Talk:Architectural drawing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eburson97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of the term "Architectural plan"
I wonder about the definition of the term architectural plan. I guess this term could have multiple meaning:


 * a floor plan
 * a scale drawing of a structure. "the plans for City Hall were on file" (source )
 * the documentation of written and graphic descriptions of the architectural elements of a building project including sketches, drawings and details. This effort could also includes both the design of new buildings and other structures, as well as the planning for reconstruction of early historic structures. (source )
 * a plan for an architectural project

I also guess this article (I designed) should make more clear what meaning it wants explain. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Where is the difference to Architectural drawing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomAlt (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the two articles Architectural drawing and Architectural plan, I have defined, that an architectural plan is one type of architectural drawing. Other types are architectural sketches, cut aways, cross sections, perspectives, etc... Now I am not yet clear if this classification will hold. I think it all come down, what definitions we use, and at the moment this is not yet clear. I could use some reliable sources here.


 * Or do you think two article could and should be merged? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. AS a test edit I have merged the two articles. Do you (or anybody else) think this is a good solution here.
 * Hi Mdd, where do I find this merged version? TomAlt (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In Architectural drawing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have kept the Architectural plan article, but now I have redirected that article here, since the content was already integrated here.


 * I think merging is generally the right way. But there are a few unclearitys / overlaps now that we should clean up. I don't really like that "Architectural plans" is now the heading for all plans including floor plans. IMHO "Architectural plan" is an colloquial term and can mean three things: A floor plan, a layouted sheet of paper (or digital representation) with a bunch of architectural drawings or the types of "plans" listed under the heading at the moment. I think we should add a short sentence about this in the introduction and highlight the term bold to show that there are often used synonymusly.
 * Further I suggest to integrate the content of (3) (Types of architectural plans) into (2) (Types of Architectural drawings), so that all Types are listed under no 2. I don't think we should emphazise the relatively blurry term "Architectural plans" or use it - like it is at the moment - as main term for all kind of plans (in the sense of horizontal sections / siteplans)
 * What do you think? TomAlt (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I just saw, that you gave a good definition with even 4 meanings further up. I agree with this and think it should simply be an own small separate chapter at the beginning of the article and furthermore not used in the article. TomAlt (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. I think these reductions has significantly improved the article. I generaly disagree however explaining two (bold) terms in the article's intro. This gives the idea the article has multiple issues. So I tried to integrate the term related, adding the phrase "is often used as synonym". This makes it more clear the article is all togehter about "architectural drawing". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. We'll take this as a base and can improve the overall content now. Perhaps you can comment on the Commons cat discussion, too. TomAlt (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some more questions about the current state.
 * Why did you skipp the urban plan section, see here?
 * Are the "other types" of drawing listed really other types?
 * Is there a general name for "Layouted plan with elevatons and floor plans", such as multiview or something?
 * Is there a real difference between Architectural diagram and Architectural scheme
 * and what about a "survey drawing" and a "Architectural sketch"
 * and the given "Construction print" seems like a floorplan to me
 * My main aim of creating this article, was to give a first impression the architectural drawing, it's history, types and building blocks.


 * Now I made a last change separating the "Drawing styles and techniques" section. I agree this article could use some overall improvement.
 * -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Undone merger
I have undone the merger for now. I don't think it has worked out well. I will try to develope both articles separate again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say that is a strange way of working, to undo a merge that was discussed without any new arguments. However, I let you do whatever you want and focus my home Wiki and the commons. Obviously I don't really understand the procedures here... TomAlt (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The real reason I undid the merge is, because I came to realize a plan isn't is really a type of drawing. I explained some more at Talk:Architectural plan.


 * As to the procedure, there isn't any here. I just follwed your leads and tried if a merger maked sense. Now I think it doesn't. Good luck with your home Wiki. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup or improvement first
Two problems with this article. a) The language needs a major sort out, I assume because the contributors speak English as a second language. Sorry to criticise but... b) I know a lot about this subject and although some of the content is correct and useful, the overall effect is confused. Help needed to sort this out. ProfDEH (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right about the first thing. But I don't understand why the overall effect is confusing. This article is designed:
 * To explain about architectural drawings
 * It's history, it's types, it's building blocks and related items.
 * I am using a format, I am using in the technical drawing article as well as in about 100+ other overview articles I have been working on. How can this format be confusing here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, the classification structure of the article lacks clarity, plus there are completely irrelevant bits about design values etc. The CAD part is misleading and possibly wrong. I might have a go at editing this article myself if I can find the time, it is not easy to describe what I can see is wrong here. Maybe you will want to help with refs and images if I get this started? ProfDEH (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. This explains. I will be very happy if you will share your experience here, and will give all support, I can gve you, just aks. Untill now I only made a start here from my perspective as an engineer, interested in the building blocks of architectural drawing, it's actual types of drawing and the whole history of architectural drawing, which I consider directly related to the history of technical drawing.


