Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Family members in Infobox architect
User:Pigsonthewing is adding without consensus the parameters "spouse", "partner", "children", "parents" and "relatives" to Template:Infobox architect. Such fields however tend to only open the way for trivial data being added to infoboxes contrary to the purpose of the infobox to "summarize key facts" and the advice that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". What do others think? --ELEKHHT 23:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your comment that I am "adding without consensus" (my emphasis) suggests that you don't grasp the concept of WP:BOLD. Nonetheless, I'm simply passing the parameters to {{Infobox person}}, for which the 'architect' template is a wrapper, and where their long-standing inclusion is ample evidence of widespread community consensus for their use. Feel free to lobby there for their removal, if you feel you have consensus for that. I'm also not clear why you've started a discussion here, rather than on the template talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since you're more than familiar with being BOLD you're surely aware of WP:RECKLESS as well. The "simply passing the parameters" in previous instances such as the multiple mergers to the now mile-long infobox building lead to a lot of spamming in the last year that makes articles less encyclopaedic, harder to edit and slower to download. I started the discussion here because there are more editors interested in the scope of this infobox watching this page, but I will place a note at the template talk page as well. --ELEKHHT 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm familiar with that essay, but not working contrary to it. Please can you provide some examples of the spamming to which you refer, and explain how the parameters under discussion could be spammed, in a way not already possible with the template's existing parameters? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BOLD is not an essay, it is a guideline. In contrast WP:DNRNC is an essay. There is also a distinction between spamming being "already possible" and further facilitating it, which appears to escape your attention. --ELEKHHT 00:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Noted that you offer no explanation of how the parameters under discussion could be spammed, in a way not already possible with the template's existing parameters. Would you now care to answer my first question:
"Please can you provide some examples of the spamming to which you refer"
? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)- We already had this discussion a few times, for instance when you nominated the infobox for deletion. It is common practice to copy-paste all parameters of an infobox to an article (random example), regardless of relevance. For example since infobox skyscraper and infobox house have been merged into the same infobox building, now fields only pertinent in one or the other appear in both type of articles. This is than followed by filling in fields that reduce the effectiveness of the infobox. The same would happen with merging infobox architect with infobox person, and that's one of the reasons why the proposed merger was opposed. --ELEKHHT 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, no evidence to substantiate your claims about spamming, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can't see what you don't want to see. --ELEKHHT 07:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, no evidence to substantiate your claims about spamming, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- We already had this discussion a few times, for instance when you nominated the infobox for deletion. It is common practice to copy-paste all parameters of an infobox to an article (random example), regardless of relevance. For example since infobox skyscraper and infobox house have been merged into the same infobox building, now fields only pertinent in one or the other appear in both type of articles. This is than followed by filling in fields that reduce the effectiveness of the infobox. The same would happen with merging infobox architect with infobox person, and that's one of the reasons why the proposed merger was opposed. --ELEKHHT 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Noted that you offer no explanation of how the parameters under discussion could be spammed, in a way not already possible with the template's existing parameters. Would you now care to answer my first question:
- WP:BOLD is not an essay, it is a guideline. In contrast WP:DNRNC is an essay. There is also a distinction between spamming being "already possible" and further facilitating it, which appears to escape your attention. --ELEKHHT 00:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm familiar with that essay, but not working contrary to it. Please can you provide some examples of the spamming to which you refer, and explain how the parameters under discussion could be spammed, in a way not already possible with the template's existing parameters? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since you're more than familiar with being BOLD you're surely aware of WP:RECKLESS as well. The "simply passing the parameters" in previous instances such as the multiple mergers to the now mile-long infobox building lead to a lot of spamming in the last year that makes articles less encyclopaedic, harder to edit and slower to download. I started the discussion here because there are more editors interested in the scope of this infobox watching this page, but I will place a note at the template talk page as well. --ELEKHHT 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Giuseppe Terragni in PD
For anyone interested, works by Giuseppe Terragni entered public domain today, and formerly deleted images have been restored on Commons. --ELEKHHT 08:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Rideau Hall
