Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 3

FAR notification
Angkor Wat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mills
Coverage of windmills, watermills, animal engines etc. isn't as good as it could be. Are there any editors interested in forming a Wikiproject or Task Force on Mills? Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Somerset Towers
Hi, I am working with the wikigroup on articles pertaining to Somerset, UK. I'm no architect or historian, but all the experts seem to agree that our county's medieval church towers are a very important contribution to art and architecture. Would it be possible for one of your editors to have a look at this? thanks, Celia Kozlowski (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Naulakha pavilion
The article has been nominated for GA assessment. If you have not made significant contributions to the article, you can review it. -- Isles CapeTalk 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom FAR
City status in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Query
Hello all. I have an issue someone here might be able to address. What is a Wallace window? I am coming up empty on Google, and Wiki. From what I can gather it looks like a decorative window (stained glass) of a very specific shape, which resembles a pointed arched Gothic window. This assessment is based only on a few images retrieved via Google. I would like to do an article on the topic but can't find much, if anyone can recommend any books, web sites, or other literature on the topic, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it seems to be more rounded than pointed, guess I should have enlarged the thumbs. IvoShandor (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bump. IvoShandor (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps in infoboxes
I don't know if you are familiar with http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrowse-tbl/ I just created my first maps from the service this week. One is at Historic Michigan Boulevard District and another is at Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago). A better example is Image:Rush Street via tiger.census.gov.gif, which is at a scale to show street detail. I think it might make sense to reformat some of the infoboxes to accommodate maps as well as images. The TIGER maps above just need latitude and longitude and then scaling parameter. I think all buildings should have maps. I think WP:SKY, WP:NRHP and WP:WPARCH should probably get involved because we would need to goose some infobox templates to make room for maps. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Expert in field invitation of Architecture related articles
Hey all! I am inviting anyone that has free time and knowledge to have a look at this page: WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/GeneralxHotlist and see if they can help in any way in terms of creating an article about the Architecture related topics. I am not sure if it would be better if Art and Architecture be grouped as one per civilization or if they should be divided into 2 (for example Babylonian art & Babylonian Architeture) but I figure this (along with the Art wikiproject) would have an individual capable enough to make that decision. I am no expert in the field so yeah, otherwise I would arrange the articles myself. Any thoughts or coments are welcome and by all means, if you feel you are up for the task, be bold and give those articles a go. Cheers! Calaka (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Architecture of Africa - Does it need splitting?
There has been a persistent vandal that has been trying to split the Architecture of Africa article into two, one based on North African architecture, and another on Sub-Saharan architecture. Her argument being that the two are distinctly different and unrelated, with North African bearing traits of South Mediterranean architecture and Sub-Saharan with not much. I personally don't see much issue with keeping both in a single article, as the article itself is not very long in the first place, and there is plenty of space to point out the division in style from North and Sub-Saharan within the article itself without having to split it. Only problem is her insistence on splitting it is mostly on grounds that bunching both together robs Mediterranean people of their achievements and benefits Black Africans. No idea what that's about though. Anyone want to chime in on this? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GAR debate on buildings under construction
There is debate on whether buildings under construction are stable enough and complete enough to be WP:GA. Currently, Chicago Spire, Joffrey Tower, and 108 North State Street are GAs. Thus, the debate is important to our project. Comment would be useful at Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FLRC
The FL List of tallest buildings and structures in London has been nominated for removal. The nom can be found here. -- Scorpion0422 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC on a proposal to split "The O2 arena" section of the article, The O2 into a new article.
As the aforementioned article is in the scope of this project, I thought I would let project members know of this RfC and ask users to leave their comments on the article's talk page. Thanks. Tbo 157  (talk)  16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight
...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR Holkham Hall
The article Holkham Hall is up for a Featured Article Review but this project doesn't appear to have been notified. Reviewers concerns can be found at Featured article review/Holkham Hall Richerman (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Architecture Styles in Europe
Does anyone think this article is likely to develop into anything useful? I was contemplating putting it up for deletion as its currently just a rather ambiguously defined list. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It could, but it won't, at best it will be an arbitrary list with little value. I'd delete unless someone comes along with a burning passion and clever wits. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

