Talk:Architecture/Archive 1

Architecture is broad
Architecture is very broad, for example, it could be literal,"I think the architecture presented by Frank Gehry is interesting." Or... "I belive the architecture of my soul is broken by the course of recent events." There is also the idea of infastructure. Urban design is also as open as architecture because untill recent years when we thought about urbanism we thought about a city (large amounts of people to small amount of space, and the feeling that arises from that situation. Recently with technology, people can always connect with the masses, creating a different sort of reality or urbanism. Environmental designers (ME..), study many aspects of design and architecture, and almost are the conductor (like in a musical production) of a built environment. The env. designers decide the harmony in the flow and design of the entire environment(from the furniture to the lighting to the structure to the landscape). Does that clear it up?

I'm duplicating the lists of architectural styles here - 'cultural movement' is far too vague (as are most of the entries under that heading! "golden age of theater and architecture" indeed!). Duplication is not a bad thing in Wikipedia I'm a young-un who just remembered about wikipedia and haven't been following the discussions (is this everything that's been said about the page? less contentious than I'd have imagined) anyways, if our job description is, more or less, to order the built environment, it's a pretty poor show to have a disorganised virtual environment. So I'm going to add some headings.

I also disagree with the division between building and architecture, it seems to me architecture is one of the ways in which society as a whole reacts to the environment they live in. Everything built is architecture, it affects how we see the world, changes every situation we encounter, that little thought is given to the non-architectural aspects of the built environment (which comprises its bulk) only point to the waning relevance of architecture itself. Until care of all the environment is readmitted into the more holistic concerns of architecture; the lifelines of our society, such as pylons, motorways, developer housing and office districts will only illustrate the eventual death of our architecture - not the ability of architecture to trump building. -

I want to create a page for the Statue of Liberty, and can't figure out where it belongs. (A search got me lots of unrelated pages.) There's no entry for "statue" under sculpture, and nothing for monuments as a class. I think we need a category for monuments, which would include (for example) the Statue of Liberty and the Arc de Triomphe, but I'm not sure where to put it.


 * so far the only entries for buildings (I'm thinking of the Parthenon) are under the style to which they apply - there might as well be a list branching off of the architecture page for "monuments" (please don't call it "famous" or "important", because all sorts of obscure but interesting things will end up there, too.  --MichaelTinkler

I reorganized the front page so that it would be less cluttered. Now there are links to the pages that contain main items...such as architect, forms, etc. --Plemeljr


 * I removed the sentence: "It is meaningless to try to understand a work of architecture without taking in to account all three aspects." There is plenty of meaningful discussion of architecture that doesn't use Vitruvius's three concepts (not to mention precious few who ever use the nomenclature). --MichaelTinkler

I reorganized the Forms in Architecture so that it is more logical following an archetype approach. I also have a long-winded discourse that explains my motivations and some theory that is relevant to architecture. More archetypical elements need to be included, and I think there might be a better way to structure that page. It seems that there is too much on the page right now.--Plemeljr


 * I love it. Much improved.  "Elements" started out as an archeytype list and has been mishandled a little (mainly I've been sticking in stubs for things that needed to be explained).  I'll confess that as I progress into middle age I'm more and more of an Archetypicalist, in part because I've tired of the way in which most theorists manage to blather on and on about art or architecture without ever showing a picture.  If we're talking about things, let's talk about things.  'Space' in most critical discourse is discourse, not spatial extension around a thinking person.  Of course, here on Wikipedia we live without pictures, so 'Relative Homelessness' might work. On the other hand, 'primoridial soup' is a clever description, but a tad condescending to a highly developed theory of architecture that existed before the 20th century.  It also implies a kind of 'evolutionism' in thought that I find unhelpful when dealing with anything larger than a cell.    --MichaelTinkler

I feel the definition of architechure in the article is too broad.

Is it really correct to say that arcitecture includes furniture design? I realize that some architects design furniture, and many of the concepts overlap.

Many other aspects of the 'built environment' are not in the architect's domain. The design of suspension bridges and dams require skills that the typical architect does not have.

Any suggestions for a more focused definition?

No pictures
Wow, this is an amazingly written page, but... NO PICTURES!!

Don't you think we should scrounge around for some appropriate representative examples? -- Jeff

Nice work
Nice work, whoever wrote this page! -- LVehko


 * I love that an article on the history of architecture becomes a microcosm of the entire history of civilization, touching on so many important topics... but I'm biased, I'm an architecture student. I love feeling like we're the ones who have the big picture :-)  -- Chris
 * PS - I agree, well-written article. There's always more we could add though... maybe once school's out for summer I could take a crack at it...
 * PPS - Whoever wrote the "definition of architecture is too broad" note up there... NO!! BAD!  We are the chosen ones!  We can do anything! :-D  sorry... but, you know, the CEO of Nike is an architect.  Some professional musicians I know too... then there's architects who are urban planners, architects who are also engineers, architectural historians, architecture critics, heck authors of all sorts, horticulturists, philosophers, politicians, etc. ... architects can be experts in just about any field they focus on.  It's part of the training, we're supposed to aim for the ideal, the renaissance man.  Oh, and we're modest too.  Ok, I'm done.

Definition of architecture
To me, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it's a ready launching point for investigating just about anything. And, while an academician might argue that this article doesn't constitute a professional overview of the subject, I find it a helpful starting point for any novice wanting to learn more about civil architecture. Perhaps some of the historical points deserve more time than others, but the various contributors have at very least seeded the ground with relevant information.

To add a little constructive criticism, however, I think this piece could deliver better on one of the other Wikipedia innovations -- the "au currant" encyclopedic definition. For example, how did the word evolve from a meaning specific to individual buildings to encompass the entire built environment (which it certainly does, in common parlance) and eventually many abstract structures, such as software, information, national security, business process, et al?

I would contend that the term architecture has taken on these new contexts not because it has broadened in meaning, but because its meaning has become more refined and exclusive in reaction to mass production. One can build a structure (physical or otherwise) that is completely devoid of architecture. We might all agree that an archetypical "tudor-style tract home" does not represent good architecture. But is it bad architecture?

If it it is bad architecture, it must have attempted something at which it failed. Furthermore it must have attempted and failed at something intrinsic to the idea of architecture -- something at which "good" architecture, in all its diverse exemplars, succeeds. Clearly this is not the case. A building -- or any other product, for that matter -- can succeed brilliantly at its design objectives (maximum profit?) and yet be utterly lacking in architecture.

So what is the stuff of architecture, as distinct from building, manufacturing or even design in and of itself? I would suggest that answering that question in this article would be a very useful improvement to the text. I took a crack at meeting this objective, but had my additions repeatedly over-written by one particular zealot with way more time on his hands than I have at my disposal :-)

-Eric


 * I don't know whether you referring to me(I am not a zealot and I don't have time). In any case why don't you create a user ID so that your edits can be discussed? As far as I am concerned my opinion is that if you want to apply a meaning of a word retrospectively, it shouldn't go as far as confusing the original meaning or sidelining it when it still exists. The structure of the page and meaning suffer because of this. That's why I moved the original architecture(ninety five percent my contribution) to its own page as there were repeated attempts at forcing a coherence in a detailed page on the original architecture(See the practice of disambiguating pages). KRS 13:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can product design be replaced by industrial design? they seem to be quite the same thing (with the exception of vehciles falling under industrial design as well). Unless industrial design is a sub-category of product design so that article might have to contain a list of those... --Jimius 00:08, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

too much stuff?
I thought it might help to get some headers and subheaders in to navigate around the page. I also sliced in a chunk of text from the stanford dictionary of philosophy (no copyright notices on the page but i didn't look very hard) to distinguish theory from practice.

Added quite a bit on the Romans and Greeks and tweaked the ancient architecture setup, thought it was a bit sparse on background. Will probably continue with medieval architecture, renaissance, modern and contemporary stuff...but is it too much? We should trim some of the links at the bottom, looks a bit confusing.

chwe 16.08.04

move to different category?
perhaps architecture was under technology because of all that software architecture stuff, but what does everyone thinking about moving architecture, built environment, to the culture or society page? looks like culture has all the fine arts and society the practical arts, so what do you say? societay?

Chwe 03:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea- maybe it can move to culture?KRS 19:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Changes
To user Chwe:

WRT your edits, I have removed the para for which the copyright status is not clear as you state. I have also either removed or incorporated your edits on history. This is because this page is an introduction to architecture and hence a detailed history of architecture is not needed here. In fact it is almost impossible to write a sequential history across the world. Thats why there is some unevenness- sometimes architecture has to be defined in general in terms of how it evolved universally- vernacular, rural/ urban, cities, Gods, evolution of building types,etc., and sometimes more specific- like particular histories. If we go into detailed history here it might mean negating the histories of many at the expense of some. So any reference to a particular history here is just like an exemplar for a larger context. This was my opinion while writing the page. Maybe your edits would be more valid in the Architectural history page (which is now just a list of pages) or in the detailed histories of countries. In any case, could you please proceed slowly in your edits so that everyone involved can refer back and also use the talk page for any drastic changes? KRS 19:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have retained the broad headings and removed the subheadings on history because there are also references to non-Western history which will not come under the linear sequence. Also, there is a continuous thread which cannot be broken- for example- the evolution of building types cannot be attributed to one particular period and so on ...KRS 19:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, I posted something on talk:architecture before i started editing but I must not have saved it. I am new to this, so I don't know how to go about it, and given the remarkably polite discussions on this page I assumed little vested interest. Sorry for messing the page up.

One of the reasons I began adding more history was to show how architecture used to be and in particular to highlight the problems of contemporary architecture, of which the building/architecture divide is one. To me, architecture is the response of society as a whole to the environment it lives in, every intervention whether *classified* as functional, aesthetic or pyschological affects the whole of concrete reality; that which is functional seeps into the pyschological and the aesthetic may be purely for function. For this reason those elements of "pure function", pylons, roads, residential housing and office blocks, are often erected without proper consideration of consequences. Until the whole of the environment is readmitted into the holistic concerns of architecture, building will signal the death of our culture's architecture rather than architecture's "superiority" over building.

I expected social justice and the public good to be examples of such "holistic concern" that the average reader would be interested in over and above the more detached renderings of architectural history such as the pairing of needs and means, which sounded more like undercover economic supply and demand than the full panoply of cultural response that "architecture" represents. This intimate link between culture and architecture doesn't seem to be represented at all in this page's history section, emphasis is given instead to the emergence of the architect and the modern movement. That the space given to the relatively obscure Design Methodology Movement equals that of all Classical architecture suggests a very radical distortion of history.

I think we share the belief that architecture is an open dialogue that continues to change, to end the page with a "conclusion" rather than "today" seems a bit premature.Chwe 23:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

definition/scope and intentions/theory and practice
These are all very similar things, I added headers because I didn't want to start a discussion about the definition of architecture. But it's inevitable no? I move towards "Architecture is society's built response to its environment" because our contemporary conceptions of design as divided between art and science does not fully account for the situational nature of design that draws on implicit paradigms of ettiquette (what is appropriate) and history (what is right).