 * Now the chapters of this article is just a standard lay out I have implemented in more then 2500+ articles, where I came from. There are choice made for:
 * the parts of history which are described
 * the types of Architectural drawings mentioned
 * drawing styles and techniques mentioned (this is a section I will further expand.)
 * and the related topics
 * Now I have my doubts here and there as well, and know that every section can be improved. In the previous comment TomAlt also we can improve the overall content now. Now I can very well image, that you have other ideas about an overview article on architectural drawing, probably even more because of your experience.


 * I however definitly don't agree that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. It can be impoved here and there. It is by far not a good article. But more then 95% of the current article content came from reliable sources and or other wikipedia articles. So I will remove the rewrite-tag and leave the clean-up tag for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever tag you think is appropriate. I see you have done a huge amount of article input - something I didn't realise when I first made a comment. Technical drawing for example does not have the same problems of content or of language, so I wonder what happened here. A lot of the content is basically OK but lacks clarity. There are perhaps some differences between US / UK practice and what you are familiar with, especially on the CAD side. I'll try to do some copy editing over the next week, and in the process see if the article really needs restructuring. ProfDEH (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, Architectural elevations are elevation drawings of buildings and structures is a tautology: an elevation is an elevation QED. It needs explaining better.


 * Ok, thanks. I will see what I can do as well. As a start I made some corrections and removed the one section about "Architectural design values". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do some editing on paper and then offline, which will take a few days - please can you wait a bit or we will get overlapping edits. That design values section was first on my hit list. I think some of the other topics are not specific to architectural drawing and need to simply refer to another article, not try to compete with that article. I can see some plagiarism (text directly lifted from the source) that will have to go. I'll try to post an outline at some point.
 * You might like to investigate the big gap in the history section, covering the 19th and 20th centuries? ProfDEH (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Text directly from the source doesn't automatically classify as plagiarism, and certainly doesn't automatically have to go. Plagiarism starts when the source isn't mentioned at all. If you have a problem, you can add quotes (""), but I think this is only acceptable if the text doesn't have any link and any change. Or easier, just rewrite it a little.


 * If this would be have been a good article review request, those remarks would be in place. But we are really still in the process of designing this article. I think rewriting the current article is a waste of time. The main question here is what subjects should be added to get a good coverage about architecural drawings. As a start I expanded the title of this talk item. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I guess you are right from the beginning, that this article needs to be rewritten all over. I will work on this some other way, and won't edit here (much) untill next week. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Paper Sizes Improperly Stated
I've been in the US AEC industry for 25+ years. The listed sheet sizes are improperly named. The cited article does not use the terms presented; it is consistent with the names I've always used. ″Normally the largest paper size used in modern architectural practice is ISO A0 (841 mm × 1,189 mm or 33.1 in × 46.8 in) or in the USA Arch E (762 mm × 1,067 mm or 30 in × 42 in) or Large E size (915 mm × 1,220 mm or 36 in × 48 in).[4]″ (bold added) The proper size names are ARCH E1 (30x42) and ARCH E (36x48)65.23.72.2 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Improve the article
Mdd you have removed the tag without dong anything to improve the article. This is one of the worst architecture articles on Wikipedia in my opinion and it is highly misleading leaving it as it is without at least a proper cleanup tag. The standard of English in particular is simple unacceptabe, the content shows a poor understanding of the subject. If you are not capable of writing competently on the subject you should leave it alone. I'm sorry to have to criticise in these terms but you have acted strongly to discourage anyone else from contributing. Please do not remove the tag, that is not an option open to the originating editor until the criticisms are adequately addressed. ProfDEH (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, just start make the changes you think are necessary. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some language edits. Hope it helps to focus now on the content itself. Erkan Yilmaz 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have removed the tag. The language is corrected. And ProfDEH has not responded to my third request in the past three months to make some changes. As I argued before: the so called "need to completely rewrite this article to comply with wikipedia standards" is absurd. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a deal Marcel, I'll leave the rewrite tag off but you don't revert edits. I know a lot about the subject and can improve the standard of the article, but it's going to be a waste of my time if you just challenge everything. Talk by all means but not revert, OK, what do you say to that? ProfDEH (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can offer no to edit this article for two weeks or a month after you made your first changes to the article, if you like. This is not uncommon if editors have a serious disagreement about an article, normally if they have an editwar. So if this is what you prefer, just say so and I agree!? I have given you a timelimit, because you can't expect me not to edit this article any more. This seems reasonable to me.