Would architects classify Canada's Rideau Hall as a Regency architecture? Komitsuki (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's neoclassical. ProfDEH (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK. In what way Rideau Hall is neoclassical? Komitsuki (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- above section moved from Portal talk:Architecture. --ELEKHHT 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The defining characteristic of regency is that it is light and delicately detailed with a highly-developed sense of proportion, and also I think only really associated with Britain. This is heavy and squat, probably designed by someone with knowledge of building but very limited architectural training, if any. The date would make it neoclassical - a bit of a general category but I think as close as it's possible to get. ProfDEH (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
New articles and DYKs
For almost two weeks now, the new articles and DYKs have not been displayed on the WP Architecture page although there have been many updates in the two lists.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like they're back! Sionk (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vital articles
On Wikipedia:Vital articles Architecture is relegated to a subsection of 5.5 Visual Arts. That looks rather unbalanced given the importance of architecture and I'd have thought the topic ought to be moved up to a parallel position i.e. 5.6 Architecture. The problem of course is what actual articles would be in that section - the present collection of ancient monuments hardly begins to cover the subject. Any ideas, anyone with some influence in these matters? ProfDEH (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. My main concern so far has been to include more and broader architecture articles on the vital lists, particularly as in the last few years several architecture articles have been removed from the Level 3 (top 1,000) list, such as Le Corbusier, Mies, and Fallingwater (in 2012). There is a tendency for recentism and popular culture bias on these list. All I managed to achieve so far was to get support for adding Ancient Greek architecture and Modern architecture to Level 4 (top 10,000), from where hopefuly one day can be moved upwards. --ELEKHHT 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
bridge gates
I was wondering if there are any articles on the architectural/urban planning/fortification bridge gates (entry points into settlements that are bridges; bridge access to a strongpoint as a choke; a bridge functioning as a gateway; gate types found on bridges; etc) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Drawbridge ? --ELEKHHT 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that sort of article. Are there any others? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Architectural education
Anyone interested in starting an article about architectural education? There is a category:architectural education, a list of architecture schools with over 10,000 views per month and an article about architectural education in the United Kingdom. --ELEKHHT 01:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear building experts: The above article was never submitted at Afc and now it is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable building, and should the article be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly per WP:GEOFEAT, given that is on the Victorian Heritage Register as indicated in the last reference. --ELEKHHT 06:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Great! The original Afc submitter seems to have forgotten about it. Is it ready to be submitted to Afc? I am not all that familiar with architectural articles, but it seems to me to contain too much opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the AfC process, but is as good as many articles started by editors with no Wiki experience. I would presume though that once created, linked from other articles and WikiProject tagged, there would be editors wikifying it. --ELEKHHT 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I have submitted it and added a note confirming that it is a notable building. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the AfC process, but is as good as many articles started by editors with no Wiki experience. I would presume though that once created, linked from other articles and WikiProject tagged, there would be editors wikifying it. --ELEKHHT 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Great! The original Afc submitter seems to have forgotten about it. Is it ready to be submitted to Afc? I am not all that familiar with architectural articles, but it seems to me to contain too much opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Concrete articles
I just came across essentially three orphans created by Tivona schneider (talk · contribs) around 3 years ago which were Self-leveling concrete, Epoxy moisture control system and Self-drying concrete technology. I do think there should be an article on quick-drying concrete but this is not my area. What do people want to do with these articles? Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 11:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Anticipating Google Doodles
Google Doodles seem to have sometimes massive impact on page views. Few days ago on January 27, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (200th birth anniversary) had over 270,000 views. In 2010 Josef Frank (125th) got 250,000 views and in 2012 Mies (126th) had 1,800,000 views on a single day! Gaudi (161st), Vasari (500th) and Plecnik (140th) also had doodles with less impact (more here). While not announced in advance, might be good to keep an eye on potential candidates such as Patrick Geddes (160th on 2 October 2014), Le Corbusier (127th on 6th October 2014) or Ildefons Cerdà (199th on 23 December 2014). --ELEKHHT 01:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Archived some threads
I've archived some threads which were primarily links to discussions that have since been closed. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Ratusz for a discussion about what should we do with this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
University of Washington Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC).