Chwe 01:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

moving to different section
are we really going to move the architecture page to culture or society? since i'm liable to fumble and dump this entire page into the ether, i'd rather not do it myself. Chwe 01:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minor Additions
"the Kaogongji of ancient China"

New project proposal related to this article
There is a new project proposal that some of you here may be interested in: Wikibuilder - a knowledge base covering the design and construction of the built environment, in its entirety, in all languages. See Proposals for new projects and Wikibuilder for more information, and feel free to add your comments to meta:Talk:Wikibuilder —Christiaan -  &#9742;   09:35, 18 Jan 2005

Islamic Architecture
I'm surprised to see that the word Islamic Architecture is not even mentioned. The article is obviously not balanced. Displaying a picture of the Taj Mahal doesnt address this problem either. Islamic Architecture is even rooted in Europe. (The Alhambra, Grenada, The Ottomons, etc)

Please address!--Zereshk 09:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more Zereshk, please take the time to help out in this regard —Christiaan 10:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From PNA/Architecture
... because architects are often referred to as Artists of Volumes and Space. --SvenAERTS (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Architecture I would like some other opinions on the Architecture page, original author KRS seems to be a bit AWOL. Also, page seems to be inappropriately categorised on the main page under technology (I recommend society) but is under "arts" when I browse the category:main page separately, I don't understand why. Chwe 23:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if I am commenting out of place - I am new to Wikipedia but felt compelled to leave this comment:

The opening of the article says that architecture includes the "Construction" in the process. It does not. Architecture is design and description. Construction is a separate process that constructs the design based on its description. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustytoothy (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to add "Types of Architects"
Type of Architects Sounds interesting e.g. for students that have to make up their minds in choosing which speciality to go for. --SvenAERTS (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interior Architects and a note on Product Developers / Designers.
 * Architects
 * Landscape Architects
 * Urbanists

To Archinect or not to archinet, "cuz its gay" says Mr. Ryland
There seems to be an edit war over whether or not to include a link to http://Archinect.com/. What to do about it? --DavidCary 20:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's at least have a few votes on whether or not to include it. (Title added by me) --stochata 17:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is the best thing in the world

One vote to include it either here, or under a subcategories as a online architectural zine.

- I vote for Achinect and other useful sites like http://www.3d-rendering-studio.us/architectural-news.html and http://www.Archnewsnow.com that cover architectural daily news and events. Sites like these may come helpful to the readers and they are free and easy to navigate

- RIBA should be left out, or at least AIA and some other countries included. RIBA should not be the only external link to the architecture, makes no sence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.143.87 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ARCHILAB
This article has now been translated (from French), but it needs cleaning up, preferably by someone with some knowledge of archtecture (i.e. not me). Physchim62 11:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?
One thing that surprised me about the destruction wrought by hurrican Katrina on the Gulf Coast is that despite the fact that there were supposedly million dollar plus homes, they did not survive the tidal surge. Was that just negligence on the part of the architects? Aren't there reasonable ways to design survivable homes, at least in this price range? Do we really have to stop building in these coastal areas? Perhaps a section in this article that could point architects to the resources describing how this is done would be helpful.

On the subject of New Orleans, is there a way to construct buildings and infrastructure so it is less vulnerable to the flooding when it occurs? Perhaps on pilings or with 1st floor garages so that the damage is less? --Silverback 14:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?
Perhaps a better solution would be to live a less wasteful lifestyle? maybe consider living in a simple home, and using the rest of the resources as an emergency back up for such situations? I see architecture as well outside the reality loop when it comes to resource use. this is to some extent mirrored in society, where the rich minority of us (you have a computer? then you are one) use excessive amounts of resources, most of which we waste. --Naught101 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You underestimate the benefits of technology. For instance, computers allow me to telecommute, saving resources.  Automobiles pollute far less per passenger mile than horses, etc.--Silverback 05:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * --futher off-topic replies moved to User Talk:Naught101 --Naught101 23:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?
Restored with a small amount of unfortunate duplication from User talk:Naught101

One thing that surprised me about the destruction wrought by hurrican Katrina on the Gulf Coast is that despite the fact that there were supposedly million dollar plus homes, they did not survive the tidal surge. Was that just negligence on the part of the architects? Aren't there reasonable ways to design survivable homes, at least in this price range? Do we really have to stop building in these coastal areas? Perhaps a section in this article that could point architects to the resources describing how this is done would be helpful.

On the subject of New Orleans, is there a way to construct buildings and infrastructure so it is less vulnerable to the flooding when it occurs? Perhaps on pilings or with 1st floor garages so that the damage is less? --Silverback 14:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?
Perhaps a better solution would be to live a less wasteful lifestyle? maybe consider living in a simple home, and using the rest of the resources as an emergency back up for such situations? I see architecture as well outside the reality loop when it comes to resource use. this is to some extent mirrored in society, where the rich minority of us (you have a computer? then you are one) use excessive amounts of resources, most of which we waste. --Naught101 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You underestimate the benefits of technology. For instance, computers allow me to telecommute, saving resources.  Automobiles pollute far less per passenger mile than horses, etc.--Silverback 05:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was worded oddly. I simply meant that the fact that you are using a computer right now probably means that you are part of the global minority of the rich, considering less than 1 in 1000 people have a computer. True, computers may use less resources while running than the postal service, which uses aeroplanes, but computers have an extremely high embodied energy.
 * Cars do not pollute less than horses. cars produce carbon dioxide, which, unless you're running hydrogen or biodiesel/gas, adds to the greenhouse effect, for decades. This has rather serious effects on climate change, and has a carry on effect to hurricanes. It's true that horses produce manure and methane, the first is a fertiliser, hardly a pollutant, the second is a greenhouse gas (but carbon neutral since it's part of the natural carbon cycle). Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. --Naught101 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There are more environmental concerns than just CO2, which some have also considered a fertilizer of sorts. Horses were considered a major environmental hazard at the time partially due to the short working life in heavy duty, and thousands of carcasses often left on the streets. The dung attracted flies and generated terrible odors, and created runoff water polution. The din of noise from iron horse shoes and the damage they caused to roads were also problems.  The next two paragraphs are from this blog, but they have some credibility because they have references


 * "Historian Stephen Davies recounts "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894" in the current issue of The Freeman (some of contents on-line but, unfortunately, not Davies' piece). All urban non-pedestrian traffic was horsepowered and the stuff kept piling up. "In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day ... " And, "Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.""


 * "Even better is Davies' reports that, "In 1898 the first international urban planning conference convened in New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output.""


 * Evidently, the shear volume of manure and urine polution per passenger mile, created problems that your simple lawn analogy doesn't capture. |The Horse and the Urban Environment | HORSE WASTES AND COMPOSTING: PATHOGENS AND WEED SEEDS


 * One of the implications of wealth usually is an increased ability to survive or protect against environmental insults. Are there reasonable engineering/architectural solutions to building and living in a storm surge zone.  It is perhaps similar to the situation with earthquakes in the San Francisco area.  The hills around there are undeveloped ostensibly due to the earthquake risk, which on the face of it, given the price of real estate and homeless problem (I would probably be homeless there despite my apparent riches), is obscene.  With the wealth of their population, they SHOULD be able to develop those hills and relieve some of the housing pressure on the lower and middle classes, by letting those that can afford to, safely develope there.  Are the engineering problems that intractable, that we have to leave these areas undeveloped, or is it cheaper to just simply rebuild after destruction in these areas? --Silverback 21:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * heh, sounds like a load of fun. though if an enterprising person happened to also be a right-thinking person, they could see a way to clean up the streets AND make a profit. collect the shit (and carcases], sell it to farmers. I'm not sure about the water pollution, it does sound pretty bad, but proper storm water collection, retention and reed-bed/mop crop filtration should ba able to sort this out. CO2 hangs around for about 100 years, and is only slowly re-converted into oxygen and carbon molecules. and this rate may be less than previosly thought. and if you are worried about hurricanes, storms, floods, heatwaves, cold snaps, firestorms, or any other climate-affected natural disaster, you should be worried about climate change, cause it's only going to get worse.
 * I'm pretty sure the current solution is "survival of the richest," where you buy your way out of the disaster, leave for a few months, till everyone is dead or gone, then come back and take over their property. sorry, it's hard not to be cynical in the fucked up system.--Naught101 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To show you how insignificant the UKs efforts were even if they hadn't been cancelled out, this effect is about two orders of magnitude larger so we end up with less than nothing for forgoing tens of billions of dollars of economic growth. What is strange about the coast, is that there did not seem to be any residences built to survive the surge, you'd think some owner or architect would have implemented a solution.--Silverback 02:51, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Scottish baronial style
I've just started an article on Scottish baronial style. It has three sentence which contain the sum total of my knowledge, and I wouldn't even guarantee that that is accurate. I put it up because I want to know more and am curious what you architecture experts will now do with it. (It links from a reference at Aberdeen Grammar School.) Please visit this page and do whatever needs done. --Doric Loon 14:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and expanded a little, perhaps it need to be moved to Scottish baronial architecture, or perhaphs just a subsection of Gothic revival - any views?

Arpingstone's changes
The article definitely needed some tidying up, and Arpingstone's changes seem like as good a start as any. However, the changes include a whole paragraph erroneously attributed to Vitruvius (now corrected), and it is still seems very fragmented. I could follow Arpingstone and go for some more bold editing, but perhaps we should discuss some things first: should we merge the two introductory paragraphs, and talk about architecture rather than the architect as we do in the new Introduction section. Diving into Vitruvius is centered on Western values in architecture -- should scope and intentions be broadened? --stochata 12:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was very bold in my changes because the article was phrased in a peculiar style that was very hard to understand. I'm a fairly intelligent person (University degree etc) but much of the stuff I could make no sense of. Heaven help the general reader! So I set about simplifying the language. I don't want to take part in any further discussion on architecture because this is not a subject I have any knowledge of, so please carry on and further improve the article - Adrian Pingstone 18:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest finding a new topic! On the other hand, try researching something more contemperary, in my opinion, being the expert I am, what is new ae is easiest to reasearch! Besides, contemperary is the style!♥

Adding of General Architecture Definition paragraph
I added a more general definition of architecture since today we speak of the architecture of buildings, languages, people, clocks, virtual machines, .... My suggestion is that it be the leading paragraph, since it encompasses all of the other elements on this thread, and many more 'things' not on this thread. normxxx 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided to be be bold and removed it. I hope this doesn't incite an edit war, but I thought the paragraph was un-needed and ugly, and well...redundant and used too many neologisms. If you contest it, go ahead and put it back. I will try to resolve this in the meantime. -- Natalinasmpf 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Natalinasmpf
Are you playing some kind of game? You don't approve of my trying to broaden the definition but you insist this is not a definition of building and shelter architecture. Show me where this definition addresses anything other than shelter structures of some kind.

How about beginning with the disambiguation page, as in other definitions? 165.247.89.101 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 1 [from Natalina]
Well it addresses the philosophy of architecture in general. The previous definition wasn't good because it wasn't concise enough, used too much bold formatting and was largely redundant. This isn't. Yes, biology is not mentioned after that, but it merely defines the scope of architecture in which the reader can branch off later. -- Natalinasmpf 03:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 2 [from normxxx]
Adding cell as an example of a "built environment" is objectionable to me (as a committed atheist, I do not believe that a cell has a builder) and it is wholly inconsistent with the Wikipedia definition of built or built environment. It only serves to confuse the issue, rather than broaden the definition. Throwing a cabbage into a collection of coins does nothing to extend any usable definition of that collection. I agree that the bold formatting was inappropriate; I do not agree that my original definition was redundant. Can you give me an example? In any event, I do believe my current changes are an improvement.