US History of building/housing
I was looking for an article that would cover the history of building in the US. For example, pioneers were stuck with sticks, crude log cabins, improved log cabins, followed by plank houses in the early 19th century in the east. Had sod houses in the west in late 19th century. Then a massive amount of home construction after the Spanish-American War nationwide. "Improved" housing with hollow walls with crude insulation. Skyscrapers starting in cities. Homes not well-constructed in 1920s or so. Mostly gone. Followed by the housing bust of the depression and war. Then post-WWII housing boom. Levitt and housing "developments." Massive government-subsidized school and community college construction of the 1970-1990s.

I am aware there has to be a history of this already somewhere in order to be an article here. If there isn't one, I would like to try to start one if sufficient research exists to document. The above history would be US only. Canada might resemble to some degree. Most other countries would differ considerably. Student7 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 1645 articles assigned to this project, or 17.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-06-18.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Octagon house
Not a new article but I've been doing a substantial expansion on Octagon house. I would appreciate any comments whether on readability, content or technical matters. This is my first full size edit so probably some of what I've done isn't technically correct. I've done a lot of fact checking but some of that may not be apparent from the referencing.

I've added the Architecture banner to the talk page there but I'm not sure if there is a formal procedure for inclusion, or if you just add it like a category. Again, feedback would be appreciated. ProfDEH (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Relocated buildings and structures
I recently created and populated Category:Relocated buildings and structures. There is also structure relocation, which I wasn't initially aware of. Hopefully the category will be useful. Noting it here in case anyone wants to join in and help out with either article or category. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramids
Just a quick note to let you know that Egyptian pyramids (which is tagged as in the scope of your project) is up for GA reassessment. The concerns are listed on its talk page, and the article will be given one week for improvement. Nikki 311  03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cartesian space"?
At tabula rasa I found this:
 * Paradoxically, and because of misunderstandings, the tabula rasa may be associated in architectural circles with ideas about Cartesian space and the Cartesian subject rather than with the term's use by Locke.
 * Paradoxically, and because of misunderstandings, the tabula rasa may be associated in architectural circles with ideas about Cartesian space and the Cartesian subject rather than with the term's use by Locke.

I was there only because I was wondering what to do with the page titled Cartesian space, which now redirects to Euclidean space. To me "Cartesian" in this sort of context implies a coordinate system, so I thought maybe redirecting to another page, probably Cartesian coordinate system. But I find via Google Scholar and Google Books that the term seems to be used as a term of art in the field of architecture. Can someone explain what it means in architecture? Possibly Cartesian space could be made a disambiguation page, linking to Cartesian product and to whatever the architectural sense of the term is, if there is one. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further down in the tabula rasa article, there is a section called Architecture where a rationale is given for its use in architecture. At the section end it says, "Paradoxically, and because of misunderstandings, the tabula rasa may be associated in architectural circles with ideas about Cartesian space and the Cartesian subject rather than with the term's use by Locke." &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that is what Michael is questioning - in my experience the first paragraph in the architectural section, pretty much nails it as "blank slate" in urban design. I've no idea what its supposed relation to cartesian space might be, but I'm fairly confident it hasn't come from widespread mainstream architectural academia - sounds like someone's pet thesis to me - it's unsourced too - should we remove it? Or can anyone be bothered to find out who added it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support removing it. I have never seen it mentioned in a book on Architecture. You could put it on the talk page, if you have qualms. I don't see how the concept adds anything to the idea of an empty lot as a building site. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed - brief explanation on the talk page and its on my watchlist - we'll see what happens. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've now redirected Cartesian space to Cartesian coordinate system. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question: New plans of old buildings?
What is the copyright situation with drawings made by modern architectural historians or archaeologists reconstructing the plan of an old building (where the design of the building itself is "public domain" because of age)?