Dear architectural experts: This old abandoned Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem notable as architecture. As business is clearly heavily promotional as previous reviewers indicated, and see no clear evidence of notability. --ELEKHHT 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will let it go. I just didn't want to accidentally pass over something unique. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Use of Geobox for buildings
It is proposed to deprecate the use of {{Geobox}} for buildings (currently there are 260 such instances), and replace such instances with {{Infobox building}} (or another suitable infobox where appropriate). Please comment at Template talk:Geobox#Use for buildings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Infobox architectural practice
Please comment on the proposal to add a new field to Template talk:Infobox architectural practice#Number of employees field. --ELEKHHT 11:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Building airtightness?
I've been helping a user on IRC on and off recently with an article on Building airtightness. The user is working for TightVent who seem to specialise in this, and some text and images have been used from their site (released under Creative Commons). I'm starting to suspect that it's a coatrack for TightVent, and was wondering if I could have some second opinions from people who know a bit more about this sort of stuff than me. Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know a few things about construction and in general the article appears OK, although I do not have the expertise to check all technical details. The list of advantages ("positive impacts") seems too prominent in the introduction and should perhaps be move to a separate section, and discussed along with possible disadvantages. Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Suspect copyvio on Antonio Pio Saracino
Hello, I am an admin on Commons from Italy. An Italian Wikicommoner reported a possible copyvio of a photo which is linked by an article on en.wiki about an Italian architect with no article on it.wiki -- which raised suspects to me. In fact I found that the said article is pratically copied from here and subsequently I tagged it for investigation. Regards. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 09:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear architecture experts: Here's a stale draft that will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. It was created in Afc, but never submitted for review. Is this a notable subject, and should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Could become a redirect to E2A Architects. --ELEKHHT 22:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. One is a copy-paste of the other, so I've requested a history merge. This isn't a very good article, though - there's a lack of basic information about the company and a lot of subjective opinion instead. I'd fix it up if I knew anything about architecture. Maybe someone at this project could help make it more NPOV? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Architect Pier Carlo Bontempi
Hi! The architect Pier Carlo Bontempi will be awarded with the $200.000 Driehaus Architecture Prize on March 29, 2014. Please help creating and extending the article about him, his website might help for a start. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Dom-Römer Project in Frankfurt
Hi, I created an article on the Dom-Römer Project in Frankfurt, Germany. Everyone interested in urban planning and architectural reconstructions join and extend! :) Thanks and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatriz Colomina
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beatriz_Colomina. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear architecture experts: Here's another one of these old Afc submissions. This one is about a professor of architecture. Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Château is a B grade article?
I accidentally stumbled back on an article I noticed a while back and see it has some urgent needs for improvement. Château had no (as in zero) references and has been tagged since at least 2008. Yet it is graded as a 'B' article and ranked as being of top importance to this project. I'm not a member of the project but this seems a bit difficult to justify. The article looks pretty good if you can get past the no references. Maybe we have a case of large scale OR here. I'm not sure. Even the French Wikipedia article has no inline citations. I added a dictionary reference so at least we now have an adequately sourced stub. Can someone here take a look and see what's going on? Even on Wikipedia six years is a long time for an article to survive without any references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for signalling this. With 12K views per month this is among the most viewed pages of this WikiProject. As a generic term many readers are interested in, I re-rated it as high-importance. In terms of referencing, as much of the content is reasonable, and we don't need a reference for stating that the sky is blue, I rated it as start class. --ELEKHHT 10:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Respectfully blue would cover the first couple of sentences. This goes well beyond "the sky is blue." It is discussing the shades of blue, possible weather conditions contributing as well as the composition of the atmosphere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear architecture experts: This old unsourced Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Because it's a listed building I am reporting it here in case anyone wants to save it and add some sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone in the project please Talk Page assess this new one for architecture please ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Minimum legal requirement / legal threshold for mandatory use of an architect in each country.
Is there any Minimum legal requirement / legal threshold for mandatory use of an architect in each country.
E.G. It required by the law in France that you must contract with an architect, if the construction (any) is more than 170sqm floor area, as defined by the legal terms "Surface Plancher"[1].