What about my suggestion of changing the opening page to the disambiguation page?

What is the purpose of the Architectural Portal, which completely repeats most of and otherwise overlaps with the main definition? normxxx 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 3 [from Natalina]
A cell certainly has a builder - that builder is DNA. Whether or not that builder is intelligent is entirely a different theory (there are in fact, philosophical tenets that hold DNA to be some sort of semi-sentient entity on its own, given the proliferation of otherwise meaningless junk DNA or Alu sequences. Then there are viruses, which are technically non-living pieces of genetic code, but carry out their purpose of ever-increasing (sabotage and) design. In any case, it was merely to clear up the etymology, and it's hardly mentioned later on. Structural biologists do get described as the architects of the cell, by the way - we are going to start modify things at the cellular level heavily, starting with nanotechnology, so clearly, the cell is a built environment. In the 1500's, it was not a build environment. But to hell with archaism! -- Natalinasmpf 22:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 4 [from Stochata]
Architecture in the context of the built environment surely has to include the fact that it is for human occupation in some way -- i.e., it is the subject of architects. While a cell might be used as a structural component by an architect, it is not going to form a liveable environment of itself, so I would disagree strongly with its inclusion. Furniture is on the border -- it can in some way be occupied by people. Designing cells should surely come under other uses of the word architecture. --stochata 23:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 5 [from normxxx]
"A cell certainly has a builder - that builder is DNA. "

That is simply not true! At most, the DNA may be understood to correspond to a very rough plan of the cell. From reference: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug99/936039442.Dv.r.html "Rather than contain a 'blueprint' of the adult, and then organize the cells accordingly, the genome contains the step-by-step instructions on how to build an embryo, without any one step 'knowing' what step comes next." Or, for that matter, without any one step 'knowing' what step came before!

Moreover, the DNA is interpreted by the ribosome for protein sythesis. http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/ribosome.htm


 * Actually, the quaternary structure and the tertiary structure shape much of the cell. The plan is hardly very rough. DNA's correspondence to cell structure is highly intricate and shall I say, "beautiful", and is much an architectural science as it is a biological one. The entire nature of receptors and the engineering of proteins in structures to determine it's almost exact position in the cell when compared with other structures. There is of course no blueprint of the adult, but structural biology is the field of studying how results are achieved (at any stage of the cell's life) through the programming mediated through genetic information. There is no instruction of "have the receptor here", but through manipulation of a protein's hydrophilic and hydrophobic components in relation to other proteins, a purpose is achieved. -- Natalinasmpf 01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But I do not wish to engage you in a spurious metaphysical argument over whether a builder implies an 'intelligent' agent or not! Suffice it that it is not how builder is defined by Wikipedia. And there is also a clear conflict with the definitions of built and built environment which you seem to have chosen to ignore. The very next sentence contradicts your insertion. Since when does the "Architectural design [of a cell] ... account for feasibility and cost for the builder, as well as function and aesthetics for the user"?

"In any case, it was merely to clear up the etymology, and it's hardly mentioned later on. Structural biologists do get described as the architects of the cell, by the way - we are going to start modify things at the cellular level heavily"

But that's just the point— it clears up nothing; it just confuses things. I believe that at least 95 people out of a hundred would not assume that a cell had any intelligent builder other than God! Remember, this is for people looking for a definition of architecture who are not assumed to be conversant with modern cell biology.

DO YOU OBJECT TO MY CHANGING THE ARCHITECTURE PAGE TO THE DISAMBIGUATION PAGE? If you let me make that change, you can have the 'built' architecture all to yourself (except that I still think the reference to the cell as you have it is maximally unesthetic, and very confusing besides). normxxx 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 6 [from Natalina]
I object - I was simply presenting the context of the Greek word architecture. The Greek architects of their day, had they known about DNA and cells, would have very much considered structural biology architecture. Aesthetics indeed does not play so much a role in a cell, but is are not the structures precisely positioned? Do not let this dispute mess up the current page, I was just including it to define the scope of the philosophy of architecture in general. This leads up to any encyclopedic definition of architecture, which the article then points to the disambiguation page. I think that disambiguation headers should be made short and concise, and the instruction to look to the disambiguation for anything else other than building environments is implied beforehand. I don't want this to become entangled because of something so minor. -- Natalinasmpf 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 7 [from normxxx]
"I was simply presenting the context of the Greek word architecture."

I simply do not see that! Nor, apparently, does Stochata. The introduction of the phrase artificial cell structures in structural biology seems to come in from left field. If you really are trying to establish a context for the Greek word architecture, you'll have to provide a lot more explanation than these six words— which seems to strike everyone as inappropriately placed, even after your explanation in the talk page.

Any arguments about the esthetics of a definition are purely subjective. Myself, I consider any definition that is confusing or wrong or inconsistent or incomplete to be unesthetic! That would also be the definition of esthetics from mathematics. And even a mathematical definition (much less a lexicographic definition) cannot be so concise it does not explain! If concision were the sole criteria, even in mathematics, then there would be no need for mathematical proofs— the theorem would be assumed to immediately follow from the identification of the axioms from which it derives!

Moreover, you continue to ignore the clear conflict with the definitions of built and built environment.  Do you intend to change those references or redefine those terms? 

I was not planning to mess up the current page; I was only planning to make the opening page the Disambiguation Page, with this page being the page for "Architecture, built" or however you wish to qualify it. If you want it also to be Architecture, ancient" or "Architecture, philosophy" then you will have to expand on those latter topics.  As it stands, it certainly does not offer sufficient coverage of the philosophy of architecture (the apparently arbitrary insertion of six words does not do it).

"'This leads up to any encyclopedic definition of architecture, which the article then points to the disambiguation page.'"

But that's a principal reason for my objections! It first points to the disambiguation page; then goes into an explanation which includes the phrase artificial cell structures in structural biology and no other references to any type of architecture other than built architecture or the architecture of the built environment. Your definition is maximally inconsistent. An encyclopedic definition cannot be carried on the back of six (apparently) misplaced or inappropriately placed words!

Furthermore, artificial cell structures in structural biology follows the defining sentence, "Architecture (in Greek #### = start and #### = craftsmanship) is the art and science of designing buildings and structures."

The "art and science of designing buildings and structures." does not in any way relate to biological cells. Neither designing nor buildings in any way relate to the Wikipedia definitions of biology or cell or cell biology.If you look under structure, which has a very wide reference list, neither biology nor cell is listed. The list to which you append "artificial cell structures in structural biology" is meant to amplify the first part of that sentence which reads, "A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture". As stochata has pointed out, even furniture would be considered a stretch— but cells are beyond the pale. It does not fit with  any  of the preceding definitional words! (Also, you are not entirely free to introduce a few definitions which are entirely at variance to the Wikipedia definitions; you must modify all relevant Wikipedia definitions— even the disambiguation pages! Do you plan to go through the entire encyclopedia modifying definitions as you go?  Good luck!)

(Moreover, you are taking liberties with the truth. We cannot as yet design, much less build artificial cell structures from scratch!  Although we can already mass produce viruses from scratch.  But viruses are little more than bundles of RNA or DNA; they contain no complex organelles.  It took about a billion years or so just to get from prokaryotes to to eukaryotes.  ''And you can't get from viruses to either." See Lynn Margulus' stuff http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/margulis/ )

normxxx 18:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 8 [from Natalina]
We cannot, but that is the entire goal of structural biology. At present we can modify those structures, remove receptors, et al. I was just giving the example that architecture is the science and the art of creation and design of structures (which by the way, is listed under structure (disambiguation). The entire thing about the built environment remains, and does not really conflict, because it focuses on the built environment, but the entire thing of furniture and cells was merely to define the scope of architecture as an occupation. This page suffices. We don't need separate pages (as of yet), especially since this architecture is so short. We might in the end, define architecture in general using Template:main, focusing on construction, then having sections elaborating on the philosophy of design and construction that is architecture, as well as ancient. "Built" suits cells, whereas things like "information architecture" isn't really built (they are abstract systems) which is why it is listed as disambiguation. Perhaps, the dab header should be clarified to "this article is about the design of built structures", to which built structures may well range from the nanometric to the macroscopic. It is the introduction header, it can temporarily go off tangent from what the dab header precisely defines, because it says what it is roughly about, not what it is precisely about. Anyhow, thanks for your emphatic concern. -- Natalinasmpf 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply 9 [from normxxx]
See stochata's reply below. ''He likes the idea of opening the definition with the disambiguation page, with no references to cell biology. I can live with that. normxxx 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Stochata
Do you agree with my changes to the definition? See link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architecture&oldid=32292114

Please advise. normxxx 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Normxxx, no I would rather see the disambiguation in the disambiguation page. The everyday usage of 'architecture' would seem to me the built environment architecture, and thus that is what the main architecture page should be about -- IMHO.   I certainly wouldn't see cell biology as a part of the common conception.  That the ancient Greeks may have thought differently (although we can never be sure) is not to my mind grounds for inclusion in a modern encyclopedia.  Best, --stochata 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Stochata, what about opening on the disambiguation page?
 * What is the purpose of the Architectural Portal, which seems to completely repeat most of and otherwise overlap with the main definition?

normxxx 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the opening on the disambiguation page is excellent -- you've done a thoroughly professional job. As for the architecture portal, I have the same reservations as you.  I've avoided getting into discussion about it because I don't like portals in general, and so tend to ignore them completely!  No offence meant to developers of portals -- perhaps some people want to access information in a different way -- personally I like a no frills straight to business encyclopedia. --stochata 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

revised proposal
Let the disambig stay where it is - let me have a clarification: a disambig page is merely for ease of use for several topics with the same name. A lot of times, they are related. Therefore, they may be mentioned in the article, or even covered briefly in terms of "architecture", or perhaps how "architecture" has evolved with history. This would also add a feeling of comprehensiveness to the article, although yes we would have to modify it first. Perhaps, "this is about design and creation of structures" would be satisfactory, we could extend the modern definition of structure later (ie. transistors, organelles, etc.), while people who didn't want to go through all that would just skip to the disambig page. -- Natalinasmpf 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am comfortable with the Main page Intro as is, except that I would revert the sentence:


 * A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture or artificial cell structures in structural biology.

to
 * A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture. normxxx 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the Main page should be left as the exclusive domain of the architecture of built environments as currently defined by Wikepedia. Any changes to this definition would likely require a series of cascading definition changes!

Note that the current article is unsatisfactory and actually just lists topics rather than discussing them in context of architecture as a whole. I feel this proposal would unify them, as well as providing a basis in which to integrate the topics. It would be mostly about the built environment, but mention other derived subjects briefly. -- Natalinasmpf 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to re-do as you will; '''but use the Architecture/sandbox until we have a consensus.


 * Earlier, I did not persue your comment about DNA not being a very "rough," step by isolated step instruction set, as I thought it inappropriate to persue that here. (And I remain firmly against the inclusion of any architecture in this Main page article not designed by humans or for human habitation— and no viable living cell has yet been designed by a human nor do humans inhabit cells.)


 * "Actually, the quaternary structure and the tertiary structure shape much of the cell. The plan is hardly very rough."


