Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think there a quite a few issues that have come up when I've tried to write about buildings:

• Photographs - is it appropriate to use photographs of features of a building? The photographs you use to show shapes (for example with a brutalist building) are different from those you take to illustrate a touristy building for example. I used grey scale photos to illustrate Brunswick Centre as I felt that it brought out the shape better and was accused of violating NPOV!

• We have a lot of articles on skyscrapers - at the moment they tend to consist of X is so high and has so many floors. We need more than this obviously.

• Should we make a box with name of building, date of completion, architect etc?

We can't write about every listed building, do we want to concentrate on ones that are particularly notable in terms of style, famous architects etc?

Apologies for the random jottings. Secretlondon 09:27, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heck, don't apologize for random jotting. What else is a WikiProject talk page going to be used for? Anyway here are my thoughts on the above:

• Picture are obviously important. Perhaps a mix of greyscale and color photographs? Alternatively, you could put the color photographs in and link to the grayscale, or vice versa. Color is prettier but greyscale shows buildings better.
• It would make sense to me to have an architecture infobox. Standard stuff would obviously include completion date, architect, and name. Other info that could possibly be put in a standard box: start date of construction, developer, maybe the construction firm, interior designer (if it's someone other than the architect), and building type (see list of building types.) I'm sure there are more things we could include, too.
• In terms of which buildings to write on, I don't have any particular goals in mind. If you want to prioritize, I'd say major works of big-name architects come first. Next are major landmarks (including buildings in major cities that anyone living in the area could identify.) Then we have other buildings by any architect we have an article on. Any other notable buildings can follow as people choose to write on them.

I'm not sure if the US has an equivalent to the UK's "listed building" status. We have something called the "National Register of Historic Places" it's not quite the same. Isomorphic 17:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree there are too many listed buildings to describe them all, but we could at least have a list of Grade I listed buildings.

Ideas for infobox:

Please edit this! Warofdreams 20:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. Only one concern - the commissioning/competition date would be nice information, but might be hard to find and end up blank on most buildings. Also, could you clarify what "General view of the building" means? Isomorphic 20:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greatbuildings.com [1] may be a good source of inspiration (and information) for this. I think it's very good to distinguish between dates of commission/begin/completion, since these are often mixed up (i.e. in different pieces of literature you often find several dates for a building), a confusion that can be clarified by Wikipedia. I don't know about "engineer" though -- on the other hand, it might be useful to include information on "client". Will check if I find more information elsewhere on "building metadata standards". Spinster 21:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I only came across this Project not long ago, but I've had in mind for a while now to create articles for the skyscrapers in Melbourne, Australia. That said, I created my own infobox a while ago, you can see it at Rialto Towers and Eureka Tower. Thing is, it's rather large and might do with some reformatting/pruning. If anyone likes it, feel free to use whatever from it, or suggest how it could be made better. Other than that, there is (at the Rialto page) a navbox which leads to the next shortest/next tallest buildings in the city. Since making that, I've seen a few problems with it, like the fact that it will need reworking whenever a new building is completed, as well as being affected by the whole controvesy over including/excluding spires and antennas from heights, etc. TPK 03:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The info boxes from TPK look good with multiple columns of information. The “smaller <=> larger building” link box is very useful too. Manually changing a few links in articles should be no problem when a new building is built to greater heights. There's another, very flexible info box in the article for Yankee stadium and a biography infobox. --Dogears 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/infobox for samples)

• I revised the architect userbox, created WP Architecture userbox, and another arch userbox; and added a grid of them to the main page. Check them out. I will probably add the building template to the grid as well.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I recently started an architectural history series -- would that be appropriate for inclusion in this WikiProject? In that case, you can count me in ;-) Spinster 20:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi! This idea of standardising entries on the same topic (e.g. Architecture) is a good one. I'd like to suggest three sources of information and inspiration that might help in the development of this WikiProject.

For 15 years or more the Canadian Centre for Architecture has been creating documentation (or "articles", if you like) of architects and architecture as represented in photographs, prints, drawings, archives, etc. Their online catalogue (http://www.cca.qc.ca/pages/Niveau3.asp?page=catalogue_collection&lang=eng) includes all of this documentation. The idea behind this documentation is to approach each subject in as much the same way as possible.