Can I draw my own plan based on someone else's drawing? Would it make any difference from a copyright point of view? After all, if my point is to convey how scholar X reconstructs the original plan of Church A, there are limits to the creativity I can allow myself, and my drawing is inevitably going to be quite similar. Variation possibilities will be limited to stuff like choosing different colours or hatchings for walls, or a different-looking compass to show directions.

(I have never drawn an architectural plan, but it is a good idea to know if there is any point in trying...) --Hegvald (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the building design is old enough to be PD, any plans derived from the design will not have a third-party copyright. Now, if you copy the colors, typestyle, and general layout of the scholar's plans, you're infringing the scholar's copyright on the interpretation of the information s/he's presenting. But the original information cannot be copyrighted if the building design is PD. Of course, for a more thorough answer, take this to WP:MCQ. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will go there (or W. Commons?) if I need any more help. --Hegvald (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Eifel Aqueduct
Eifel Aqueduct has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoos
Why is List of zoos tagged for this project? It doesn't seem too likely, though I can see why many specific zoos would be of architectural interest. —EncMstr (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the top of my head - The Aviary at London zoo by Lord Snowdon and Lubetkin's Lido penguin pool are two good reasons - Most of the older British zoo's also have listed buildings within their grounds, although I'll concede, listing every zoo in the world, with or without architectural merit seems daft, although they are a specific building type - not all car parks are architecture, but that doesn't mean architecture isn't interested in them. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think that top-notch zoos are designed by architects, just as aquariums are. It is an art. Parks are designed by landscape architects.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand why WP:Architecture would be interested in various zoos. But the whole list of them?  Some of them are literally holes in the ground.  Or even just grassy fields.  —EncMstr (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My view would not include every zoo. Just as not every building, skyscraper, church, temple etc. is architecturally interesting or listed with WikiProject Architecture.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having bored my family for years looking at holes in the ground on holiday, you'd be surprised how closely linked both fascinations are to architecture - joking aside, we've established some architects may be interested in some zoos - so what's the problem? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Help defining styles
Greetings. I've just written an article on the Okinawa Prefectural Museum, and am unsure how to describe the building. I would like to describe it as ultramodern, it reflecting a newer, more stylish, more culture-infused artistic aesthetic than the concrete-and-steel pure functionalism of modern architecture, while not being intentionally or overtly sci-fi-esque futuristic (i.e. not futurism). I trust that there are editors here who understand the subtleties and intricacies of these style/school distinctions better than I, and so I hesitate to apply labels like postmodern architecture without understanding precisely what that means, what that implies. Is the building's architect intentionally seeking to design it in a "postmodern" style? Does he consciously consider himself a "postmodern" architect? I have no idea.

If someone could look at the pictures on the article, and this one, and help figure out what style-designating descriptors would be appropriate, I would appreciate it. More photos of the building can be easily found by Googling "Okinawa Prefectural Museum" or "沖縄県立博物館". Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the CCTV Headquarters a leaning tower?
I'm wondering whether or not it should qualify for that list. If so, Olympic Stadium (Montreal) would have to be updated as the tower will become the tallest leaning building in the world. Circeus (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate label in infobox
Hi. Working on Stockholm City Hall, I happened to come a cross a template called WikiProject_Architecture/infobox. I was slightly amazed to see the location of a building described as "town". While I am quite aware that the usage of town varies widely, and that it may be technically not incorrect to describe Stockholm thusly, the connotations seem wrong, as "town" is usually considered something much smaller and more insignificant than "city". Describing Stockholm (or other capitals and royal residences) as a "town" would probably look more than a bit boorish to most readers. Please, can we change that label to something more appropriate? Benevolent Spectator (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that historic buildings can also be locate did towns, villages, hamlets. I suppose town was the best compromise people could come up with, but probably a way to alter the label (as with subdivision_type, in template:Infobox Settlement), or offer a series of appropriately named variables (as with template:Infobox University). Circeus (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the technical aspect seems a little above me. Does that mean that a choice of different labels can be used for a field in the infobox? If so, how should one do that? Benevolent Spectator (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for Valley of the Kings
Hello, as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I am conducting the GA sweeps for Archaeology articles promoted prior to August 2007. The first article I am looking at is Valley of the Kings, which falls under the scope of this project. I believe that it is close to meeting the GA criteria, but it is lacking a few sources. I have gone through part of the article (and will continue over the next few days) and done some copyediting and added "citation needed" tags. It would be great if editors from this project could help address these tags and/or discuss them on the article's reassessment page (located here. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have completed my review and placed the reassessment on hold for a week to allow for my concerns to be addressed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

French architecture is in serious need of help
It's in sad shape, needs a lead, has several empty sections, etc.