Is there any significant variations, or similarities across contries ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxoger (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see you already found out that the answer is within the scope of Professional requirements for architects. --ELEKHHT 09:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear architecture experts: This old AfC submission was declined for being too promotional, and will soon be deleted as a stale draft. I am willing to fix the NPOV problems and remove the external links from the body of the article, but before I do this I'd like an opinion about whether or not this is a notable architect. If not, I will let it go. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
AfC submission - 13/05
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pethebridge and Bell. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Dalkeith Hall--what architectural style is it please?
Hi. Can someone please help me figure out what architectural this picture is please? Is it art deco? I'd like to add a category on wikimedia commons for it. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- How can it be art deco if it doesn't have any deco? :-)
- I'm wary of putting it in a pigeonhole, as some buildings really don't have a grand artistic style, they're just built for a purpose, and not every architect's whim can be reduced to one of twenty or thirty categories. bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not much on Australian architecture, but I'd not go with art deco. When was it built? if I saw that building in the USA I'd figure it was built sometime in the 1980s or after and I'd generically call it "modern." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Dalkeith Hall was built in 1956 and designed by William G. Bennett. It is probably best described as Post-War. 11:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not much on Australian architecture, but I'd not go with art deco. When was it built? if I saw that building in the USA I'd figure it was built sometime in the 1980s or after and I'd generically call it "modern." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Architecture At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting idea! Started a draft here. Please anyone interested feel free to improve it. --ELEKHHT 13:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for submitting a leaflet. However, I noticed that the "your contact details" and "email contact" have been left blank. Please fill these in as soon as possible.
Adikhajuria (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Country houses subproject
Now I'm not exactly that keen to start many wikiprojects as I find in my experience people tend to prefer to work on their own things, but I definitely see the purpose of a Country houses task force page or something for organisation even not a proper "project". To list our GAs and FAs in and highlight our core articles and missing articles etc which really need working on and to discuss anything concerning us on the talk page involving anything related. I don't expect much group "collaboration" or to even be much associated with it as a group, but I think it would be useful to have something for those of us who share an interest in country houses and estates to look at what we have as a whole and look at the bigger picture on here. Offhand editors who might be interested @Rosiestep:, @Ipigott:, @Sagaciousphil:, @Andrew Davidson:, @Peter I. Vardy:, @Gareth E Kegg:, @KJP1:, @Hassocks5489:, @Giano:, @Eric Corbett:, @Mick Knapton:, @Plucas58:, @Espresso Addict:, @Rodw:, @GrahamHardy:, @John:, @Edwardx:. Please let me know if you are interested in at least a sub page of WP:Architecture to try to improve organisation of the articles as a topic on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- This sounds like a task force. I'd be happy to be involved but, as you know, generally stick to buildings within a specific geography.— Rod talk 09:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine, your Somerset houses are part of the project. You don't have to be involved overall, nobody does, but I'm trying to loosely tie together a subject which is one of my strongest interests on here and improve overall organisation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm more of a town mouse and currently looking at Carlton House Terrace. Andrew (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am also interested to see where this might go. Has anyone totted up the stats of I/II* houses yet? I often drift toward houses, there are such magnificent resources out there! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Grade I listed houses has 372 & Category:Grade II* listed houses has 263 - but lots of suitable houses are not included in these categories (yet).— Rod talk 12:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- A tweak of Template:WikiProject Architecture may be able to include a parameter country house (or similar terminology) once agreed, in a similar way to that used at Template:WikiProject Military history with task forces saying that particular articles are supported by specific task forces - not that I'm volunteering to code it. Once added to all the relevant articles a bot could then identify FAs, GAs etc & other classes on a regular basis (see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force).— Rod talk 16:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that a taskforce is a good idea, and there seems to be enough demand to get this started. I'm happy to help setting it up, but most important is to clearly define the scope and find a good title, per Ipigott's comment below. --ELEKHHT 08:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- A tweak of Template:WikiProject Architecture may be able to include a parameter country house (or similar terminology) once agreed, in a similar way to that used at Template:WikiProject Military history with task forces saying that particular articles are supported by specific task forces - not that I'm volunteering to code it. Once added to all the relevant articles a bot could then identify FAs, GAs etc & other classes on a regular basis (see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force).