For example, titles of records usually follow the same form: "View of the White Plains Mall showing the entrance to the Scotch 'n Sirloin restaurant, White Plains, New York, United States" [photograph PH2000:0757, by Molitor, Joseph W.]; i.e. first a description of what is shown in the photograph using the subject's name (supported, if possible, by an authority), then the city-level location, then the regional (state/provincial) location, then the national location.

===The Art & Architecture Thesaurus=== (http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/) is a source of controlled vocabulary (used in CCA documentation) for art and architectural terms. Besides defining useful terms, a controlled vocabulary removes ambiguities that arise when describing different structures. For example, one could use any of a number of terms to describe "establishments that primarily sell gasoline, lubricating oils, and other merchandise, such as tires and batteries, for motor vehicles and that often also perform minor repair work": gas station, service station, filling station, gas bar... The AAT provides a researched and source-supported standard term (in this case, "service station").

The Library of Congress Authorities (http://authorities.loc.gov/) for source-supported names of people, places, and subjects. The "Authorized Heading" is the established form of the name in question, e.g. "100 1_ |a Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, |d 1886-1969" i.e. Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig.

I've gone into way too much detail, but I thought it might be helpful to give supply some useful links and some possible parameters...

As for the question: "Photographs - is it appropriate to use photographs of features of a building?" I think any image is helpful, regardless of the type. It's not only architects and engineers who consult these articles and there's no telling how the information might be used - so there's no definitive method of representation. The CCA has over 60,000 photographs of architecture (and other subjects) in all kinds of formats: from daguerreotype (AAT term: http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=daguerreotype&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300127181) to digital prints. That NPOV accusation was ludicrous. Pinkville 20:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful information. We seem to have consensus on use of photographs of details of buildings. How do you suggest we use their standard designations? The controlled vocabulary could be very useful; I'm keen to see how U.S.-specific the terms are, but it's not necessary for us to standardise vocabulary except where one term has multiple meanings, as we can easily create redirects. As you may have noticed, this project has become rather inactive, so all ideas to reinvigorate it are very welcome! Warofdreams 09:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The AAT provides US and British terms in most cases (e.g. "porches" = "verandas"), but the subjects covered are truly worldwide (including terms for styles of Nigerian sculpture, for example). I'd say that when a specific feature is notable in a structure that one is writing about it would be worth checking the AAT to find and use the controlled term. This becomes more significant when writing about a structure that isn't accompanied by an image - or when writing about a structure from a different architectural tradition (say, a Shinto shrine or a Medicine wheel). The AAT also provides definitions for terms like "general view", which might help answer Isomorphic's question.

Another way to use standardisation is in how structures and locations are named. Somewhere on a related page (that I now can't find) someone pointed out the conundrum of deciding what style to use in naming a building. The possibilities given were: "the XXX Building, Chicago" or the XXX Building (Chicago)", etc. I too prefer the former style (comma instead of parentheses) because it reads better. As for finding and using the definitive name of a building... that's where the Library of Congress Names Authorities come in. You can search for, say, "Guggenheim Museum" - select "Name Authority Headings" and click. You will then find "Guggenheim Museum" with a button marked "References" to the left - this means that "Guggenheim Museum" is not the Authorised name - so click on "References" and you will find "Authority Record" and "See Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum". Clicking on either will take you to the Authority record where the authorised name is listed on the line beginning "110" (or any number in the 100s, thereby indicating the authorised name). Names listed on lines marked in the 400s are unauthorised variations. You can do the same search for names of people or places or even subject matter.

Reading the AAT:

Just to give a quick note on how to read the AAT entries. The term searched for (and found) is in bold. The definition follows (after "Note"). The the synonyms or other forms of the term follw (under "Terms"). Click on the one- or two-letter codes for how to use or not use the accompanying term. Any terms/variations accompanied by "UF" are not to be used. So for the example below, US writers use "porches" and "porch", British writers use "verandas" and "veranda" (being in Canada, we use both US and British terms at the CCA). The other terms, "piazzas" and "verandahs" are not to be used. Play around for a while with the thesaurus and you will dicover its other interesting and useful features (e.g. the hierarchical displays, related terms, etc.).

porches (<exterior covered spaces>, <rooms and spaces by location or context>, ... Components)

Note: Use to designate roofed spaces, open along two or more sides and adjunct to a building, commonly serving either to shelter an entrance or used as living space.