(I noticed it while working on List of basic France topics).

The Transhumanist 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article sweeps: Great Pyramid of Giza
Hello, as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Great Pyramid of Giza. I have a few minor concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am the only one who has addressed any of the concerns. There are a couple of minor issues (citing a small paragraph and adding a couple of sentences) remaining, so I am extending the hold because I'm really hoping not to have to delist the article. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamm (Westfalen) railway station GA Sweeps Review
Talk:Hamm (Westfalen) railway station, a GA tagged by this project, has just been reviewed as part of the GA Sweeps Project and has been placed on hold pending the resolution of a few issues. The review can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci peer review
Any comments at Peer review/Leonardo da Vinci/archive3 would be most appreciated. It's a vital article, so it would be nice to get as many views as possible. Thanks. Papa November (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Heyo
Let me know what you think.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg at FAR
Cathedral of Magdeburg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Architecture
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help at Commons
Hello, everyone. Could you help me to expand the Commons:Architectural elements? As I was searching suitable architectural terms for an article that I edited, I felt the Glossary of architecture with no image is not good for just ordinary readers who know little about architecture to understand the terms easily. So I just made the gallery at Commons to hold every architectural terms with examples and captions in alphabet order. However, the work is way more bigger than I expected, so I need more hand from editors who're interested in the job. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

El Lissitzky at WP:FAR
El Lissitzky has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think Akshardham (Delhi) should be added under this WP. Juthani1   tcs 22:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazar Abbas Kazmi
Hi folks,

Can someone take a look at Nazar Abbas Kazmi please? It looks like advertising for the CEO of some Pakistani firm of architects to me but I'm not at all familiar with architects or architecture so I'm loath to nominate it for deletion on the grounds of notability. Thanks. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Not looks so as the subject has services in education and promotion of Architecture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.172.157 (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC of Albert Speer
Albert Speer, an article supported by your project, is currently at FAC. I'd be grateful for any input, copyediting, and any additions, as one editor has suggested that a paragraph on others' views of Speer's works would be useful, and I don't have any architectural books.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Rebuilding's...
Hi,

I've come across the term 'The Great Rebuilding' in connection with English rural buildings, and have started a very basic stub on it at Great Rebuilding. I would very much appreciate some assistance from the experts here, as it's a topic which although notable I had not seen much published material personally. Whilst according to the sources given to me by another contributor, I am sure that there are other Great Rebuildings outside of the specfic English one.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP Vacancy?
Is there no overarching Project for rentals, apartments, share housing, &c? They could use tagging.... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  04:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Zocalo
Hey a favor. Zocalo is rated as a stub-class article but Ive worked quite a bit on it. Can someone take a quick look and re-assess?Thelmadatter (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead section is far too small yet it manages to misdirect the reader into thinking that the article will be about zócalos in several places when it is solely about the main (first) one in D.F. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I proposed a "move portions" action, taking text from the Zócalo article and moving/merging it to the article about the Plaza de la Constitución. I felt that both articles were trying to cover the same territory of describing the first zócalo, its past history, its current relevance and the fact that its name has been duplicated in other central squares in Mexico. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Leonardo da Vinci article
A request for comment has been made at the Leonardo da Vinci article, which is supported by this WikiProject. The question for the RFC is "Does the praise in the lead section constitute peacock terminology?" Please visit Talk:Leonardo da Vinci if you would like to comment. Papa November (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gothic v. Gothic Revival
Please see the discussion here. I cannot see any good reason why because Gothic Revival is classified as a sub-category of Gothic architecture an article should be classified only as Gothic Revival when original Gothic architecture is also present. IMO if a building contains both original Gothic and Gothic Revival elements - for example a Perpendicular nave and a Victorian Gothic chancel, it should be classified under both categories. To have only the classification of Gothic Revival architecture in a church which is mainly original Gothic (it may have only a Gothic Revival porch, for example), is misleading to a person working from the categories. What is the consensus on this, please?