 * But you have just proved my point! A blueprint contains virtually all of the information needed to construct a house.  I doubt if 20% of the information needed to construct a cell resides in the DNA.  Rather, the DNA relies on the laws of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and protein physics and chemistry to supply the remaining information. (It is more like the plan of a city, which omits most of the details, and includes only a very rough sketch of the important stuff, e.g., the sewers and other infrastructure, since their placement need not be exact— only their relation to each other.)


 * "DNA's correspondence to cell structure is highly intricate and shall I say, 'beautiful', and is much an architectural science as it is a biological one."


 * I will not contest your vision of what is "beautiful" (though that's not NPOV), nor whether the structure of the cell has an apparent architecture. I would only point out that this page is otherwise exclusively devoted to the purposefully planned architecture of human architects and this inclusion is maximally confusing (unless, perhaps, you are a biologist).

Having thought about it, I see the merits of this revised proposal. So long as the derived subjects are dealt with in a subsection of their own, it makes sense for the overview to cover more than it does at the moment, and in more integrated fashion. I am sure this would make the overall content stonger. I am not sure that it needs much of a tryout elsewhere -- a self-contained section on derivations outside the built environment would probably be all that is required -- in fact, normxxx's intro to the disambiguation page might well be a starting point for it. --stochata 16:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

comment on entries 10 - 12
Whatever is decided and done with this article's introduction, will likely be fine with me. The discussion is provocative and the changes discussed recall a summary of Charles and Ray Eames powers of 10. I would rather see this article remain somewhat metaphoric and over inclusive than become the equivalent of the architect article- a strict restating of requirements for licensure. DVD+ R/W 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

fragmented definition
I thought the fragmented style was awful, so I integrated them into one definition, which I hope everyone will accept. -- Natalinasmpf 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Separation is Cleaner
I believe that addressing the differences in seperate sections is cleaner and less confusing for the reader, but I will go with whatever Stochata, DVD+R/W, or others decide. (Others: don't worry about the differences in wording of these sections, unless you want to modify the latest. Natalina and I are almost in agreement on wording— see latest changes.)

Alternative format: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architecture&oldid=33064936

normxxx 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Norm -- I agree, I think separation is clearer, although it might need a little more tweaking to get it looking just right (I assume why Natalinasmpf thinks it was looking bad). BTW, it seems like your and Natalinasmpf's modifications are really coming together to make a more readable page. --stochata 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question for the Architects
Do you consider architecture to be a technology? normxxx 16:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

> No. It may USE technology, but it is NOT technology in itself. It is one of the fine arts.

> It's an art that subscribed by words.


 * Speaking as an architect with experience in Canada, USA and Europe I would say architecture as a profession is very much about technology and even moreso about business. Architects usually research and coordinate technologies to create buildings. Architectural firms need to understand building science and technology in order to design buildings. As a profession it is NOT necessarily a "fine art". Architecture as a discipline is both science and fine art. This article is mostly about architecture as an art (which it undeniably is when looked at in socio-historical context). It should, however, reflect the practice of architecture as a profession as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.217.31 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

> I'm an architect who has worked all over the US on all kinds of projects. Personally, I have always thought of architecture as a "professional craft." Like all crafts it involves elements of art and elements of technology to create something that is attractive and useful. Vitruvius had it right 2,000 years ago: firmness, commodity, and delight (as he is usually paraphrased). Architecture is not a "pure" artform since it has many utilitarian aspects. But neither is it pure engineering. --Newell Post 06:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Art / science? - art / profession?
It's surely both an art and a science. The RIBA's 1837 Royal Charter refers expressly to acquiring knowledge of both. Perhaps the more interesting debate is the one started in 1892 by Norman Shaw and T G Jackson who collected a number of essays intended to reinforce architecture as an art rather than a profession. Unfortunately the project backfired and led to the creation of the monopoly Register of Architects which has been replicated around the world. Salisian 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive
Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point
{| style="width:100%;background:none" ! bgcolor="#abcdef" colspan="2" bgcolor="#abcdef" | Cleanup Co-ordination
 * width=60 bgcolor="#ffdead" |[[Image:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg|100px]]
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:


 * the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
 * the article has multiple overlapping problems.
 * the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Manual of Style.

You can use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. When there is a consensus that the article is cleaned up please remove the cleanup tag from the article
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |

Discussion

 * }

much of the material in this article is unsourced, so I added the tag--Sefringle 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

a more general definition of Architecture
I feel that the word architecture is more broader than "buildings".

What about Software architecture, Computer architecture, Information architecture ??

e.g. for "the manipulation of space" in very first paragraphs, could the "space" be "cyberspace" ?

-- 58.136.73.145 08:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ARB spat
the UK Architects Registration Board has become highly territorial over its Wikipage. How best to let Plasmon's contribution (which contributes objectively to the current debate) remain? See Discussion Page -- Salisian 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Greece and Rome?
How can you have an article discussing Medeival, Renaissance, and Humanist architecture and never even discuss the architecture of ancient Rome and Greece? Especially in Romanesque architecture (ie. Pisa) the influence of Greece and Rome are painfully obvious. If nothing else, the largest element adopted from Greece and Rome would be the styles and uses of pillars. My personal oppinnion is that Greek and Roman architecture are not given due attention in this article.

Reply to above unsigned comment
This article is about the discipline of Architecture, architectural theory, the role of the architect as recorded. So- Vitruvius who wrote about Roman architecture is dealt with. This article is not about the History of architecture or about Architectural styles. It doesn't describe structure at all, not for any type of architecture. It doesn't describe changes in fashion. It does describe some changes in philosophy.

If you want to know how Classical architecture influenced later styles, it is dealt with elsewhere on wikipedia. Look at Renaissance architecture and Palladian architecture.

--Amandajm 06:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Theatre of Pompey article
I seem to be the only one editing this page. Seriously. I don't know why there is a tag that says an Oberon College student is updating it, because they are not. I am removing that tag and requesting participation on the article. It is a fascinating subject but I can't do it all myself. --Amadscientist 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Planning Overhaul for this section
A group of us are in the process of reorganizing this page to make it more informative and less euro-centric. If anyone has specific concerns/comments topics they think lacking from the article we are welcome to them. --oelie 1.7.2007

Comments and questions

 * I've recently done a "tidy up" on this article.
 * I am of the opinion that at the present minute the article is a good article and probably a "A" article, except for the fact that the part which was previously transferred from an older article has lost its references, which now seem impossible to locate.
 * I think that at present there is an integrity of language, style, and type of info included. If a "group" is going to work on it, you need to sort out your approach very carefully before chop up something that is working well.
 * There is an article called Architectural history. Whatever you write should not simply double up what is written there or place in this article information which would be better put somewhere else.


 * Example- when I editted this article, the history, which deals with almost everything very briefly, had, jammed in the middle, a fairly lengthy blurb about Islamic architecture which described, among other things, what countries it is found in, and how it is also found in other countries as well. In other words, the editor had observed that there was nothing about Islamic architecture and had written something, but had not taken on board the type of information that was written in the rest of the section, so that the nature of what was written was entirely different and therefore inappropriate. Much of it has simply been deleted. However, if the editor had read and digested what was there, and gone away and actually researched some appropriate information that fitted the topic, then the edit would have been valuable. As it stands, it is a mere "token reference' to the architecture of Islam.


 * So, if you are planning on simply adding bits, then make sure that they are actually relevant.


 * My suggestion is that you draft a plan and discuss what needs including, having checked out all the other articles first.
 * What is does progammic mean in "programmatic use of space"?

--Amandajm 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I can't find content about Chinese ancient architecture, see http://caa.fr.cr   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luaimee (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously- can all you guys who want to overhaul something go over to the article Architectural history and overhaul it. If you go to the talk page, you'll find my suggestions as to what urgently needs doing. This article "works". That article is a dreadful mess.

Someone there needs to stop adding "body" to the intro, write a proper intro and carve off all the information that needs to be in Oh bugger it! i suppose i'll have to do it...what i reeeally want to do is finish Romanesque. --Amandajm 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed this section
The Architects Job The architects job is to provide sustainable buildings upon which individuals live and work on a daily basis. The architect is responsible for many tasks such as building codes, engineering techniques, and safety regulations. Architects design schools, bridges, homes, and office buildings. Architects commonly work in a team when designing large structures. This prevents many mistakes from occurring. To be an architect you must plan a strong college prepartory program including courses in English, humanities subjects, mathematics, and science courses. Elective courses in computers and business will also be extremely helpful in preparing a career in architecture. Once you've completed your courses and have graduated from high school you are now ready to enroll in a 5-year bachelor or master of architecture program. Licensure requires a minimum of 5-years in school plus a three-year internship. Once you've completed those tasks you are required to pass the A.R.E(Architecture Registration Exam). Once you fulfill your education, internship, and examination requirements of a jurisdiction, you can become a "licensed" or "registered" architect.

The reasons for its removal are
 * 1) It doesn't take into account what has been said. The section quotes a number of different historic opinions as to what the role of the architect is. The edit follows up Vitruvius and so on by making an unsourced statement.
 * 2) Not the right place for this stuff. Some of it nmight be appropriate for a different article, say Architect.
 * 3) editor doesn't understand wiki style yet. "Once you've completed your course" etc is not appropriate to wiki. This is an encyclopedia, not a friendly brochure directed at the student. Even a student handbook says "at the end of the course" rather than "once you've completed your course".
 * 4) The information is local. 5 year courses and the A.R.E. Any information like this has to be qualified by stating what country it pertains to.

Can someone with the appropriate expertise (and understanding of encyclopedic style) decide what might be useful here and use it if necessary.

--Amandajm 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Architectural history
is awaiting your enthusiastic research and writing. Please respect the factb that the topic is Architectural history, not History of Architecture which has once again got its own page.

So if you have always wanted to write about Vitruvius, Alberti, John Ruskin and Banister Fletcher, this is your big opportunity!

--Amandajm 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention editors

 * The following was added to the article
 * I left a message on the editors page requesting they check whether it was in the right section, as it would be better in the history section, also needs to be briefer.
 * Meanwhile, another editor deleted it and left the comment "OR??" (Original Research). Original research is not allowed by wiki policy.
 * Three such comments can be made- OR (original research, POV (Point of view) and "Citation needed". The third is generally the politest.
 * I have put it here for consideration.

"Now in the early 21st century, many architects have been stricken with space. New York City, Tokyo, London, and Buenos Aeries are among a few cities which have stripped out their available land resources. In these settings, architects now more than ever are following the concept of “form follows function”. Because of this constraint, urban sprawl and rural communities are now being sought out by developers and their architects. In the USA where capitalism is strong, real estate developers are now influencing architecture in rural areas, more so than the architect. And with Federal, State, County, Local, and numerous agencies in every developing city and country in the world; the government is also now influencing the form of architecture, more so than the architect. A noted architect and author of Architects of the Mind, Donald H. Sepulski, explains how by the end of the 21st century, if the human species survives, architects will have reached another milestone with homes outside of Earth(....ref...Architects of the Mind, By Donald H. Sepulski.../ref...)"