 * And just for the record. I didn't refert the changes TomAlt made to this article, as TomAlt claims here. This article has been developed in several stages:
 * Feb 11-12 2009. First version complete by me, see here
 * Feb 27 2009. Merged the architecural plan here by me, see here
 * March 6 2009, Rearrangement by TomAlt, see here
 * The only real change I made afterwards was moving the "Drawing styles and techniques" section, see here
 * May 17 2009, article checked and corrected by Erkan Yilmaz, see here.
 * This is my perception of the mayor development of this article. If I am missing something here, please say so. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK agreed. I don't have a lot of free time, so we had better make it one month. ProfDEH (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I have just made an exeception, here, or not. I just thought that intro + link should be there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs to globalise
One of the more obvious things I've spotted is the need to globalise this article. For instance, mention of the Yingzao Fashi and the methodical recording of construction details in the Architecture of the Song Dynasty, should surely feature. I'm also quite uncomfortable with the reduction of architectural drawing to the technical - that's a part, but really architectural drawing is 'communication' and that can be achieved in as many varied ways as there are art techniques - some of which don't illustrate buildings - eg. Libeskind's 'musical' line drawings, Hadid's superb pre-construction period paintings - in fact where the line between 'architectural' drawing ends and 'fine art' begins can be quite blurred. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. I would say go ahead. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess a first step to incorporate your ideas is to mention the Yingzao Fashi and the methodical recording of construction details in the Architecture of the Song Dynasty in the history section. Even an picture can be used to illustrate the article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

tag
This article is watched every day by at least a hunderd people, see here. I think we owe it to those people to keep the article in good shape. If you are making a mayor edit, such as removing most images, it is required to add a tag. You can removed it when the edit is done, or the images replaced.

If you need more time you could consider creating a temporary sub-userpage, for example User:ProfDEH/Architectural drawing, to experiment with the best result. You can experiment for weeks there. I have promised not to undo you edits for a month, and I will. But I do have my limits. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe I will comment on some of the changes you made on the talkpage, like this.


 * I replaced it with an {Underconstruction}} . And I guess I will refert the last edit in a day. There is no use in keeping an article a mess, if an acceptable alternative is at hand. I guess that is my limit. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, patience please. I'm trying to make this article readable and informative, and to lift it above the level of the mundane, real estate world it seems to have got itself into. Architecture is an art form first and foremost, not a dull manufacturing process. Yes I will put illustrations in appropriate places, but the current selection are pretty banal on the whole and there is much better material available. Likewise, I will need to add references and assess the existing ones (has anyone spotted the rude words in some of them?) but for example the Triangle Office Guide 'glossary of real estate terms' is simply not an authoritative reference. Just because it's on the Web, doesn't mean it's true. ProfDEH (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New description of architectural drawing and the sources
I noticed User:ProfDEH today rewrote the sentence:


 * The term architectural plans is often used as synonym, but this term has other meanings as well. It can mean a floor plan; more generally any scale drawing of a structure [2]; the complete documentation of a building project [3]

Into


 * The terms 'plans' or 'architectural plans' are commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project, which will include floor plans but also all the other views necessary to fully describe the work, or even the complete documentation of a building project. [1] [2] [3]


 * (numbers of references are changed here to keep every source its own unique number)

These sentences are based on the following three sources:


 * [1] wordnetweb.princeton.edu
 * "plan, architectural plan (scale drawing of a structure) "the plans for City Hall were on file""


 * [2] triangleofficeguide.com
 * "Architectural drawing - Includes all architectural contracts and drawings such as plot plans, floor plans, elevations, sections, details, schedules, etc., and any architectural drawing that forms a part of the contract documents. Exceptions include mechanical, electrical and structural drawings, as well as specialized data that are normally handled by specialists in those fields."


 * [3] Architectural plan at tucsonaz.gov. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
 * "Documentation of written and graphic descriptions of the architectural elements of a building project including sketches, drawings and details. This effort could also includes both the design of new buildings and other structures, as well as the planning for reconstruction of early historic structures"

Now the phrase User:ProfDEH added is "commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project".

Now I think:
 * it is clear these three links don't justify this new phrase.
 * not the term architectural plan but the term working drawings in architecture "commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project".
 * User:ProfDEH's new description leaks three different aspects of the definition of architectural drawing:
 * "scale drawing of a structure"
 * "the design of new buildings"
 * "the planning (for reconstruction)"

Especially these two last meanings made me realize the term "architectural drawing" and "architectural plan" are not the same. Simple:
 * the architectural drawing is a type of drawing
 * the architectural plan is a type of plan
 * a plan is not the same as a drawing.

Now I think the phrase The terms 'plans' or 'architectural plans' are commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project... isn't absolute, it can't be. Maybe the phrase is true when you are on a construction site or in an architectural agency (according to User:ProfDEH experience), but the current three sources definitly don't confirm this new phrase.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the simplest solution here is to remove that one sentence. In the related "topics section" a separate section can be made to explain more in detail the relationship and differences between the two. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New lead sentence
I think the new lead sentence is no improvement. It goes like this:


 * An architectural drawing or architect's drawing is a technical drawing used by architects for a number of purposes: to develop a design idea into a coherent proposal, to communicate ideas and concepts, to convince clients of the merits of their design, to enable a building contractor to construct it, as a record of the completed work, and to make a record of a building that already exists. [1]

In compare to the initial lead sentence:


 * Architectural drawings are technical drawings of architecture and drawings for architectural projects.[1] The Rooms Provincial Archives. Accessed 10 Feb 2009. Architectural drawing is a means of communicating ideas, concepts and details, and requires drafting skills in modern and traditional methods of architectural drawing.

My main objection here is, that is is not just architects who use Architectural drawing. There is a whole series of specialists involved in architectural drawing. As I recall most of the architectural drawings often aren't even drawn by architects, but by drafters.

We have been having a similar discussion about this on the technical drawing article. Here we agreed the term "technical drawings" doesn't only relate to set of drawings, but is a field as well of principles, education, practise, theoretical development etc...

So I think this new lead sentencese should (eventually) be rewritten.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think my main objection to this new lead sentence is, that it explains how one party involved applies architectural drawings, but it doesn't explain what architectural drawings are.


 * I think this lead sentence is a good start to a new chapter in the article about the application of architectural drawings. It could list every actor involved and the way they use architectural drawings. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources
I noticed something else. Again an initial source is left in place, while the complete text is rewritten.


 * The Rooms Provincial Archives GLOSSARY at www.panl.gov.nl.ca
 * ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING(S)
 * Drawings of architecture and drawings for architectural projects. This includes proposed projects and completed projects

This desription was used in the initial version, but is gone in the new lead sentence, while the reference sign is still there. This is not right. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which people use architecural drawings
This subject made me wonder about the people involved in architectural drawing. My first impression:

Architectural drawings are used by the
 * architect to design the plan
 * drafter to detail this design
 * constructor to calculate the construction
 * building contractor to construct the building
 * plant manager to control the construction process
 * real estate broker to sell houses
 * project developer to attract investers
 * people to decide whether to buy the house or not.
 * Apprenticeship training a new generation of practitioners of a skill.

It might be a good idea to develop this into a separte chapter as well.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving on...
To address some of the concerns above: Some questions: ProfDEH (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Architectural plans - that's what I thought was meant by including those references, and the term is used that way, but I agree about taking it out of the lead paragraph.
 * Does the lead sentence actually say what an architectural drawing is? My approach was, it's drawings and particular drawings, because they are intended for a specific purpose. I think that is reasonably valid. A general 'artistic' drawing would not be an architectural drawing just because it portrayed a building? But maybe this needs thinking about.
 * Who uses these drawings / what is their purpose - should definitely be developed into a section.
 * References - I'm aware of some discrepancies arising in the rough edit. I'll make a list of unsourced statements and look up proper attributions. There should not be anything here that isn't easily unverifiable. A problem though in this subject is the lack of decent resources on the internet, most of the serious reference material is only in book form which makes it difficult for others to verify.
 * Some difference between the previous description of isometric / axonometric and my experience of the way those projections are used in draughting. Complexities of geometry are not really relevant to architects, traditionally only 30-60 and 45 degree set squares were used so that determined the limitations on these views (now of course the computer turn a model into any view you want). Hopefully some references will establish correct usage of the terms.
 * The article says CAAD but the English language usage is now invariably simply CAD (see for example http://usa.autodesk.com) can we accept that is the right term on the En Wikipedia?
 * US or UK English? There's a bit of both at the moment.

Article section(s) removed
Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Technical drawing, Architectural design values, architectural model, Computer-aided architectural design, and architectural illustrator article.
 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Architectural reprography article.
 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Cutaway (3D graphics), Elevation (view), isometry and sketch article.
 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Perspective (graphical) article.
 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Cross section (geometry) article.
 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Plan (drawing), and floor plan article.
 * In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the floor plan, Garden design, Landscape planning, site plan, Transportation planning and Urban planning article. This has been as the editsummary stated : Test edit if the Architectural plan will be merged here, see talk:Architectural plan

Mayor changes have occured since these initial development:
 * The Architectural plan is reinistalled, and
 * This article is has been practically rewritten ever since.

-- Mdd (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Architectural drawing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102192756/http://ottawa.ca/en/homeowners-guide-small-projects-1/how-detailed-should-your-plans-be to http://ottawa.ca/en/homeowners-guide-small-projects-1/how-detailed-should-your-plans-be
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710144037/http://www.donhead.com/Look%20Inside/Mckay2.pdf to http://www.donhead.com/Look%20Inside/Mckay2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Axonometry
There is a new article Axonometry. I think, it could be interesting for architects.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Measured drawing
Does this entry cover this subject? I didn't see a section on it. Seems like it would be good to cover. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)