Talk:Outline of architecture

Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"
See Village pump (proposals).

The Transhumanist 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to
See the proposal at the Village pump

The Transhumanist 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Other buildering examples
could we include things like factories, and manufacturing buildings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigophone (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for outlines
Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Outlines.

Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The "History of" section needs links!
Please add some relevant links to the history section.

Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates. Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll and discussion concerning what outlines should be called
A discussion is underway that may affect the name of this article.

See: Wikipedia talk:Outlines

The Transhumanist 04:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from WP Architecture
I copy below the discussion which has been taking place on the talk page of WP Architecture. Further comments welcome:

Copied from the talk page at Index of architecture articles which I'm in the process of editing in response to the recent request. Any views on the purpose of that article and what should be in it? an anyone tell me if it's in any way automatic? Lists of omissions?

''I have requested an expert to look at this article. It contains several links to disambiguation pages that should be solved. An expert should know far quicker where to link to (or when to add additional links) then I do. Your effort will be much appreciated. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation''

I will have a go at this. Had a go at B and E so far weeding out duplicates and completely useless stubs (just take a look at Experimental home and tell me if I'm wrong). There is a lot wrong with coverage of architecture on Wikipedia, partly because of wrong ideas about what constitutes proper subject matter, partly because many of the subjects that are covered are written by non-experts and consequently provide wrong or insubstantial information. So perhaps it would be useful if this page directed mainly to well developed articles that do contain useful information. How was this page was generated? Is it in any way automatic or just what people thought might belong here? because I can quite quickly dip into articles to see if they should be included, but if they are going to get added back automatically then I'm wasting my time. What about Outline of architecture - how does that relate to this article? It has the same problems and covers some of the same ground. Surely all the lists should go here, and that article should be more of a summary. I'm posting this on the Wikiproject page too. ProfDEH (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see from the history of the article, this is a manual effort which, in its present form, is mainly the work of Nexus Seven on 17 August 2006. It originally sought to address topics or concepts related to architecture but now seems to be a rather haphazard mix of various types of article related to architecture. Coverage though is by no means consistent. Just take the example Architecture of Normandy. Why should this be included in the first place and if it is included, why not all the other articles relating to architecture in various countries and regions? Ditto Association for Industrial Archaeology. So before we take things any further, I think it would be a good idea to decide exactly what the function of this page should be and which articles should be included. In the same context, we should decide whether or not it is a poor equivalent of the lists that can be obtained from the various categories related to architecture starting with Category:Architecture (and not forgetting the templates and nav boxes). And as you mention yourself, account should perhaps also be taken of Outline of architecture. - Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My thoughts since this morning:

- I think you're right, Index of architecture articles is actually rather redundant. As you say, there are other ways of finding articles on the subject - searching, lists, categories - and it's impossible to be comprehensive. - There is a lot of overlap between Portal:Architecture, Outline of architecture, Index of architecture articles and ideally at least one of those would go by way of a merge. Do we even need two roundup-type articles, especially since they are poorly maintained and worryingly incomplete? I think one is good to pick out some good articles on the basics, to give an overview of the subject. - It would be good to develop the Outline with a proper logical structure, as other examples of outlines have managed. - One problem is that while you'd aim for reasonably complete coverage, the quality of articles varies widely, so some don't really deserve to be mentioned excpet that the subject matter is important. How do you resolve that? ProfDEH (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the original intention of revealing red links which deserve coverage has now been served. I would suggest that if the index is maintained, it should be limited to the coverage of Category:Architectural elements and its subcategories. An alphabetical listing here could be useful particularly for educational purposes. Perhaps it could be merged or incorporated into the outline. I do not agree that articles that are not yet up to standard should be eliminated. The fact that they are included could lead to further development. I think it might be useful to copy this discussion to the Outline of architecture talk page. Any further comments or have we exhausted the discussion? - Ipigott (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures
I noticed that recent and modern buildings seem to dominate the article's picture selection. And are you sure the one on top is really the best choice to give a first impression of the field? Borock (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to place another one up there. The Transhumanist 03:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Are amphitheatres a type of building?
?  The Transhumanist 03:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question and thanks for taking an interest. I'm trying to build this up to a reasonable standard, help with formatting and a critical response are much appreciated and I hope you will have time to keep an eye on progress. ProfDEH (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion (and without looking for citations), many amphitheatres are buildings as they have large indoor spaces underneath the higher rows, often on several floor levels. Smaller amphitheatres consisting only of steps, often arranged on a (curving) hillside, can hardly be classified as buildings but could still be of architectural (or archeological) interest. --Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't myself see that a roof is any sort of essential component of a building. A building is something built by a builder, on a large enough scale. It's rock-cut architecture that is tricky to find terms for. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can hardly wait to get started on that list of buildings - pub, bar, restaurant? But actually I think a roof is pretty much an essential feature of a building. A completely open air amphitheatre is obviously just landscaping, adding walls perhaps brings it closer to a building but given the doubt I think it doesn't need to be on this list. ProfDEH (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ipigott's comment above: regardless of whether you call it a building or a structure, it is architecture. Greek and Roman amphitheatres are often noted in architecture history. When talking about functional types, should not forget that form follows function was a short lived concept, historically often the same structure being used for different purposes. With some alteration, and amphitheatre can even become a city. -- ELEKHHT 12:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to find a clear definition of building vs non-building structure in a dictionary. Non-building structure seems to be a term most used by engineers and seems to be a modern term. In my opinion a building needs both a roof and walls. See the list of nonbuilding structures. Jim Derby (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't architecture rather more about space by whatever means that space is defined? Roofs and ground materials can all do this independently or in conjunction with each other. Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines
"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)