--Amandajm 15:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoken recording
If you are going to remove the spoken recording please write an entry in the talk page explaining why. 75.72.162.175 10:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word Architecture
As someone of a Greek background who can read and write Greek, the definition of the word archi (αρχι) also means "start". τεκτων means "the art" or the artist". Most disciplines began as observation of nature,Physics(φύσις)which means nature, architectures origins lie with observing nature, as an artist, and attempting to replicate aspects of it in built form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.181.253 (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi protected
This article has attracted a fair amount of vandalism so I have semi protected it for a month. I noted that the article was protected in 2009 and 2008, so it may need indefinite protection.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Need for a navigation link to disambiguation page
Architecture is a primary topic and needs a link to the disambiguation page to facilitate navigation according to wp:disambig guidelines. Wikipedia is a hypertext. The only reason argued so far is that it's not necessary (which is the opposite to what guidelines say), superfluous and clutter (which the lean otheruses tag is not). Notice that the purpose of links to disambiguation is not just to avoid confusion between similar concepts, it's also to find those similar concepts if we land in the wrong page. This article can't be a stand-alone island, it needs to link out to comply with the manual of style. Someone looking for Architecture at Wikipedi might want to learn about Landscape architecture, Naval architecture, or Architecture (magazine). The current article would leave those users with the wrong impression that Wikipedia doesn't cover those topics. Diego Moya (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem might have been that a hatnote was added singling out computer architecture and that alone probably would be unnecessary. However, there is an Architecture (disambiguation) page, which includes the magazine named simply Architecture, so a hatnote is needed for that. Station1 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the standard otheruses hatnote. I agree it doesn't need to be cluttered with anything more specific than that, but the standard link to the dab page is clearly appropriate here, as with any primary-topic page that has an associated "... (disambiguation)" page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the disambig hatnote. I think a hatnote to computer architecture is inappropriate. Amandajm (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Had User:Amandajm or User:Merbabu replaced my hatnote with otheruses, I would have been perfectly happy. The issue was the removal of the hatnote without adding a more appropriate one. As long as nobody removes the otheruses, my concerns are satisfied. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So why did it cost so much to make everybody happy?? :-) Diego Moya (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Architecture → Architecture (building) — disambiguation Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. Use of the term for computer-related things was based on the term for building. The use for buildings is the original and basic meaning of the term. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose a move per above, but totally Support having a hat note. Architecture is a primary topic (I'd even say a vital article) and merits the Architecture title pointing to this article. But other uses of the word must be linked, and since computer architecture seems to be the only other major use of the term a disambiguation page may be overkill there's no reason at all not to link to the existing disambiguation page. BTW a hatnote is not clutter, is required by Wikipedia style in order to help navigation. Diego Moya (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Architecture is primary topic. --Elekhh (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)*
 * Oppose, this is obviously the primary topic. Powers T 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. Valid WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - piling it on now. "architecture" gets 146m hits while "computer architecture" gets 1m hits. --Merbabu (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, All other uses of the term architecture stem from this one. Amandajm (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

The term architecture is widely used for computer hardware and computer software. Accordingly, there should be disambiguation for the term. I am treating this as controversial because a hatnote was twice reverted. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the disambig notice, do you really believe someone looking for "Computer architecture" would type in "architecture" and then get stuck? (and, Google hits for "architecture" top 146m, and "computer architecture" around 1m). Redundant and unnecessary clutter. --Merbabu (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe that I came across the article while researching buildings? A hatnote is not clutter and, in fact, is required by Wiki policy. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a hatnote. It goes to Architecture (disambiguation), which is all "Wiki policy" demands.  Powers T 12:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was added recently. Before that, a link to "computer architecture" was added. Note that "Computer architecture" is one of many alternative links on the disambig page. --Merbabu (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case a revert summary explaining that "Computer architecture" was too specific would have been more useful that "so not necessary, just clutter". Just IMHO. Diego Moya (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

critique of the Architecture article
HIST406-10cpaho1 Article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture Critique link:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architecture&action=edit&section=new Overall, I think that the article was well written. There are no grammatical errors, and the author seems to have separated each relevant topic in its sub category. This method of organization allows the reader to obtain brief information about the topic, but also gives them the ability to read more about a specific topic they may be interested in which may be, the definition of architecture, the theories, the history, or contemporary architecture. As far as the sources used in this article, they are complete because each category illustrations can be related to some of the sources used. For instance, the history of architecture category illustration can be traced to the medieval times and the author does have sources to support his points, which makes his illustration useful and accurate to the readers. The article hasn’t been marred by frivolous or spurious contribution because every main point is relevant to the topic and is accurate. As compared to other articles in other encyclopedia such as the Columbia encyclopedia, I think that the sources there are more credible because they are not only strictly related to architecture, but the authors of those sources historians who seem to have specialized in each category or illustration of architecture listed in the article. In conclusion, I think that the article is well written but could use a substantial amount of architecture historians sources to make the argument more credible to the audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10cpaho1 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading this article please come visit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardman123 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Further critique: I made some minor edits, adding dates and architect name blue links to photo captions in the 'History' section of the article. In the process, I noticed what are (to me) some problems with the writing and organization of the article. In general, the section's organization needs to agree with the 'History of Architecture' article. Here's a list, along with proposals for corrections:
 * Subsection:Origins and the ancient world. Ankgor Wat is Asian, and not a good example of ancient architecture (see the date). I'd like to replace the photo with something from Egypt, as mentioned in the text.
 * Subsection:Origins and the ancient world. Asian architecture could have its own section (perhaps including Ankgor Wat); Asian and European periodization don't match up.
 * Subsection:The medieval builder. The term medieval is difficult to apply outside of Europe. A date range would be better. Classical is not medieval. The Taj Majal is not a good example of purely Islamic architecture.
 * Subsection:The medieval builder. The entire last paragraph in incorrect. The Greeks and/or Romans built all of these things.
 * Subsection:Renaissance and the architect. Definition of 'Renaissance'; citation and/or revision needed.
 * Subsections, Early modern and the industrial age and following: No citations until last paragraph of 'Architecture Today'.
 * Subsection:Modernism and reaction of architecture. 'Fallingwater' is not a good example of modernism. Wright is not mentioned in the text.

Comments on these suggestions are welcome here. I'd like to hear other opinions before proceeding with edits. WCCasey (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

không gian kiến trúc tác động đến não bộ con người
-không gian kiến trúc tác động tới não bộ con người -chúng ta có nhận biết điều đó không?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.34.72 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC) 118.69.34.72 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)hung209110@yahoo.com

Unclear subsections - History?
The article is not well-organized into clear subsections. The only subsection that I see here is 'History'. People who seek - for instance - for domestic architecture, they can only get an article about House (not one of the best article in Wikipedia). Domestic architecture is listed as one of the three architectural type, the other being religious, governmental, recreational, education, and industrial (as proposed in Britannica), and I don't see this category anywhere in Wikipedia.

If I am allowed, I would reorganized the entire article (which takes time), putting extra careful intention especially on the current wiki definition of architecture (which I think very good) and removing the history subsection to the bottom, and placing a clear category of subsection: 1 USE, 2 TECHNIQUE, 3 EXPRESSION plus 4 THEORY (definition, etc, already there in wiki). This subsection is based on Britannica:


 * USE
 * Architectural Type
 * Domestic Architecture (currently linked to House)
 * "Vernacular" architecture
 * "Power" architecture
 * Group housing
 * Religious architecture
 * Temple
 * Shrines
 * Funerary art
 * Governmental architecture
 * Recreational architecture
 * Theater
 * Auditorium
 * Athletic facilities
 * Museum and libraries
 * Architecture of welfare and education
 * Architecture of industry and commerce
 * Architectural planning
 * TECHNIQUE
 * Material
 * Method
 * EXPRESSION
 * THEORY (currently in Architecture)
 * HISTORY(currently in Architecture)

I will start placing this category one by one without completely copying that is there in Britannica and place important citations. I have some nice architecture books e.g. Cornelis van de Ven's Space in Architecture, and all basic architecture books. Please help me regarding this, and make critiques or corrections if necessary --Rochelimit (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the article Outline of architecture, although important as list of available wiki articles, the article is not noticeable, especially for regular browser and not a wiki editor. --Rochelimit (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply
 * No, I don't think rewriting this one is a good idea.
 * If you look at this article, you will see that


 * 1) it's concise. It covers a great deal in a small package.
 * 2) it's stable. The only changes occur when students shove in the name or pet theory of their teacher. These get deleted unless highly notable.
 * 3) it's consistent. It was put together in the first place in a clear and concise manner. Later additions have accepted the the style and content of the original as a guide.
 * 4) it's well written. It was written, editted, written and editted by a several architectural writers and a couple of very good editors.
 * What you are proposing is a large, cumbersome and draws mainly on a particular work.
 * The article is currently a very succinct treatment of a huge topic. It indicates changing attitudes, perceptions and goals in architecture, without attempting the sort of scope that you are suggesting.
 * What you have written above reads like a very desirable list of links that lead to a series of articles, many of which are already written.
 * I presume that you were intending a short paragraph on each section, with a link to the relevant page. I suggest that you create this as a separate page, and then provide links and a See also in this article.
 * If you want to really get your teeth into something that desparately needs work, then don't attack an concise, well-expressed article. Go and find the one that needs it! History of architecture is crying out for a total overhaul.
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What a coincidence...the article History of Architecture IS getting said total overhaul! (I was looking upstream during the overhaul, and found this) Morgan Riley (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of changes by unknown editor
This article has been stable for a long time, having been worked on b a number of teaching architects among others. The changes that you are making affect both the substance and the balance of the article.
 * From the intro:
 * In relation to buildings, architecture has to do with the planning, designing and constructing form, space and ambience that reflect functional, technical, social, environmental, and aesthetic considerations. It requires the creative manipulation and coordination of material, technology, light and shadow. Architecture also encompasses the pragmatic aspects of realizing buildings and structures, including scheduling, cost estimating and construction administration. As documentation produced by architects, typically drawings, plans and technical specifications, architecture defines the structure and/or behavior of a building or any other kind of system that is to be or has been constructed.
 * You removed :  ambience that reflect functional, technical, social, environmental, and aesthetic considerations.
 * You changed this description of the practice of architecture:Architecture also encompasses the pragmatic aspects of realizing buildings and structures, including scheduling, cost estimating and construction administration. to something about considering beauty.


 * You added descriptions about style that were highly specific, but described vernacular building rather than "architecture" in England and Spain.
 * Too much specific history that relates to the United States in particular. More and more about 20th century architecture, creating an imbalance.
 * Frank Lloyd Wright was great but he doesn't need more than one mention.
 * The notion of "beauty" was becoming laboured at the expense of other matters.
 * Vitruvius, Alberti and so on are dealt with, fully, elsewhere.
 * When Italian titles are quoted directly, rather than the English translation of the titles, they are written in sentence case, i.e. only one capital.

This article describes what architecture is. There is another whole article devoted to its history.

Every important architect, theory, building, style and period has its own page and is linked.

The reason I have reverted is not that there isn't some worthwhile changes. It was simply that they were swamped by the other stuff.

As an unnamed editor, you are making a lot of changes to a stable document, without adding any references.

What I wrote to the editor above still holds. ''The article is currently a very succinct treatment of a huge topic. It indicates changing attitudes, perceptions and goals in architecture.'' The above editor went away and did a major fix on a really needy article, namely History of architecture. There are a great number of articles around that likewise need urgent attention. This one is balanced and concise. Please leave it that way.