Incidentally I note that under Category:Gothic architecture by country, there are subcategories of for example French Gothic Architecture. There is a WP article English Gothic architecture but no category with this title. Do you think it would be best to reclassify all the buildings in the English style of Gothic architecture as English Gothic architecture, rather than just Gothic architecture. This would solve the problem discussed above; articles could be classified as both English Gothic architecture and Gothic Revival architecture - both being subcategories of Gothic architecture. Comments, please. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Trident13's talke page. Hope it helps. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no opposition to my suggestion, so I have created a new subcat Category:English Gothic architecture, and populated it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias
In architecture articles on WP there is an inherent bias towards monumental architecture over the vernacular kind. In the context of articles on specific buildings that is fine, since we demand notability. However in general categories and articles like Category:Religious architecture or Category:Architecture by region there should be an overwhealing emphasis on vernacular architectures because most people in history have not lived or worked in monuments. Right now the opposite is true, and most articles focus on the monumental. Does this wikiproject have any plans to deal with this problem? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Please see merger proposal at Talk:Second_Empire. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Layout plan
Hi! For the Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos I am looking for a creative architect to draw a layout of the missions. More details are found here. It does not have to be a very detailed model, so it should not make much work. Would be great if somebody could improve the article with a beautiful plan. bamse (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern over corporate article
If possible, could I request some eyeballs at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., as I'm concerned that the article is being used as a marketing tool, as well as being heavily edited by users that have a conflict of interest. The article has been heavily edited by an IP that, according to WHOIS information, belongs to the corporation concerned. I've tagged the article for a lack of referencing and reading like an advert, and would appreciate some input from editors familiar with the subject matter. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is pretty thorough coverage of a company that is not very well known by the public and might easily get only a stub without input from some of the people involved. I don't see that this can be construed as advertising. Assuming all the facts are true there is very little more than bare facts, nothing that looks like POV. The pictures are properly sourced. Wait a bit, others can add to the article if it needs balance. ProfDEH (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my book, if firms have significant awards (not "Best architects in smallville, pop.15") then they're definitely over the threshold for notability and there's probably material in the trade literature for sources. Their current reference, a piece of vanity publishing, isn't really going to cut it. WP is about adding content - if you want it to read less praisworthy, then edit to put the opposing view - just use sources. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually despite my defense of the article I'm not so sure the company is notable. For example they were on the spot investigating the I-35 bridge collapse but they are not mentioned in the Wiki and the reference to the NY Times only mentions them once. ProfDEH (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh - they look pretty notable to me, wouldn't you agree? I don't get the American equivalent of the Architect's Journal, but they have all the hallmarks of being one of the techy multi-disciplined firms like Arups and BDP, who crop up over and again, and if they have got 20 american offices, that's a big mouth to feed (and very big for architecture/engineering practices generally) If they're not national market leaders, they aspiring competitor's I'd wager. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing about notability per se. My main concerns were the COI editing, the promotional feel and the lack of any sources to demonstrate notability. Not being an expert in this field, I though it would be mest to flag it up to this wikiproject in order to get some expert input. Hope that makes sense.  Gazi moff  16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not quite on the level of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, for instance, but they're a notable major A/E firm, and it certainly looks like the marketing department's been involved. The big-list-o-projects approach is a standard marketing technique - I do it all the time when I send out marketing information on my (much smaller) firm. I think the article could use a haircut, and some attention from someone who isn't affiliated with WJE. That they've done terra-cotta investigations on blue-linked buildings is nice, but perhaps not necessary, and it looks like they were not the prime consultant on a lot of these items.  Acroterion  (talk)  17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