— Rod talk 16:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Grade I listed houses has 372 & Category:Grade II* listed houses has 263 - but lots of suitable houses are not included in these categories (yet).— Rod talk 12:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine, your Somerset houses are part of the project. You don't have to be involved overall, nobody does, but I'm trying to loosely tie together a subject which is one of my strongest interests on here and improve overall organisation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest we try to integrate this work within WP:WikiProject Architecture. I also think we should be careful about what headings we should address. "Country house" (like "stately home") is very much a British English concept. Elsewhere buildings or estates of the same type are often referred to as castles, manors, mansions, palaces, châteaux, estates or halls, not to mention equivalent names in the various languages.--Ipigott (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I enjoy working on "country house" articles. A lot of wikipedia articles about them could be improved, with the goal for GA. And there are a lot of missing articles on these sort of houses. So a subpage/task force could be useful. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that most people working on this area have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done in terms of missing articles, pictures, categories etc and are already working methodically to deal with the issue. Its the improving of existing articles to GA level which sounds tricky. I take the view that people who go to Wikipedia for info would prefer a short article on every subject rather than long in depth articles about some subjects.Plucas58 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Plucas58: You raise a very important point here. You are absolutely right in thinking that many people, especially mobile users, often want to access a fairly short article with the essential information rather than four or five pages giving a detailed history with an account of the building's owners and occupants. Fortunately, a well-structured GA can provide this too, simply by putting all the essentials in the lead (possibly with a box). Maybe users dealing with heritage listings in English-speaking countries have a good idea of what needs to be done but in my experience a great deal of work is required on buildings of this type in the rest of Europe, South America and elsewhere around the globe. That's why I would welcome more targeted attention to the area. An easy way to start would be to compile listings of red links, stubs, etc., as a basis for improvement. Much of this could be on a country-by-country basis, not forgetting the articles which already exist in other languages. For example, a good start for additional work on Denmark would be [1] and [2]. I would be happy to participate in extending coverage of these to the English Wiki. But I would suggest, once again, that this could be done as part of an existing project, e.g. WP:Architecture, rather than creating a new one.--Ipigott (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be interested in getting involved in some way, thanks Mick Knapton (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Yes, I was thinking of a task force page and then to list all of the articles within its scope and introduce the group parameters to the Architecture talk page tags. Would it be British Country Houses or all country houses in general though? I'd think it would be better to include all and include things like chateaus in France and manors in Sweden etc. There might be some overlap with some larger town houses and probably rural stately homes but I think we can generally follow List of country houses in the United Kingdom. I definitely think it would be worth putting it all together, even if it didn't function like an actual wikiproject.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we should take a two-tier approach. There is obviously a considerable amount of work to be done on all the red links and stubs covered by List of country houses in the United Kingdom but I think it is equally important to improve coverage in other countries too. One approach here would be to create similar lists on a country-by-country basis and draw them to the attention of the WikiProjects for the countries in question, perhaps compiling "sandbox lists" of red links, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think is good to keep the geographic scope global. Is there an agreement that "country houses" is the best title for such a taskforce, or are there any other alternatives? --ELEKHHT 14:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You have hit on an interesting, and important, point in this debate: what is a "country house"? Strictly. I think, in England, it is a large house in the countryside owned and/or built by a wealthy and influential person, as an alternative to his town house in, say London, where he and his entourage went in the season, before retiring back to the country. But the term seems to have been used more widely (and I have no issue with this). So do we include all large houses in the countryside built by wealthy/influential people, whether or not they have a town house? And what about country houses that have been absorbed by the growth of a town; are they still country houses? List of country houses in the United Kingdom seems to include all sorts of big houses, many in Greater London, not all of which are in the countryside. Or should the project expand to include all big houses, whether they are in what is now countryside, or wherever they are? A project needs boundaries and definitions. What are they? And that's just England! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly an interesting topic for a task force, but I too think it is a very English concept. In Norway for instance it does not apply. More relevant to Sweden perhaps, but there terms like "mansion" or "estate" would be more appropriate. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I raised the problem of the heading earlier. "Country houses" is too British to be globally applicable. For international coverage, we could either use something generic like "historic homes and estates" or put together a string of concepts such as "castles, palaces, manor houses, mansions and estates"? Personally, I think we should also address notable town houses and city residences, especially as most heritage listings also include them. I've made a start on a list for expanding Danish coverage at User:Ipigott/list of castles in Denmark to demonstrate what I mean by a "sandbox approach". I could do the same for several other European countries if anyone is interested.--Ipigott (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- There can be a long and detailed description to precisely define the scope, but also there needs to be a short name to be used as project title, page names and parameters. The project title doesn't need to be that precise, but shouldn't be misleading, in terms of suggesting a much narrower or broader scope. There has been an initiative to start a Historic homes WikiProject which is now defunct, but I think the term "historic homes" might work. --ELEKHHT 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I like "historic homes".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think "Historic homes" would work well as a catch all title - it would also counteract debates about whether Cluny Castle, Balmoral Castle and the like should be included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm thinking "Historic houses" rather than "Historic homes". The article "Historic house", which needs work, could form the basis of defining what type of building would fall under the scope of the project/task force. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Historic homes" seems more open to me than "historic houses". I see, however, that there is already a task force on Fortifications which seems to have covered a lot of work on castles. "Historic homes" could of course cover French châteaux, German Schlösser, Scandinavian slotter, etc., which are primarily residential rather than defensive buildings. Perhaps a good way of getting this off the ground would be to put together a draft for discussion based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces.--Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't like "Historic Homes" at all; I favour "Historic Houses." Many of them are not homes any longer; besides which, on this side of the Atlantic, unless one is a an orphan, infirm or mad, one lives in a house not a "home." Giano (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- When translated to Norwegian, the term "home" ("hjem") does not normally apply to something concrete such as a building. I can own a house, but I can not own a home (in Norwegian). Perhaps the English term has a slightly different meaning, but still "home" appears more abstract and general. Perhaps a term like "Historic residential buildings" can distinguish from other types of buildings? Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Giano. Since we talk about historic homes/houses, it doesn't need to still be used as a home/house now. It only means that when built, its original purpose was to house a family.
- @Erik. Residential is far too broad, early apartment buildings would fall within its scope.
- I doubt we can find a perfect term, so I suggest we rather agree on an acceptable term. --ELEKHHT 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do not have any strong feelings about "houses" vs "homes". Unless anyone has strong objections, let's go for "historic houses" as Rosiestep suggests. In any case, the scope will be clearly defined at the beginning of the project's description. To avoid confusion, substantial work will need to be done on the Historic house article (to which Historic home redirects) which currently centres on the UK. If our initiative is to be global, then we need to expand coverage, perhaps with links to applicable heritage listings around the world.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- As there was no objection so far I started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force. In any case if consensus would change we can still rename it. Please everyone feel free to expand and amend the task force page as required. I placed a request for implementing the banner tag, and will notify here when implemented. I suggest discussions about setting up the task force should continue on this talk page, and can migrate to the task force talk page once it is properly set up. --ELEKHHT 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do not have any strong feelings about "houses" vs "homes". Unless anyone has strong objections, let's go for "historic houses" as Rosiestep suggests. In any case, the scope will be clearly defined at the beginning of the project's description. To avoid confusion, substantial work will need to be done on the Historic house article (to which Historic home redirects) which currently centres on the UK. If our initiative is to be global, then we need to expand coverage, perhaps with links to applicable heritage listings around the world.