff would obviously include completion date, architect, and name. Other info that could possibly be put in a standard box: start date of construction, developer, maybe the construction firm, interior designer (if it's someone other than the architect), and building type (see list of building types.) I'm sure there are more things we could include, too.
In terms of which buildings to write on, I don't have any particular goals in mind. If you want to prioritize, I'd say major works of big-name architects come first. Next are major landmarks (including buildings in major cities that anyone living in the area could identify.) Then we have other buildings by any architect we have an article on. Any other notable buildings can follow as people choose to write on them.

I'm not sure if the US has an equivalent to the UK's "listed building" status. We have something called the "National Register of Historic Places" it's not quite the same. Isomorphic 17:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree there are too many listed buildings to describe them all, but we could at least have a list of Grade I listed buildings.

Ideas for infobox:

Name of building
General view of building
Location
Architect(s)
Engineer(s)
Date commissioned/Date of competition
Date begun
Date completed

Please edit this! Warofdreams 20:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. Only one concern - the commissioning/competition date would be nice information, but might be hard to find and end up blank on most buildings. Also, could you clarify what "General view of the building" means? Isomorphic 20:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greatbuildings.com [1] may be a good source of inspiration (and information) for this. I think it's very good to distinguish between dates of commission/begin/completion, since these are often mixed up (i.e. in different pieces of literature you often find several dates for a building), a confusion that can be clarified by Wikipedia. I don't know about "engineer" though -- on the other hand, it might be useful to include information on "client". Will check if I find more information elsewhere on "building metadata standards". Spinster 21:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I recently started an architectural history series -- would that be appropriate for inclusion in this WikiProject? In that case, you can count me in ;-) Spinster 20:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I only came across this Project not long ago, but I've had in mind for a while now to create articles for the skyscrapers in Melbourne, Australia. That said, I created my own infobox a while ago, you can see it at Rialto Towers and Eureka Tower. Thing is, it's rather large and might do with some reformatting/pruning. If anyone likes it, feel free to use whatever from it, or suggest how it could be made better. Other than that, there is (at the Rialto page) a navbox which leads to the next shortest/next tallest buildings in the city. Since making that, I've seen a few problems with it, like the fact that it will need reworking whenever a new building is completed, as well as being affected by the whole controvesy over including/excluding spires and antennas from heights, etc. TPK 03:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Standardized entries

Hi! This idea of standardising entries on the same topic (e.g. Architecture) is a good one. I'd like to suggest three sources of information and inspiration that might help in the development of this WikiProject.

CCA documentation

For 15 years or more the Canadian Centre for Architecture has been creating documentation (or "articles", if you like) of architects and architecture as represented in photographs, prints, drawings, archives, etc. Their online catalogue (http://www.cca.qc.ca/pages/Niveau3.asp?page=catalogue_collection&lang=eng) includes all of this documentation. The idea behind this documentation is to approach each subject in as much the same way as possible.

For example, titles of records usually follow the same form: "View of the White Plains Mall showing the entrance to the Scotch 'n Sirloin restaurant, White Plains, New York, United States" [photograph PH2000:0757, by Molitor, Joseph W.]; i.e. first a description of what is shown in the photograph using the subject's name (supported, if possible, by an authority), then the city-level location, then the regional (state/provincial) location, then the national location.

===The Art & Architecture Thesaurus=== (http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/) is a source of controlled vocabulary (used in CCA documentation) for art and architectural terms. Besides defining useful terms, a controlled vocabulary removes ambiguities that arise when describing different structures. For example, one could use any of a number of terms to describe "establishments that primarily sell gasoline, lubricating oils, and other merchandise, such as tires and batteries, for motor vehicles and that often also perform minor repair work": gas station, service station, filling station, gas bar... The AAT provides a researched and source-supported standard term (in this case, "service station").

The Library of Congress

The Library of Congress Authorities (http://authorities.loc.gov/) for source-supported names of people, places, and subjects. The "Authorized Heading" is the established form of the name in question, e.g. "100 1_ |a Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, |d 1886-1969" i.e. Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig.

I've gone into way too much detail, but I thought it might be helpful to give supply some useful links and some possible parameters...