bricks
I understand that in the 16th century QE1 issued an edict that bricks should be 2" thick. Some years later this was changed to the thickness that we use now. I have found an article that shows that they were being made this thickness on the Isle of Wight in the 17th century. I am engaged in building replica cottages (17th Century Village, Gosport)(www.littlewoodham.org.uk) and need to know what thickness bricks were being made on the mainland south Hampshire in the early 17th century. Does anyone have any information, please ? : my keyboard has no 'tildes' that I can find !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgreenwood (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace at FAR
nominated Buckingham Palace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Convention Centres in India
Hello all. I was surfing through the category:Convention_Centers. In the sub-categories I didn't find any mention of Convention Centers and exhibition sites in India. It should have been there and sites like Pragati Maidan (a 66000 sq.m. exhibition center), Chennai Trade Centre should be in that category. Furthermore page Pragati_Maidan shall be linked to this category. Thanks. Rajiv.singal (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:La Tumbona House
Hi, I have posted a question at the talk page above. Just for curiosity, would anybody here know of precedents of using crude architectual sketches and low resolution layout plans in a Wiki article. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RMJM - awards
The RMJM article, while about an undoubtedly notable architectural firm, has (until I put it to the blade) become something of a PR vehicle. While I've slashed a bunch of stuff, I've left the lengthy list of awards put there by the (apparerently) PR person. I'm concerned that, which some are very notable awards (like a Stirling Prize) others aren't notable. Could someone take a look at the article, especially that section, and zap those awards that we wouldn't expect to have on the articles of their recipients. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (bearing in mind that the Skidmore, Owings and Merrill article doesn't list any awards, which is probably too far in the other direction). Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A list of awards is not really any use here and it unbalances a very short article. The main thing you want to know about architects is what have they built. What the article really needs is an expanded project list with dates (some of those listed are from the 1960s), brief details, and only in exceptional cases mention of an award. ProfDEH (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Floor
A new editor is adding material on sustainable flooring to Floor that I consider not relevant enough and contains unnecessary references to a commercial site. I have suggested the author set up a separate article on sustainable flooring and that at best a sentence or two should be put into the floor article. The site advertished has tried puttng in a number of ads on their own before. The new editor has an ip supporting him and blanks anything onto his talk page and has not replied on the article page, he just says its not ads on my page and another editors page who also objects.