Terms:

porches (preferred, C,U,D,American English-P)

porch (C,U,AD,American English)

verandas (C,U,D,British English-P)

veranda (C,U,AD,British English)

piazzas (porches) (C,U,UF,American English)

verandahs (C,U,UF,American English)

I hope this all makes sense - and is of some use! Pinkville 16:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Very useful and complete information. The controlled vocabulary (copyright?) can be used for naming many articles, for example: List_of_basic_architectural_topics There's also 16 standard "Divisions" in the CSI Master Format to categorize building materials that can be used for Category:Architectural elements. A (new) List of official names of buildings" from the Library of Congress source can reveal articles with the wrong name and links to redirect pages. Another list or table can show different words for the same thing (porch vs. veranda), or architect / "signature building", or derivation of words (Bungalow from Indian roots ...), etc. --Dogears 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

refer to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Stub categories

Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

More photographs are needed for articles in Category:Buildings and structures with photos from people in the towns with great architecture. The proposal to create a file naming convention is important. Image file names are displayed on a Category page (under the thumbnail), when the image is manually added to a category.

Residential architecture projects are often referred to by the clients last name (eg.: Robie_House) and the city name. Other buildings take the name of the largest (current) tenant or sponsor and memorial names.

Proposal for a standard file name for photos:

Image: Building_name_City_Last-Name(of architect).jpg

For example - Farnsworth_House_Chicago_Mies
Photo credits + info can be added to separate Image:...jpg page.

It might be convenient to use short file names like "Mies" and "Corbusier", and many people refer to architects this way. See also information in this guideline: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#.22.3CFirst_name.3E_of_.3CLocation.3E.22_format

Which namespace is the best to upload photos of buildings? (Main, MediaWiki or Commons, etc). Should images be categorized in the Category:Building and structure images [sic]? --Dogears 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Put things on Commons. I have been experimenting with including pages in each other so that for example commons:Wells Coates includes commons:Isokon building as both have articles on wikipedia. Justinc 10:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pictures and drawings should be put in the commons. Naming conventions can be discussed in Commons:CommonsProject_Architecture#Naming_of_Files TomAlt 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"... a lot of articles on skyscrapers ..."

There are many different articles with information about skyscrapers (sometimes conflicting?). The proposal for a standard format for articles, and info boxes, can make these disparate pages into a cohesive group of articles, Using infoboxes, with links to "random building" or "smaller <> larger building" for a consistent page design.

I've started to work on a standard for skyscraper information (I have been an editor at both SkyscraperPage and Emporis). You can see the discussion at Template:Infobox Skyscraper. I'm working on revisions that you can see on my user page. Once that's standardized I'd like to start organizing the skyscraper information more. Perhaps starting a daughter wikiproject? Kcumming 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles in the architectural history series can be cross linked to articles (and Categories) in architecture.

An important template for registered world historic sites:

{{Lists of World Heritage Sites}}

I am not sure how to organise articles withing architecture firms versus individual arhitects. It doesnt help that I dont have many good sources for purely biographical data anyway. Currently for example Tecton redirects to Berthold Lubetkin. The article is pretty stubby anyway but if I took out the Tecton stuff it would just make two stubs (though this one I have some sources on). Lubetkin however worked in lots of different groupings. Another example is Hidalgo Moya and Philip Powell who only worked together as Powell and Moya so there is a lot of repetition in the articles about what they built. Any thoughts? Justinc 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that there can be a general rule on this. I would say that the Tecton and Lubetkin articles should be split; as you say, neither one is a subset of the other. Powell and Moya could easily be merged; while there could be things to say about one which do not apply to the other, in this case where all the notable points about them are identical, it seems preferable to have one decent article rather than two essentially duplicated. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD).

If you're interested in helping, we plan to include Architecture.

If you think this is ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.