As for the question: "Photographs - is it appropriate to use photographs of features of a building?" I think any image is helpful, regardless of the type. It's not only architects and engineers who consult these articles and there's no telling how the information might be used - so there's no definitive method of representation. The CCA has over 60,000 photographs of architecture (and other subjects) in all kinds of formats: from daguerreotype (AAT term: http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=daguerreotype&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300127181) to digital prints. That NPOV accusation was ludicrous. Pinkville 20:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful information. We seem to have consensus on use of photographs of details of buildings. How do you suggest we use their standard designations? The controlled vocabulary could be very useful; I'm keen to see how U.S.-specific the terms are, but it's not necessary for us to standardise vocabulary except where one term has multiple meanings, as we can easily create redirects. As you may have noticed, this project has become rather inactive, so all ideas to reinvigorate it are very welcome! Warofdreams 09:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The AAT provides US and British terms in most cases (e.g. "porches" = "verandas"), but the subjects covered are truly worldwide (including terms for styles of Nigerian sculpture, for example). I'd say that when a specific feature is notable in a structure that one is writing about it would be worth checking the AAT to find and use the controlled term. This becomes more significant when writing about a structure that isn't accompanied by an image - or when writing about a structure from a different architectural tradition (say, a Shinto shrine or a Medicine wheel). The AAT also provides definitions for terms like "general view", which might help answer Isomorphic's question.

Another way to use standardisation is in how structures and locations are named. Somewhere on a related page (that I now can't find) someone pointed out the conundrum of deciding what style to use in naming a building. The possibilities given were: "the XXX Building, Chicago" or the XXX Building (Chicago)", etc. I too prefer the former style (comma instead of parentheses) because it reads better. As for finding and using the definitive name of a building... that's where the Library of Congress Names Authorities come in. You can search for, say, "Guggenheim Museum" - select "Name Authority Headings" and click. You will then find "Guggenheim Museum" with a button marked "References" to the left - this means that "Guggenheim Museum" is not the Authorised name - so click on "References" and you will find "Authority Record" and "See Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum". Clicking on either will take you to the Authority record where the authorised name is listed on the line beginning "110" (or any number in the 100s, thereby indicating the authorised name). Names listed on lines marked in the 400s are unauthorised variations. You can do the same search for names of people or places or even subject matter.

Reading the AAT:

Just to give a quick note on how to read the AAT entries. The term searched for (and found) is in bold. The definition follows (after "Note"). The the synonyms or other forms of the term follw (under "Terms"). Click on the one- or two-letter codes for how to use or not use the accompanying term. Any terms/variations accompanied by "UF" are not to be used. So for the example below, US writers use "porches" and "porch", British writers use "verandas" and "veranda" (being in Canada, we use both US and British terms at the CCA). The other terms, "piazzas" and "verandahs" are not to be used. Play around for a while with the thesaurus and you will dicover its other interesting and useful features (e.g. the hierarchical displays, related terms, etc.).

porches (<exterior covered spaces>, <rooms and spaces by location or context>, ... Components)

Note: Use to designate roofed spaces, open along two or more sides and adjunct to a building, commonly serving either to shelter an entrance or used as living space.

Terms:

porches (preferred, C,U,D,American English-P)

porch (C,U,AD,American English)

verandas (C,U,D,British English-P)

veranda (C,U,AD,British English)

piazzas (porches) (C,U,UF,American English)

verandahs (C,U,UF,American English)

I hope this all makes sense - and is of some use! Pinkville 16:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Very useful and complete information. The controlled vocabulary (copyright?) can be used for naming many articles, for example: List_of_basic_architectural_topics There's also 16 standard "Divisions" in the CSI Master Format to categorize building materials that can be used for Category:Architectural elements. A (new) List of official names of buildings" from the Library of Congress source can reveal articles with the wrong name and links to redirect pages. Another list or table can show different words for the same thing (porch vs. veranda), or architect / "signature building", or derivation of words (Bungalow from Indian roots ...), etc. --Dogears 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Buildings and structures stubs

Wikiproject Stub sorting would like to bring the existence of the following stubs to the knowledge of this project:

This article about a specific building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about a European building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about a United Kingdom building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about a United States building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Circeus 21:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since then there have been four new ones added:

This article about an Asian building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Canadaian Building and Structures stub

This article about a Canadian building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about a German building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

File:Tower-wireless.png This mast or transmitter tower article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Grutness...wha? 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Senegal Grande Mosquee de Ouakam 800x600.jpg

This article about an African building or structure is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

-- Dogears 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Architecture stubs

File:Corinthian capial.png

This article relating to an architectural term, building feature or building / structure type is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about an architect is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

-- Dogears 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

More photographs are needed for articles in Category:Buildings and structures with photos from people in the towns with great architecture. The proposal to create a file naming convention is important. Image file names are displayed on a Category page (under the thumbnail), when the image is manually added to a category.