Could somebody look at the new material and provide another opinion please? Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is now a separate article and looks reasonably useful and relevant. ProfDEH (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Architectural drawing
Please have a look at my recent changes and discuss on the discussion page TomAlt (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't check what TomAlt changed specifically but had a quick look at the article. This comes a day after I got an earful from a camera shop owner telling me "Wikipedia is full of rubbish, just check out your own field and you'll see what I mean". Although I don't agree with him on Wikipedia as a whole, that is certainly true generally of the architectural coverage in Wikipedia. I sometimes wonder if any of the contributors are actually architects. So yes, I had a quick look at the article and I have to say, it is a complete mess. There are spelling mistakes, tautologies, grammatical errors and wrong tense throughout (starting with the opening paragraph). In other words, it is alarmingly illiterate. That's before you get anywhere near the content and frankly I don't have the patience to get into that in detail. The whole thing needs a very comprehensive edit, this sort of thing lets Wikipedia down badly. ProfDEH (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed only some of the structure of that article and rearranged some stuff, what was unfortunately taken back by the main author. As an architect I agree that the article needs a lot of work. The language mistakes are obviously due to the fact that the main authors mother tongue is not english. The more needed is a edit by someone whos really good in english and prefers editing above critizising. TomAlt (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of residential colleges
A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. The input and feedback of members of this project would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Estipite" column
I am trying to find out the English word for the column style known in Spanish as "estipite" Its defined as an inverted truncated pyramed shaped column associated with Baroque architecture (at least it is in Mexico). I cant seem to find an English word for this anywhere! Thelmadatter (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT
Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LDS temples
Some LDS temples are covered by this WikiProject. Should all LDS temples be covered? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A specific category already exists for LDS temple architecture: Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As far as tagging is concerned, they could be tagged under the project, but be careful not to overtag since they probably already fit many categories- religion, regional, and so on. Perhaps only if they have some level of architectural notability? (registered historic status, noted designer, press outside of the LDS community) tedder (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would a Mormon temple be suited to categorizing as a church? Is the general concept of church large enough that it includes a temple? Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, there should be three templates, 1 for WP Architecture, 1 for WP Christianity, and 1 for the region.
 * Depends on your definition of church. Members of the Mormon church do not meet there for Sunday worship. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories (posting here because this looks inactive)
Category:Greek Revival buildings is a subcat of Category:Greek Revival architecture, which seems unnecessary and redundant IMHO. The GR buildings category is the only one in Category:Buildings and structures by type which includes a specific architectural style. A CfD took place in 2007, but resulted in no consensus. I was going to start another CfD, but thought I'd get the project's opinion(s) first.  APK  straight up now tell me  19:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * cough  APK  straight up now tell me  21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Architectural drawing
I've tried to get involved in this article - as a practicing architect I can see many errors, irrelevancies and inconsistencies, the only solution is a massive edit. Wikipedia ought to have a proper article on the subject. The editor involved is unfortunately asserting ownership of the article, reverting the smallest edit and recently removing the cleanup tag without making any improvements. His English is also a problem, one I would be happy to correct if the content didn't need completely reorganizing and editing, which as things stand is going to be a complete waste of time. Please can some experienced WikiProject persons look into this and advise. ProfDEH (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, just start make the changes you think are necessary. After I created the article User:TomAlt has rearranged the article, and on the articles talkpage I have invited you to do the same two months ago. I don't think your person attacks are that justified. I have been rewritten the Technical drawing article and numerous other articles in the same style. Now I have my flaws, and I keep my doubt about the current state of the Architectural drawing article as well. I would like to invited everybody to help improving this article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Does demolition take place at the bottom of buildings?
At World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories (discussion on talk page), we have a statement from a New York Times article that says: "Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings [...]". This does not seem to be factually correct, as there are various pictures in reliable sources that show explosives ignited at multiple levels (especially of taller buildings) simultaneously. Where can we find other statements from reliable sources to check the statement from the New York Times article? Any help is very much welcome! Cs32en 15:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First, take a moment and laugh at this 27-second video of the failure of a bottom-only demolition attempt.
 * Second, traditional building demolition starts at the top and works down, and from the cladding inward to the skeleton. Picture workers with sledgehammers, etc.
 * Explosive demolition must address every point of strength over the total height of the building, with sequenced explosions taking place within moments of each other. If the building is surrounded by other buildings, 'implosion' (explosions bringing the building inward) is required so that the debris settles into its own footprint.
 * Here's a HowStuffWorks article which includes a three-stage explosion diagram starting at the center bottom and moving toward the top of the building.
 * In other cases, a building needs to be pulled to the side as it collapses. Here's page 2 of a Popular Mechanics article where they describe how a building might be destroyed in lateral steps. These refs should help your argument. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles about sculptors linked from List of papal tombs
This article contains several redlinks to sculptors, some of whom are quite important. If you are interested in creating articles about these sculptors, that list has some seed information, sources, and images, which you may find useful. Savidan 03:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion
A discussion regarding the Golden Gate Bridge is taking place here. An outside opinion would be helpful. Thank you.  APK  lives in a very, very Mad World  19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lubbock High School
Lubbock High School has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nikki ♥  311  21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the best outlines
Outline of architecture is one of the best articles in Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, but other WikiProjects are beginning to catch up and surpass it in quality with their subjects' outlines.

Can you make it better?

The Transhumanist 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's looking good now the pictures are properly arranged.

Architectural drawing
I'm trying to work Architectural drawing up from its present C-class rating, would be grateful if you or others involved on the architecture project could monitor progress and provide some comment. ProfDEH (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Mills task-force
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites please. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Raised at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mills Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral GAR notice
Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Joffrey Tower GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Joffrey Tower for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)