Thanks. Maurreen 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Architecture article itself is neither excellent nor terrible. Overall coverage of architecture is patchy, with some FAs and large numbers of stubs. I dont quite understand the 1.0 project, it seems to mean different things to different people (and the web pages dont help). I cant even work out how many articles it is going to include. Justinc 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the 1.0 project is confusing; you do have a point. The gist of it is that we're trying to work toward a paper or CD version of Wikipedia (or both). A few groups are taking various approaches toward the same goal. I doubt a firm decision on the number of articles will happen for a while. Can I answer any questions about 1.0? Maurreen 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, with the Architecture article being neither terrible or excellent, do you think it is adequate ... for instance, factually correct and adequate scope and proportion? Thanks. Maurreen 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I cant see any factual errors, and it links to a slightly random collection of other articles which give plenty of starting points for further browsing. The illustrations are more decorative than relevant to the text. So yes, probably adequate. Justinc 10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Since 27th July 2004 the german Wikipedia has a WikiProjekt Architecture and building industry. The german Wikipedia has made huge progress in terms of Articles, Portal and Category structure in this 1.5 years. The next step for us would be to organize the material in the commons (see Category:Architecture). Architecture and buildings make up already a huge amount of material there. My suggestion is to start an own Wikiproject in the Commons. I would be glad if some people from the english Wikipedi would join the CommonsProject_Architecture CU there! TomAlt 09:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Everybody! As I saw this Wikiproject is an "Inactive WikiProjects"!?! Lets reanimate it! I began with the Project page, I hope my changes are no offence to anybody!?! I made the experience in the german Wikipedia that an active project architecture can really push the subject on a higher level! In the 1.5 years the german project exists it has structured the architecture-related articles and helped to increase the quality of many articles. So, my suggestion is a reboot of this project? What do you think? TomAlt 10:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Coming from the Woodworking WikiProject, I am glad to see this project revived. We have a number of commonalities, especially wooden buildings and construction. As well, many of the architecture stubs are for elements that are often made of wood. Should the two projects be considered related wikiproject? Luigizanasi 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is a relation, I will put it in the portal and probably come back to you to discuss categories etc. TomAlt 21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Arts
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!

HAM 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated Granary to the WP:COTW Granaries have been important in history, agriculture, society and economy .They are still very important. Very much could be said in terms of the history of agriculture, the different types of granaries and the importance in different cultures (in proverbs, stories, etc...) It is still, at this stage, a stub. Building a image gallery of granaries would also be nice.

Am I missing something or are the {{Template:Infobox building}} and {{Template:Infobox architect}} templates on the main page not active?--Mcginnly 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They look blank to me too. Feel free to create them and start to use them. DVD+ R/W 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll start with Infoboxes for Architects and Buildings called
  • Template:Infobox architect
  • Template:Infobox modern building
  • Template:Infobox historic building

Imperial War Museum North
Entrance
General information
Architectural style	Deconstructivism
Town or city	Salford, Manchester
Country	United Kingdom
Construction started	whenever
Completed	5th July 2002
Cost	£28 million
Client	Imperial War Museum
Technical details
Structural system	Steel frame with concrete floors
Design and construction
Architect(s)	Daniel Libeskind
Engineer	Ove Arup

St Paul's Cathedral
St Paul's Cathedral from the south
General information
Architectural style	Renaissance to Baroque
Town or city	London
Country	United Kingdom
Construction started	June 1675
Completed	October 20, 1708
Client	The Church of England
Technical details
Structural system	Load bearing portland stone
Design and construction
Architect(s)	Christopher Wren
Engineer	Christopher Wren