Amandajm (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Political
I removed the word "political" from the introduction. I don't think that more than one building in a thousand is designed to express a political statement. And "cultural" already covers it. Borock (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely. Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the conclusion that "cultural" subsumes it entirely, though many buildings with civic or governmental functions often have political rationales; for example, the use of Greek & Roman revivals in early Federal era (e.g. the Federal City of D.C. & the Virginia State Capitol) was in-part the desire to invoke the Greek democracy and Roman republicanism, breaking from the Georgian and Federal architectures of the period. Likewise, see the ideas embraced in Fascist architecture of Italy and the NAZI architecture of Germany, and with dispute those of the Soviet Union. But insofar as politics in inseparable from the broader cultural zeitgeist, I still agree that if "political" were separated, the many other facets of cultural would also need to be listed.Morgan Riley (talk)


 * Yes, there is no question that "Politics" is a significant part of the "cultural". One might argue that architecture as "works of art"  is also contained within the "cultural".   However, what is meant is quite different.  There has been a long tradition of looking at important buildings as "works of Art", i.e. removing them from all cultural context and seeing them purely as objects of beauty, to be analysed in terms of form, mass, space, decoration etc.  Amandajm (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

false statements in 'contemporary' architecture.
The main reason for the shifting role of the architect is because of liability. As the technologies of industries associated with building have evolved, including highly complicated hvac systems, sophisticated curtain wall systems, involving other highly skilled professionals, liability has shifted onto pre-approved systems that have been pre-tested and meet certified standards. Many critics taking the position that the increasing size of such mechanical systems are unnecessary and often used on projects that can rely on lighter systems. Newer complications include "green washing", making buildings appear to be more sustainable even though they are using systems that require more energy and are less efficient but exhibit more of the color "green". Buildings have become increasingly complicated for these reasons.

The design of a structures often begins with the vision of a small team, usually including the client, architects, and engineers and expands into many teams, each with their own highly skilled tasks.

Environmental sustainability has become a mainstream issue in real estate development, having indirect affects on architecture. Within the past decade, developers have reconsidered the long held position by architects that good design is synonymous with sustainable ecological processes. Major examples of this can be found in new roof designs with cisterns, rooftop farms, biodegradable materials, naturally cooling materials, passive thermal walls that absorb heat during the day and emit that energy in the evening, and more attention to a structure's energy usage, including increased passive systems that rely on less mechanical brute force. This major shift in development attitudes has increased funding toward environmental technologies allowing architecture schools to continue to support such research programs, where previously there has not been enough funding. Sustainability in architecture was pioneered in the 1960s by architects such as Buckminster Fuller, Frank Lloyd Wright, Sim Van der Ryn,in the 1970s Ian McHarg in the US and Brenda and Robert Vale in the UK and New Zealand.

There is no evidence that the Dynamic Tower is in any way sustainable. The associated press is not an authority on energy efficiency.

Regarding further issue with the article: "A large structure can no longer be the design of one person but must be the work of many." This is a completely false and empty statement. It is like saying "support our troops." Why is it that you have no desire to correct this statement as I have previously mentioned reasons why. "Modernism and Postmodernism, have been criticized ..." Another architect, Rem Koolhass has been critical of the post/modern discussion as meaningless to the profession as it ignores basic issues of construction and does not consider that architecture is a "tool for modernization" described in his book S,M,L,XL.

"Environmental sustainability has become a mainstream issue, with profound affect on the architectural profession. Within the past several decades, architects have realized that buildings must take into account their effect upon the environment."--- This statement is completely false. "Environmental sustainability" has had a profound affect on the 'business' of development.

Architecture and development are different things.

One is about the business of financing buildings, the other is about designing/constructing them. Sustainable practice has long been part of the Architect's education and training for over a millenia. To say that it is only in the last decade architect's have started to consider their buildings' impact on the environment is completely false, and to go even further as to say the education has also profoundly changed is even further from the truth. It is only in the last decade that many developers, those who support the financing of buildings, have become educated to encourage more sustainable approaches whereas these were discouraged by those same developers in the past because of reason I've previously mentioned. User:KONSTRUCTICON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstructicon (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you state all this concisely in two or three short paragraphs to replace the existent ones?
 * Every major point needs to be referenced, since you are starting afresh. Put it on this page for discussion.
 * There is no room for detailed description of why different architects have criticised different styles. Put all that stuff into the home article, not this very brief overview.
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

MARATHI WIKIPEDIA
this article is not on marathi wikipedia. please my marathi friends contribute to enrich MARATHI WIKIPEDIA on mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/वास्तुशास्त्र — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.227.67 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning removal of a lead pic
this has been pasted from talk page of Elekhh:

Architecture

Concerning your removal of one of the lead pic that was added today: I have been looking for an appropriate image that contrasted a modern city with the wide view of Florence.

The two pictures (and their captions) refer, in one case, to the impact of a single architect and a single structure on a city and on architecture and the architect. The second picture demonstrates very clearly the uniformity created by 20th century structures of the so-called International style. Although in the body of the article, almost every building is individually notable, and such is not the case in that picture, the picture demonstrates a significant trend in architecture.

The article is not simply about significant buildings. In each case, the significant buildings has been selected to demonstrate the aesthetics or principals of a wide region and era, or an architectural philosophy.

I want to emphasise that the image of Florence Cathedral has not been selected simply on the grounds of it being a great representative work of architecture (like the Parthenon, St Peter's Basilica or the Taj Mahal). It is not simply an iconic building. It is the building that launched the notion of the "architect".

The homogeneity of the Manhattan skyline is the antithesis of the image of Florence. Read the two captions. I believe they make the point, without labouring it.

Amandajm (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood your intention, but still that image is not a good illustration of international style, neither is it a very good quality picture. -- ELEKHHT 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To say again what I said above:
 * "The homogeneity of the Manhattan skyline is the antithesis of the image of Florence. Read the two captions. I believe they make the point, without labouring it."
 * While I agree that the image is not as high quality as it could be, the two images complement each other in terms of colour and appearance.  It is the picture of Lower Manhattan which in terms of colour and proportion fits best with the image of Florence. It includes the Twin Towers which were so much part of that landscape.
 * And while I agree that the image may not show International style as well as an image of a single building might, it illustrates extremely well the affect of the style in transforming cities. Lower Manhattan is "iconic" in that regard.
 * Amandajm (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "It includes the Twin Towers which were so much part of that landscape." hints to the POV which is pushed. The fact is, as explained in the edit summary, that neither the WTC nor any other building in lower Manhattan is highly notable in global architecture history, nor do they collectively depict international style, and therefore not a very good choice for depicting the lead of this article. The caption is less than educational potentially making readers confuse various pre- and post- modern architecture with international style, and misunderstand what urban homogeneity means. That is not to say the image with a more accurate caption might not fit into another article. In any case I will not engage in an edit-war, but leave to others to judge, or perhaps you might rethink. -- ELEKHHT 06:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would have used the name "World Trade Centre", but it had slipped my mind.  It has nothing to do with POV.  The photo is better with the two buildings than those without them.  So please don't start reading something else into my comment.
 * If you are going to object to the broad categorisation of those high rise buildings as International style, then I suggest you go over to that article and do some serious work improving it. You'll find that there is a list of characteristics of International Style high rise buildings, but it is clearly not placed appropriately in the article.  Why don't you go and fix it, so that the public, (and editors like me) know exactly what one may or may not categorise in that manner.
 * Amandajm (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

May a third party intervene here with some thoughts? First to preface, I respect very much both of you all's work here, so feel I need to somehow calm this a tad. Second, having done major work on the "Modern Architecture" page, and as an area of personal interest, I feel I might have some qualification to comment.

I agree with Amandajm that some sort of contrasting, antithetical image to the wonderful Florence one is quite merited. However, I also concur that the image chosen, while very much of a similar photographic quality and fascinating in its own right, might not be the best one for the reasons of subject matter, in particular for the aformentioned International Style. Having just looked at that page, it does indeed need a huge amount of work for such an important subject matter (much like my pet Modern Architecture one continually does, though after some tense editing situations there, I've been distracted elsewhere for the past year or so).

However, the arguments on both of your sides are good ones, with perhaps some qualification. The Lower Manhattan skyline was at one point quite notable for all its buildings, however, its peak of such iconic notability was arguably c. 1940 (i.e. during the Woolworth Tower era). By that time, with the exception of the World Trade Center/Battery Park development (which formed the core of late-20th century iconic notability down there, but for such are are ill positioned in the photo), the architecturally notable structures of NYC were more often being constructed in Midtown (e.g. Chrysler, Empire State, Rockefeller Center, U.N., AT&T, etc.) So perhaps an image of Midtown might be better for the desired purpose? Or perhaps a view of Chicago, which itself has had quite a number of notable towers visible from the waterline? Either way, whatever is chosen should be among the top crop of architectural pictures and architecture. Cheers, and if I may help in any way to keep this calm or try to find a better photo/caption, let me know! Morgan Riley (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely the point to be made here is the relatively anonymous nature of the internatnal style. The New York skyline doesn't help make that point, being considerably more instantly recognisable than the view of Florence. ProfDEH (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The two Florence pics were a brilliant choice as shown in this revision. They sum up the whole article very well. The history, context, and example drawing of architectural practise is perfectly summed up in those pics. The New York pics are jarring in comparison and provides no context on the practise of architecture..

These two pics have stood for years and to my mind, were one of the best lead pic choices in all of wikipedia. With no clear consensus to change, they should be restored immediately. --Merbabu (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's jarring - also inappropriate to make a personal point of view in that juxtaposition. ProfDEH (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK!  I liked the change. I want to point out to ProfDEH that the present New York picture is not the homogenous New York picture that was initially put in place.  The argument over the previous pic seemed to be a matter of whetehr it really represented the "International style".  Remarkably, the argument ceased with the present picture! Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You win...... but only because you told me that my original choice was brilliant, summed up the article and were among the best lead pics on wikipedia.
 * I'm glad I get it right sometimes. :-)
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed text
"The branches of architecture are civil, sacred, naval, military, and landscape architecture."

I have just removed this recently-added text from the lead.

The reason is that it hones in too soon on the nature of "buildings", and on architecture as being essentially "buildings". The direction that the introduction is about to take is to indicate that "architecture as built structure" is the primary but not only definition. The sentence pre-empts that part of the introduction by presuming this to be the case.

This information is more pertinent to the article History of architecture.