Residential architecture projects are often referred to by the clients last name (eg.: Robie_House) and the city name. Other buildings take the name of the largest (current) tenant or sponsor and memorial names.

Proposal for a standard file name for photos:

Image: Building_name_City_Last-Name(of architect).jpg

For example - Farnsworth_House_Chicago_Mies
Photo credits + info can be added to separate Image:...jpg page.

It might be convenient to use short file names like "Mies" and "Corbusier", and many people refer to architects this way. See also information in this guideline: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#.22.3CFirst_name.3E_of_.3CLocation.3E.22_format

Which namespace is the best to upload photos of buildings? (Main, MediaWiki or Commons, etc). Should images be categorized in the Category:Building and structure images [sic]? --Dogears 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Put things on Commons. I have been experimenting with including pages in each other so that for example commons:Wells Coates includes commons:Isokon building as both have articles on wikipedia. Justinc 10:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Info boxes

The info boxes from TPK look good with multiple columns of information. The “smaller <=> larger building” link box is very useful too. Manually changing a few links in articles should be no problem when a new building is built to greater heights. There's another, very flexible info box in the article for Yankee stadium - (modified, pictured at right) as a sample. What is the best information for the entries in the info box? (see the suggestions in Standardized entries above); Is there someone interested in creating the infobox? See also: Templates below.

Template:Infobox Baseball Stadium

This is the standard biography info box used when there is an architect photo (pictured below for John Godfrey Saxe) --Dogears 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Skyscrapers

"... a lot of articles on skyscrapers ..."

There are many different articles with information about skyscrapers (sometimes conflicting?). The proposal for a standard format for articles, and info boxes, can make these disparate pages into a cohesive group of articles, Using infoboxes, with links to "random building" or "smaller <> larger building" for a consistent page design.

Architectural history

Articles in the architectural history series can be cross linked to articles (and Categories) in architecture.

World architecture

Architecture from all cultures of the world can be given equal representation at Wikipedia, rather than focusing primarily on western architecture/architects. Large subcategory for Category:Architects_by_nationality. See also World Heritage Templates, below.

Templates

A new template is available for architects to display on their User page, if desired. Feel free to change the image of the Arc_de_Triomphe used in this Template - occasionally changing the image will be interesting. --Dogears 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This user is an architect.

This template adds the page to the following categories:

Category:Architect Wikipedians

see also Category:Architect_Wikipedians

Another important template for registered world historic sites:
{{World Heritage Site List}}

List of World Heritage Sites
Americas \| Europe \| Africa \| Asia & Australasia \| Sites in Danger

Firms versus architects

I am not sure how to organise articles withing architecture firms versus individual arhitects. It doesnt help that I dont have many good sources for purely biographical data anyway. Currently for example Tecton redirects to Berthold Lubetkin. The article is pretty stubby anyway but if I took out the Tecton stuff it would just make two stubs (though this one I have some sources on). Lubetkin however worked in lots of different groupings. Another example is Hidalgo Moya and Philip Powell who only worked together as Powell and Moya so there is a lot of repetition in the articles about what they built. Any thoughts? Justinc 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there can be a general rule on this. I would say that the Tecton and Lubetkin articles should be split; as you say, neither one is a subset of the other. Powell and Moya could easily be merged; while there could be things to say about one which do not apply to the other, in this case where all the notable points about them are identical, it seems preferable to have one decent article rather than two essentially duplicated. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 core topics

Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD).

If you're interested in helping, we plan to include Architecture.

If you think this is ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.

Thanks. Maurreen 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Architecture article itself is neither excellent nor terrible. Overall coverage of architecture is patchy, with some FAs and large numbers of stubs. I dont quite understand the 1.0 project, it seems to mean different things to different people (and the web pages dont help). I cant even work out how many articles it is going to include. Justinc 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the 1.0 project is confusing; you do have a point. The gist of it is that we're trying to work toward a paper or CD version of Wikipedia (or both). A few groups are taking various approaches toward the same goal. I doubt a firm decision on the number of articles will happen for a while. Can I answer any questions about 1.0? Maurreen 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, with the Architecture article being neither terrible or excellent, do you think it is adequate ... for instance, factually correct and adequate scope and proportion? Thanks. Maurreen 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I cant see any factual errors, and it links to a slightly random collection of other articles which give plenty of starting points for further browsing. The illustrations are more decorative than relevant to the text. So yes, probably adequate. Justinc 10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)