Can anyone think of any additions (particularly to architects)--Mcginnly 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I wonder if something akin to the approach taken by Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board might be useful for prioritising and listing articles to be created, collaborations, expansions and stubs? Any thoughts?--Mcginnly 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've put a request for the BOT people to add the {{Template:Architecture]] to the talk page of every article in the various architecture categories. Might generate some new membership.--Mcginnly 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • These templates should be on the article page. I am going to be bold and copy them.TonyTheTiger 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Many pictures of fine buildings where already added before this project, or are added by people unaware of this project, will there be a moving and renaming action on those images or what can be done?Mach10 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll add this task to the 'Things you can do section on the project page'. I don't really see the need to move or rename images. Moving them to Commons is a valid exercise though. - suggest we keep it in mind and add the approriate categories when we come across a relevant image.--Mcginnly 08:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there no article about this architectural style or is it simply under another name? --Dahlis 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I can't find anything - although it is mentioned in Jugendstil and alluded to in Norwegian romantic nationalism and Romantic nationalism. Why don't you start it, or put it in the requested article section in the Wikiproject? This [2] looks like a pretty good first source --Mcginnly 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Urban studies and planning and the articles it contains need a lot of work, especially in organizing the subcategories. It seems to me to be somewhat different to Architecture (though closely related of course). Is there any objection to my creating a WikiProject Urban studies and planning? --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No Objections from me, though I'm not sure what the protocol for doing that sort of thing might be - maybe it's just BE BOLD and do it. They'll come a day when it will need it's own Portal too I think. Similarly with Civil Engineering and Construction I would imagine.--Mcginnly 08:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created it using the Wikiproject template. You'll need to populate it though. --Mcginnly 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work - and yes, the protocol is indeed to be bold and do it. I'll help where I can, but it would be great to get some planners involved (I have an interest in it, but it's not my profession). --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Any thoughts?--Mcginnly 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and completely revised the layout on the wikiproject page because I found it very confusing and disorganised - any comments greatfully received --Mcginnly 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that the environmental design article is fundamentally misleading. As I have always understood it, the longstanding and correct usage of "environmental design" means "design of the built environment". This includes the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning, and interior design, and distinguishes them from the other design arts such as graphic design, industrial design, and so forth. Lately, people have begun using the term in a way that is basically synonymous with sustainable design or green design, but I do not believe that this is correct. It leaves the previous concept of "environmental design" without a term on its own, while essentially duplicating other popular terms. Plus, I believe that it is still the minority usage of the term, but this is not reflected in the article. So we need some folks who are knowledgeable about design terminology to head over to that page and help sort it out. Thanks! Skybum 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be able to help, so I'll look. These are important terms to differentiate. Additionally green design goes beyond sustainability in its goals and so is not the same and probably a superset of sustainable design. -- M0llusk 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated Architecture of Norway as a featured article and am working to respond to the (inevitable, but helpful) objections that have come in. I would appreciate any assistance in bringing the article up to a truly excellent standard. Copy edits, additional material, corrections, source citations, etc., are all welcome. My hope is that it will encourage more articles on architecture. And I think you'll find the article interesting, as well. Thanks in advance. --Leifern 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I translated this from the German article the other day, although not 100% (I didn't do the artifacts segment). Someone might want to take a look at this -- the German version is a GA, and I think this one could be too with a few touch-ups. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, archetecture folks! The article Community is undergoing massive restructuring toward featured article status via Wikipedia:WikiProject Community, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and many individuals. I've noticed a few architecture-related articles that share context with community-related articles such as local community, ecovillage, gated community, urban planning ... gosh, the list goes on and on. I'm wondering if ya'll might be interested in doing a section called "Architecture and Community" and pick or create a main article that can expand upon the subject. Just an idea. Please have a look and let us know on Talk:Community if ya wanna. Thanks! CQ 02:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Streetcar suburb? -- M0llusk 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am Garcilaso, an architect from Spain. I have been writing about Spanish architecture in articles about the different historical styles. At the moment, there isn´t and article named Spanish architecture in this wikipedia. It is a quite large subjet to be done by only one editor, so I have just proposed it to be Wikipedia: Collaboration of the week. I would apreciate your support voting for it and helping with the content. There is a lot of work to be done. Thank you for advance, --Garcilaso 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Solar design had a lot of solar energy stuff in, so I have moved these to a new cat, Category:Solar energy.

A few articles I have put in both. See my comments on changes made here. --Singkong2005 ^talk 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Singkong. I'm always mistified how unrelated topics seem to bleed into architecture, planning etc. This is how Adolf Hitler is in the 'neutrality in question -cleanup' section of the architecture wikiproject - I assume something to do with Category:Nazi architecture --Mcginnly 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I'd let you know about the new (sub)stub I just created, Unfinished building. It may be of interest to some people here. The idea is to list (with some description) examples of buildings that remain in an unfinished state and most likely will continue to do so. It is similar to unfinished work, which focuses on media, such as paintings and literature.

I probably won't be doing much work on the article as it is certainly outside of my expertise. violet/riga (t) 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The page Technopolis is tagged as being part of this WikiProject (?). It could be part of a reworking/merger/disambiguation of Science park, Research park, Technology park and Technopole. Any views would be welcome either here or at Talk:List of research parks. --Mereda 09:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.