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Historic homes" seems more open to me than "historic houses". I see, however, that there is already a task force on Fortifications which seems to have covered a lot of work on castles. "Historic homes" could of course cover French châteaux, German Schlösser, Scandinavian slotter, etc., which are primarily residential rather than defensive buildings. Perhaps a good way of getting this off the ground would be to put together a draft for discussion based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces.--Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm thinking "Historic houses" rather than "Historic homes". The article "Historic house", which needs work, could form the basis of defining what type of building would fall under the scope of the project/task force. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think "Historic homes" would work well as a catch all title - it would also counteract debates about whether Cluny Castle, Balmoral Castle and the like should be included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I like "historic homes".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- There can be a long and detailed description to precisely define the scope, but also there needs to be a short name to be used as project title, page names and parameters. The project title doesn't need to be that precise, but shouldn't be misleading, in terms of suggesting a much narrower or broader scope. There has been an initiative to start a Historic homes WikiProject which is now defunct, but I think the term "historic homes" might work. --ELEKHHT 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I raised the problem of the heading earlier. "Country houses" is too British to be globally applicable. For international coverage, we could either use something generic like "historic homes and estates" or put together a string of concepts such as "castles, palaces, manor houses, mansions and estates"? Personally, I think we should also address notable town houses and city residences, especially as most heritage listings also include them. I've made a start on a list for expanding Danish coverage at User:Ipigott/list of castles in Denmark to demonstrate what I mean by a "sandbox approach". I could do the same for several other European countries if anyone is interested.--Ipigott (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
On the task force page perhaps specify that scope is historic residential buildings, not other types of historic buildings such as churches. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Erik, I would have thought that "houses" makes it clear enough. But as said above please feel free to work directly on the task force page, which is a working draft so far. In the meanwhile, if anyone has a good ideas for a task force image or logo that can appear on the banner and userboxes, please make suggestions. --ELEKHHT 10:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The task-force tag is now working and task force specific discussions started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force. --ELEKHHT 01:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Template doesn't work
I tried the { {Architect} } template, but it doesn't work. See User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox1. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you looking for {{Infobox architect}} ? --ELEKHHT 10:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft at AFC needs assessment
Please evaluate Draft:Donavon Hill for acceptability into mainspace. Are the sources sufficiently independent and reliable to confer notability on the subject? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A new one just uploaded. Can I have a Project assessment on the Talk page please. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
gambrel roof vs. mansard roof
Please see Talk:Gambrel#vs. Mansard roof. {{ping}} me if you want my input. Thanks.
Thnidu (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) moved from Portal talk:Architecture --ELEKHHT 01:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Issues with article about light shelf
Photo in this article is illustrating Clerestory windows Link to french language is connected to the article about light tunnels. These are both systems of daylight but different from light shelf
MaciejKasper (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I've simply removed it. Sionk (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Georg Adolf Demmler
Hi, are you interested in supporting the article for a notable historicist architect? Georg Adolf Demmler lacks an article at the English wiki so far, while there's a good one at the German wiki and other ones. He's notable for e.g. the famous Schwerin Palace. Thank you and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Architects in the wiki-Pantheon
An interesting tool that shows the articles with most views over six years (2008-13) can be found at the MIT's Wikipedia-based Pantheon that lists 73 architects. --ELEKHHT 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Creating new voice for Beyond Media Festival. International festival of architecture video held in Florence from 1997 to 2009
I am evaluating the possibility of creating a new entry for this important festival held in Florence from 1997 to 2009. I'd translate the entry i wrote for the italian version of Wikipedia which is not yet online. Do you think it would meet the requirements of notability Wikipedia? Could it be included Architecture WikiProject? If yes in which category?
Thanks to everybody.
- Link to the festival website: http://www.beyondmedia.it/index.php?pg=1
--Chiarensal (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Monuments of Spain Challenge
Wikimedia España invites you to join the Monuments of Spain Challenge. And what’s that? It’s a contest. You have to edit, translate or expand articles about the Spanish monuments and you will be granted points. So you’re not just writing about wonderful buildings: you can get prizes!
The time of the contest will include all October and any information you may need is right here.
Join in and good luck!