Amandajm (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I placed this brief sentence because this article at this moment completely ignores naval architecture, contains the word ecclesiastical but does not even provide a link to the article Sacred architecture and ignores military architecture (which is currently a redirect to military engineering). Listing the branches does not presume anything though I intentionally placed civil architecture first since it seems to be the largest branch (I did not intend the list to be a ranking). I want to be clear that I left out the link to Sacred architecture and the reference and immediately edited the page again to add those items and found my edit had been reverted while I was making the second edit. I was not edit warring, it was a matter of timing. If discussing the branches of architecture in the lead itself is unacceptable perhaps we could use a tag above the lead stating something like "this article discusses Civil Architecture, for other uses see... although I think an article with such a basic title as Architecture should discuss all aspects of the word. Jim Derby (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The lead attempts to.
 * There must be a more effective way of adding the information. I'll look at it again. Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Amandajm (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think this is still not ok. The above definition from the OED sounds quite archaic and it might be one of those entries written before 1933. Naval architecture is a branch of engineering rather than architecture, and I doubt one would find today a "military architecture" department in any architecture school. The times of rigidly separated sacred and non-sacred architecture have also past. Furthermore the statement that "...generally fall into five categories..." by adding a current branch (landscape architecture) to four historical terms is not very neat. I rather agree with the previous suggestion to link to these four historic terms in the history section. -- ELEKHHT 05:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with a career in architecture in the US, I don't agree that these "branches of architecture" exist - at least not in current practice. The only one of these "branches" that today involves a distinct academic path is landscape architecture. Elekhh may be right that this is an archaic definition, and also right that "civil", "naval" and "military" architecture are now engineering specialties. Prior to the later 19th century; non-military architecture, engineering and construction trades were often practiced by the same person. The designer of a cathedral or castle was usually a master stonemason. The designer of a wooden church, house or hotel was often a master carpenter. In time of war, these skilled craftsmen were assigned to "military" projects. WCCasey (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to make everybody happy.
 * ELEKHH, WCCasey,  it can be hard to se the wood for the trees.
 * We are trying to maintain a broad focus here, but it is not easy! I would appreciate your advice on this one:
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I should also mention that architecture has both functional and aesthetic aspects and purposes. Brunelleschi's dome is both useful and beautiful. In addition to the craftsmen I mentioned before, many people get into architectural design via the arts (e.g. Brunelleschi). WCCasey (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The medieval builder gets a mention.
 * Yes, Vitruvius is quoted.
 * So is Le Corbusier. Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Brunellescchi, What an extraordinary engineer!
 * He obviously fully grasped the principals of Gothic ribbed vaulting, and then looked at those coffers in the Pantheon and saw exactly what they achieved: lightness and strength, very similar to a ribbed vault. (The Gothic vault compartments at Florence Cathedral are almost impossibly huge, so the impact of Ancient Roman structures had not been lost on Arnolfo (or whoever it was who designed those vaults.) I must say that climbing up through the shells of that dome was a highlight of my life. Amandajm (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am surprised anyone would deny there were and still are branches of architecture, maybe the word specialty would be better than branch. I am using the word architecture in its broadest sense, anything designed and built, and even if military buildings and structures are highly engineered they are still designed and the construction managed by someone who can be called an architect. Several institutions in the U.S. offer degrees in naval architecture (here). Restoration and preservation architects are often lumped together although these branches take different mindsets. One college planning book describes "Landscape architecture, naval architecture, design theory, preservation, and health care facility design are a few of the specialties in [architecture]." (College Majors & Careers: A Resource Guide for Effective Life Planning By Paul Phifer ) Perhaps the OED is not referring to degree programs or people with its four branches of architecture but to broad categories of types of structures which have been built, a noun rather than verb. I still think an article titled architecture should discuss all aspects of the term. Jim Derby (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it has been mentioned a couple of times on this talk page that this article has been stable for a long time. Here I point out it is still rated a C-class article so maybe it should not be stable. Jim Derby (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Architecture can mean?
All of those "meanings" need to be sourced - otherwise they're just opinions. WCCasey (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the problems here is that this is a very old article. It should probably be protected by a Grandfather clause.
 * It is remarkably stable, except when occasional students come along and add everything that they know about Frank Lloyd Wright, or the theories of their particular teacher, and in doing so create an imbalance.
 * The reason that it has remained stable is that it was well thought out and well-written, even if it wasn't well-referenced. The additions that have remained are those that followed the concept of the article.


 * Thousands of people view the article, and there is not usually any challenge over the definitions. In this recent case it has been a matter of viewing architecture from a particular perspective. The reason why it remains constant is that it is well-considered, well constructed and very consistent throughout.


 * If you are going to start deleting from a "vital article", then you need to have your replacement material sourced, researched, and written to replace what you delete. You need to discuss it on the talk page.


 * You could put tags through the article indicating that the material is without references, but that is pointless, as most of it was written many years ago. I have no idea where most of the material is sourced. I don't have access to the resources to find out.


 * My suggestion is to leave well-enough alone, unless you can insert sources for the material that is already in place. There is no point in wrecking a good article that is a vital article, for the sake of being pedantic about the MOS. Under the circumstances, it is best to take a pragmatic approach.


 * Be aware that the article draws 2,000 hits a day, and is on the watchlist of 300 users. That is 300 people who are maintaining it, as it is. Which indicates that there is a certain degree of agreement as to the content of that introductory paragraph, sourced or not. Amandajm (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm one of those 300, and I think those definitions need to be sourced or tagged. 2,000 hits/day makes it even more important that statements be backed by reliable sources. Those definitions are central to the lede, and should be authoritative - not a collection of editors' opinions. If no one is willing to take the time to track those statements down, that's fine - then they should be tagged so everyone knows they're not sourced. I'm not suggesting "wrecking a good article" - that's why I'm writing here. However, there's no such thing as a "grandfather clause" in WP, nor is there "leave well enough alone". There's always room for improvement, if consensus can be achieved. That's why there have been 15 editions of Encyclopedia Brittanica, and that's why we are editors. Editing means making each article the best it can be, not just "maintaining it, as it is". I'd like to hear from some more of the 300 on this one. WCCasey (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am fine with tagging the whole article as lacking in sources.
 * If you tag every one of those items on the list individually, you are likely to prompt a lot of vandalism, or very non-productive editting.
 * The main problem that this article has suffered has been from unbalanced editing, or editing that didn't see the bigger picture. Such editting can often be properly referenced, making it harder to remove.


 * Currently the lead gives a definition/list of definitions which has not been considered contentious.
 * I don't believe that the list is merely a "collection of editors' opinions". There is nothing in that list that in any way resembles an "opinion".
 * The list appears to be a list of definitions of the sort that might have come from a good dictionary.
 * The stability of the article (including the lead), indicates that it has met a consensus.


 * My mention of the necessity of a "Grandfather clause" is because there are a number of articles that are:
 * 1. Vital articles,
 * 2. old article,
 * 3. have been stable for a many years.
 * 4. were not well referenced back in 2006/2007 or whenever they were written, making it difficult to reference them now, because in some cases the original editors have disappeared.


 * Since you are obviously in a better position to track down the source of that list than I am, why not do it? If you feel involved with the article, and have the academic resources, then it is far more profitable to fix something than to simply tag it.
 * If you are studying architecture, or are a practising architect, then I very much doubt whether you are actually in disagreement with the list of definitions as it stands.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "opinions" of what constitutes architecture appears to have come from Mr Fowler and associates. Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the cites. I have no problem with OED as a source. My point was not that the definitions in the article were opinions but that, without sources, there's no way to know. I'm also glad that the questions about "naval architecture" and "military architecture" got sorted out. WCCasey (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Those comments led me to read through the article properly, although I got stuck with thoughts on the first part before I got on to history - I will work through that next.

I made some edits to the historical treatise section. I don't believe firmness, commodity and delight should be relegated to a footnote, and I thought the descriptions were a little on the colloquial side. Mies was misquoted and it's not 'by contrast', in his minimalist way he is saying (by implication) almost exactly the same thing as Le Corbusier.

The section on modern concepts is problematic. Nunzia Rondanini may well exist but she is apparently non-notable: Google just turns up Wikipedia references. A useful quotation, but perhaps it should be omitted, unless someone can find out enough to explain who she is (or was). And what about the list of philosophies? Architects are influenced by history and by visual ideas - I don't believe philosophy has much to do with it. Some authority is essential to reinforce what is otherwise a very obscure assertion. That doesn't leave much of the section still standing. Perhaps Outline of architecture might be a starting point to expand this section with other relevant quotations, as it begins. ProfDEH (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits, particularly sorting out Mies van der Rohe. Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Architecture has so many senses it is hard to capture them well. One of the best dictionary definitions I have seen is in the Century Dictionary which is online for free here. The lead in this article does not currently capture the narrowest definition of architecture such as the fine art of designing and managing the construction of a beautiful, large and stately building such as a church, palace, temple, or fortress. I derived this definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. The Century Dictionary does not suggest the size or type of building but the narrowest definition is similar to OED's: "Architecture is properly distinguished from mere building by the presence of the decorative or artistic element." Several other dictionaries define architecture with the sense of it as a fine art too, such as by Russell Sturgis and John Weale. This article currently focuses on civil architecture as fine art and that is good, but the broad senses of architecture should be addressed and the reader directed to other articles such as building design and the other specialty types of architecture to cover the whole topic. Also, I think the definition of this word is so complex that it should be discussed in its own section, not in the lead. For example see the German article on architecture Jim Derby (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern concepts
Further thoughts, now I've read through the rest of the article and recent comments. The article does present this complex subject rather neatly even if the history section dominates and in many ways the article runs parallel to History of architecture. In my opinion the section on modern concepts of architecture is the weak point that lets down the article as a whole:

All of the above is covered much more convincingly in Architectural theory and the same subject is tackled in a different way under the Architecture today section.
 * "Form follows function" clearly belongs next to what Mies and Corbuisier wrote.
 * "The notion that structural and aesthetic considerations should be entirely subject to functionality": the whole paragraph is confusing and quite possibly incorrect. Sullivan used decoration rather extensively, surely what he meant was that the form should be generated by function e.g. not making a power station look like a Greek temple.
 * Nunzia Rondanini: I found the text at https://archive.org/stream/heresies_11/heresies_11_djvu.txt She was an Italian architect working in New York in 1981. It could be useful to paraphrase some of this but misleading to quote something so obscure alongside Ruskin etc.
 * Philosophies: as above, meaningless unless referenced.
 * Sustainablility: is also covered at the end of the article under Architecture today. No need for both.

The obvious solution is to remove this section completely, making Historical treatises a section heading, but I'd like to see what others think first. ProfDEH (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The secondary use of "architecture" moved to the end of the lead. It's been worrying me that is got the same status as all the other meanings when it is not a use that is dealt with in the article. ProfDEH (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that move is appropriate. Amandajm (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Where do we go?
I'm sure that the article could be improved. We need to consider what form it should take if parts are re-written. I don't want to see the article reduced to a messy state by piecemeal editting, so lets have some work on the talk page first. ProfDEH, can you look at the overall structure of the article, in the light of comments made above by User:Jim Derby, and make some suggestions. Amandajm (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So what's your own suggestions Amanda, anything substantial you'd like to see improved? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

JD is only suggesting an addition to the definitions which is easily incorporated (and referenced). The article needs a proper separation between current architectural thinking, and the last part of the history section dealing with contemporary buildings. I might find time to do some rewriting but haven't really thought how to address it yet. It will not reduce the article to a messy state though.