B25es on behalf of Wikimedia España. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B25es (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose that Pagaruyung Palace be merged into Pagaruyung Kingdom, i.e. this one. I think that the content in the Pagaruyung Palace article can easily be explained in the context of Pagaruyung Kingdom, and the Pagaruyung Kingdom article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Pagaruyung Palace will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There already is considerable overlap and duplication. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Wed 21:27, wikitime= 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Window structure along roof ridge of old industrial building
Is there a more proper term for what I've referred to here as a "skylight structure along roof ridge"? - Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to be a monitor (architecture) --ELEKHHT 01:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Perfect! And needing a photo. Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
45° window at corner of Queen Anne house
Any similar help on a term for the 45° window at corner of Queen Anne house here? - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe bay window? FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, definitely not a bay window. A bay window juts out from a house. This is a 45° window cut in at a corner. - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It can be seen as part of a bay window (but not an Oriel window), and that's possibly what the historical society's description seems to refer to as an 1896-1909 addition. The other way to see it is simply as a chamfered corner with a window in it. Quite an interesting building and nice pictures btw. --ELEKHHT 02:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- It does project out from the house (wrt the adjacent wall at the same level). I too first thought it was a chamfered edge with a window in it, but the interior 45° window (the one on the right side in this picture) is not at a corner where two walls meet, so bay window seemed more appropriate. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see, so you'd consider the whole three-window structure as a single bay? So it would presumably be a bay where the floor continues throghout the bay on the inside, rather than being partway up & providing a seat. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cant(ed) corner window, which is a bit of a mouthful, but describes it. Giano (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry; looking again at the whole composition, that is definitely a single canted bay window. Giano (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Giano on this. A lot of Queen Anne bays left the center portion unfenestrated to allow a large piece of furniture, such as a hutch, or a sideboard with a framed picture, to take the place of the central window. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! "Canted" is the word I should have thought of but didn't. - Jmabel | Talk 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure. You have to be a fan of the Baroque to have 'canted' at your fingertips. Giano (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! "Canted" is the word I should have thought of but didn't. - Jmabel | Talk 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Giano on this. A lot of Queen Anne bays left the center portion unfenestrated to allow a large piece of furniture, such as a hutch, or a sideboard with a framed picture, to take the place of the central window. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry; looking again at the whole composition, that is definitely a single canted bay window. Giano (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cant(ed) corner window, which is a bit of a mouthful, but describes it. Giano (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see, so you'd consider the whole three-window structure as a single bay? So it would presumably be a bay where the floor continues throghout the bay on the inside, rather than being partway up & providing a seat. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, definitely not a bay window. A bay window juts out from a house. This is a 45° window cut in at a corner. - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been featured
Hello, |
Just a notification of this:
Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Miami/archive1
B137 (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This stub needs growth, though notable in sources, but a more basic question; where is en.wp's earthen architecture article? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Intelligent city/Smart city etc.
There's an informal discussion about possible merger of Intelligent city/Smart city at Talk:Intelligent city if anyone has any expertise and/or views on the subject. Sionk (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Jeff Davis House
Please see this. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Luis Vidal + Architects
I'm wondering whether we could have an article about Luis Vidal + Architects, the firm who did London Heathrow Terminal 2 – The Queen's Terminal. From their website, it seems they've done a fair number of large projects (airports, hospitals, museums, etc.) so I think they are likely notable. However, I'm not an expert in architecture so I thought I'd ask here first.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- More than likely, given the scope and prominence of the project. I'm not exactly confident in my abilities yet, and I understand this is late, but the firm was founded in 2004 and its one of the biggest in Spain now. Luis Vidal + architects: From Process to Results is the book that I would think be necessary to complete the article. And I could probably order it. I'm stuck doing state-side articles for now though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We are working on this article, and it is soon to be a WP:DYK. We need your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Assessment descriptions
I don't know when (or if) this issue was last raised, but I find the project assessment criteria for architects a little confusing, if not suspect. All architects on Wikipedia are "noteworthy", so I'm unsure why we give "noteworthy" architects a "high" importance on the quality scale. I'd suggest the wording is amended so that:
"Very important buildings and architects" are of "high" importance.
"Interesting buildings/architects and architectural elements" are of "mid" importance.
"Other buildings, lesser-known architects and narrow topics" are of "low" importance.
What do other people think? Or is there some logical rationale to the existing assessment instructions that I'm missing? Sionk (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Sionk: Sorry for the late reply as I missed this previously. I agree that "noteworthy" is not appropriate for describing high-importance and should be removed. But I find "interesting" for mid-importance also vague and subjective. I would suggest correlating the four importance categories (top, high, mid, low) with the geographic (global, continental, regional, local) and temporal extent (entire human history, particular historic period, century, decade) of their importance. --ELEKHHT 23:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)