The scope of the article could be wider but I don't think that is so important, presumably readers will look up Outline of architecture etc. ProfDEH (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Jim Derby's previous addition should be sourced and added to the relevant historic section in a sentence that says "In the late 19th-century architecture was seen as divide into .... whatever." Amandajm (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead image
I kept quiet last time this was discussed - but - the cross section is a great drawing but this is an appalling low-resolution version, and the photo of Il Duomo is a nice view but again appallingly poor quality. I fully agree the building is appropriate but it really ought to be a decent image. Therefore I am nominating this, easily the best available, as a single lead image (with the same caption). Shall I try it and see what the reaction is? ProfDEH (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ! I'm all for integrating a better quality photo and this one is pretty decent. Do it. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait Since you realise this can be contentious, I would suggest to allow more time for discussion before rushing to change it. While I am fully for high quality, I generally prefer a daylight image. Also as less than 1% of readers would click on the image, is quite important how it looks at the size it is shown in the article. And at that scale I would say the proposed night image has a less good composition, with the two towers on the left distractingly positioned, and nasty shadows from the bottom-up light on the dome. -- ELEKHHT 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it's indeed hard to find a proper daylight image of the Duomo, while that night view is pretty good. Some daylight views that could be considered imho:

-- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we want the same view - the second image would be uncontentious? But also I think the cross section drawing should go, sadly - there are some nice versions on the web but nothing copyright-free that I can find. ProfDEH (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Response
 * NOTE: This is about the dome of Florence Cathedral. It isn't about Florence Cathedral (il Duomo) as a whole, but Brunelleschi's dome, most specifically. However, it is about the dome in context: in the context of both the building it enhances and the city, not to mention the landscape.


 * The pictures were selected as a pair with the following criteria,
 * The dome of Florence Cathedral revolutionisde architecture as a science and a discipline. It marks the beginning point of the modern practice of architecture.
 * The structured method and oversight of it actual process of construction was revolutionary.
 * While great cathedrals were always seen as "belonging to the city", they were often built by itinerant workers. This was not the case. The process of construction this building was planned from a civic position that united the city directly through its workers.
 * Visually, it was planned to dominate not only the little red-roofed houses, but the basin of the Arno Valley in which it sits. It represents a supreme piece of town-planning and landscape planning.


 * The purpose of the drawing, whether it is high resolution or not, is to illustrate the role of the architect. It would be nice to have a higher quality image that served the same purpose. However, deleting the image, simply because tit doesn't look good when you magnify it, is not appropriate. For the purpose of heading up this article (which is not about architectural drawing) the image, in combination with the second image, is serving its purpose effectively.
 * The matter of the drawing has previously been under discussion, and the paired images were considered as one of the most pertinent combinations of images in the lead of any article on Wkipedia. I agree with this, having considered all possibilities in choosing them.
 * However, I am in agreement to change the view of the dome for one of higher resolution, if it fits the other criteria.


 * But what do your other images say?
 * The first proposed image is about floodlighting. It isn't about architecture. It is a lousy picture of the dome, because the brightest light is on the side of the building. This emphasis in the caption is not on "great cathedral as an example of architecture".  It is about a ''particular architectural project" (the building of the dome) that revolutionised architecture.
 * The first image in the gallery isn't really about the dome.
 * The second image in the gallery is a misty day, but otherwise is a good option, as it fits with the caption, which emphasises the role of the dome on both the building and in the context of the city.
 * The next pic is too blue and over coloured- looks as if it has had the colour digitally upped. None of the other pictures relate to the caption.
 * Remember that this is about the whole concept of architecture, not just a famous building.
 * I would be happy to go with pic number 2 in the gallery.


 * Amandajm (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The floodlit image is clearer but yes, the second image is the only real option and it's much better than the current image (although it could be better). I think it should be the lead image with the section below? You'd expect the lead image to be one of the best on the subject.

Of course this (scroll down to the 13th image) is the drawing I'd really like to see here, but who knows what the copyright status of that image might be. ProfDEH (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The drawing is by Cigoli (1559-1613). His work is PD, with plenty already on Commons. - ELEKHHT 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input ELEKHH. Are you happy with the change to the suggested photo? Re the layout, At present it works better with the plan above the photo, simply because of the respective widths of the images. On a normal computer screen, the narrow photo sits beside the text, while the wide image fills the space beneath it, next to the Table of Contents. Amandajm (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with your comment above. If any, than the second image from the gallery is best, with the drawback that there is slightly less emphasis on the silhouette, but the advantage of providing much more detail when one clicks on it (placed them below for comparison again). Hope one day the "Wiki Loves Monuments" competition will focus more on getting useful images of highly notable buildings, rather than poor images of obscure local heritage.-- ELEKHHT 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we could approach some flickr photographers if they're willing to upload better stuff.
 * Anyway, I think we should limit ourself to just 1 lead picture. The role of the architect can perfectly be explained beneath the photo, it doesn't need the additional drawing. That can be discussed in the concept section. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I rather think sections and plans are particularly good to illustrate what architecture is about (i.e. not simply facades, but interior space, structure, etc.), and we rather lack architectural drawings in articles. -- ELEKHHT 22:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That I agree with. But still, this article is perfectly fine with one proper lead image. The pics shouldn't distract too much from the intro text itself. We can have drawings in the following sections for sure. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Horst-schlaemma, The plan isn't a distraction. It complements the larger image. It is about the science and processes of architecture. The larger image is the end result, and what it achieves.  Together the images give the big picture.  It is conceptual, not merely illustrative of "a famous building".  We cannot ignore this comment:
 * These two pics have stood for years and to my mind, were one of the best lead pic choices in all of wikipedia. With no clear consensus to change, they should be restored immediately. -(cut and pasted from comment by User:Merbabu 10:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC))
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This could be done for any scientific topic then, I don't think that leads us anywhere. But I won't bother too much. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I remain totally unconvinced that the first image should be a fuzzy drawing (with dodgy copyright status). I might try to upload the Cigoli drawing, not sure what the PD hurdles will be though. I suppose nobody is going to object to using that. ProfDEH (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

OK more images for consideration: ProfDEH (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved them in a row for better comparison. I like both Alts. -- ELEKHHT 00:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have tried five possible combinations of the images. My preference is Option 5 which puts the colour adjusted version of the coloured drawing underneath the larger one. Note that sizes have been adjusted so that the dome appears similar in scale. The colours go well in the two images (the yellow one is jarring.) The drawing is sufficiently clear at thumb. The sizing of the drawing at thumbnail sits well above the drawings in the text. Please run through the options and comment. Amandajm (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We may as well compare the other images too, although B does look good on the page. I prefer the whole drawing to the details and agree it looks best at the top.

I uploaded a copy of B by mistake, so View of Santa Maria del Fiore.jpg needs deleting from Commons. That is what is currently on the page, I will replace with Santa Maria del Fiore - 0968.jpg. ProfDEH (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * C is a great image. It is very clear. Amandajm (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, C is what I've been looking for. Thanks! -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * C is nice, but has a Non-Commercial license, so it will be deleted soon. Hence my earlier clumsy revert to B.-- ELEKHHT 12:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Where was C coming from? Link? It's deleted already. :( No matter of the license, I liked the shot. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the image has now been allocated the correct licence on Flickr, but I don't have time to upload it again right now. It's here. ProfDEH (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the license on flickr is now ok, I requested it to be simply undeleted on Commons, so now is back with the same file name, and also visible above. Thanks ProfDEH for facilitating the release of this image under a wiki-suitable license. In terms of layout I am happy with Amandajm's option 5, but now we can use C instead of B. -- ELEKHHT 22:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The picture is magnificent. I have made the changes to Option 5 and fixed the captions in accordance. Amandajm (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The colours go well together but this cropped version of the monochrome image is 800x800, much better resolution at full size. Not sure which I prefer, thought it was worth trying. ProfDEH (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since Cigoli did it in colour, I think that the image ought to be reproduced in colour. Otherwise I would feel obliged to note in the caption that this was a black and white image of a coloured drawing, which is superfluous. The resolution is less significant than truth to the original. However, in an article in which we were discussing the finer points of the dome's construction, the higher resolution would be preferred. That isn't the case here. Amandajm (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism: "LOLOLOLOL" before Intoduction
There's a "LOLOLOLOL" between "Further information" and the beginning of the article. It's clearly a vandalism, but I don't know how to remove it! It doesn't appear in the Edit page. Could any one fix it? (Sorry, I'm new here! Maybe it's simple to do, but I don't know). --179.236.172.161 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Cecília Resende
 * A bot reverted the vandalism and it appears to have stayed in the cache for a while in vandalized form. It should be OK now, though you might have to clear your cache for it to appear correctly.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of architects
A great list of key figures in architecture here (although not a definitive one obviously): http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jan/27/abc-of-architects-buildings-andrea-stinga-federico-gonzalez ProfDEH (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
The concluding paragraph of the final section is not neutral and is exactly the same as the final paragraph of the article on postmodern architecture. It sounds like it was added by an advocate of New Urbanism. A copy and paste job. Furthermore it is poorly written and has awkward syntax. The link is broken for the article it cites.

"Concurrently, the recent movements of New Urbanism and New Classical Architecture promote a sustainable approach towards construction, that appreciates and develops smart growth, architectural tradition and classical design.[16][17] This in contrast to modernist and globally uniform architecture, as well as leaning against solitary housing estates and suburban sprawl.[18]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.67.55 (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Indian
I have a problem with the sub topic of "Indian Architecture" and using the picture of the taj mahal which was designed and erected by Persian architects specifically brought to delhi by the king to carry out the building. To note is that the title says Indian but then the first sentence says Islamic. Its entirely confusing. you show persian, you title indian, but you talk about islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesghali (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Architecting
After some thought I decided to revert a new paragraph added to the introduction. It duplicated the general definitions of architecture that are already there, and used the work 'architecting' which to my certain knowledge is never used in architecture and possibly nowhere else. Software architecture is a wide field as the DAB page shows, and a link to that is quite enough coverage of what is a completely unrelated subject. ProfDEH (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Off topic and pov material
An editor has been adding the following, initially into the lead (which I removed) and now into the body of the article: "Although some regions have maintained their infrastructure to appear antiqued, other regions such as Dubai have developed a pretension for futuristic architecture". This content is very off-topic for a general article on architecture. It is also highly pov and culture specific, grounded in Islamic obsession about what it means to be "modern": is Venice to be labeled "antiqued" because it is a mostly medieval and Renaissance city that is preserved as such? Would Venice be "futuristic architecture" if it were entirely demolished and replaced by lagoon skyscrapers? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Architecture-Opinion on the wiki page.
Wikipedia allows for different kind of point of views to deliver unbiased information from a plethora of sources. I wanted to research architecture on Wikipedia in order to find different perspectives. The article allows for a brief overview of many different historical beginnings of architecture. The article also contained external links to other places for more in depth research which is very helpful. I was left satisfied with everything provided on this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.170 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Architecture. 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/20130401072804/http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it:80/itineraries/place/TheDomeOfSantaMariaFiore.html to http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/place/TheDomeOfSantaMariaFiore.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721200353/http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_1st/3rd_read/b115.htm to http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_1st/3rd_read/b115.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508072810/http://www.aia.org/ to http://www.aia.org

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) 08:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Architecture as a unifying or coherent form or structure
The article is too focused on building and construction. I agree that this reflects the most popular use of the term, but architecture is more than that. It is not true that it is mostly used for computers outside the construction industry. The use of the term architecture also exists in landscape and naval design. In philosophy we may speak of the architecture of a thought, the architecture of a concept. In neuro-science we may speak of the architecture of the brain or the architecture of a nervous system. The term is used in many other professions to define a unifying or coherent form or structure.

Architects are trained to consider building and construction works in a more abstract approach than engineers or other construction professionals. This is not reflected in this article. --Christophe Krief (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architecture. 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/20091009095018/http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/Menu-7/1-musees.html to http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/Menu-7/1-musees.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

About Colonial architecture!!!!!
There is nothing about colonial architecture. - 189.102.236.56 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC).