Talk:Semi-detached

message: * Semi-detached -- needs some historical & sociological data, and also a picture. Anyone living in a semi-detached, please go ahead. Wikikiwi 22:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From PNA/Architecture

message: A duplex is a building with two units, this article desribes a twin. (Source: Webster, describing a duplex as "a 2-family house.")
:Duplexes here almost always fit this description: "pairs of houses built side by side as units sharing a party wall and usually in such a way that each house's layout is a mirror image of its twin," which is what this article describes. Sometimes they're not exact mirror images, but usually pretty close.  Elf | Talk 23:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also live in Canada (Montreal), and duplexes are only one apartment on top of another. Triplexes are in common use here (three apartments on top of the other). You can also have, eg, six-plexes (2 triplexes next to each other) or five-plexes (6plex where the bottom floor is just one apt). Semi-detached are only two places next to each other.
I live in Canada too, and we don't call them "duplexes" either. The word "Townhouse" is more common where I live - the GTA.
When I lived in Saskatoon, people did call them 'Duplexes', but in Calgary, I've mainly heard 
"semi-detached". What is this linked basement business? Does anyone have an example of this? I've never heard of it. --Churowa 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I live in Québec. Here, people would look at you funny if you were to call a semi-detached a duplex, because we have a ton of duplexes which are one unit made up of the ground floor and basement, and another unit on the second floor. I would argue that it is fully justified to keep two separate words for these types of buildings, because they have completely different potentials in terms of ownership. A semi-detached is essentially a detached home that just happens to share a wall with its neighbor. Though they are usually built together, you could destroy one and retain the other, and most of these are individually sold to different owners. A duplex with two apartments one on top of each other is completely different, they share 4 walls, a basement, a roof, a front yard and a back yard. The units cannot be owned separately, at best they can be co-owned (condo). This means that the buyer of a duplex has to become a landlord for one or both units.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.221.36.36 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplex

message: I clicked discussion to post that what's described as a "duplex" in the article is actually a "twin" in the US, at least the northeastern part.  I'll just add my support, that here in the Philadelphia area (and other places I've been in this region) semi-detached housing is not uncommon and is always referred to as a twin.  However, I've read discussions with Americans from other parts of the country (South and Midwest, I believe) who would call semi-detached housing a "duplex".  It would be nice to get a source for this.
Contemplative 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplex vs. twin seems to vary by region in the US 

message: As a look in some dictionaries shows(,,, "duplex" is a synonym for a semi-detached house in certain English-speaking countries, but it is also used to refer to apartments. The comment about Boston is apparently a joke/vandalism. --Espoo 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with [[duplex (building)]] 

message: I would like to formally propose that Duplex (building) be merged into this article. It seems that while there is some regional variation, the subject is essentially the same.
FWIW, In Calgary, Alberta, while duplex is used colloquially to refer to semi-detached buildings, the Calgary Land Use Bylaw distinguishes the two—a duplex is one unit over another and a semi-detached is one unit beside one another. If general useage was this clear, I would suggest keeping the two articles separate. As it is, we should have one article that tries to describe the terms and their meaning. --Jrsnbarn (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  The two terms are substantially synonymous. Quokly (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree BUT we should note that in America (and increasingly in Australia) the term duplex is being used for semi-detached dwellings. I don't know if there is a term for two-storey apartments in those places, apart from townhouses (as they're rare). Nick (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Now that I have done some research on Duplex (building) with regards to Urban Planning, I now disagree with my own merger proposal. There seems to be enough information to suggest that duplex is a different idea than semi-detached as the latter is only sometimes included in the definition of the former and often has its own specific meaning. --Jrsnbarn (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Partial agree - merge all text refering to the form of building that consists of two vertically-divided houses sharing a party wall to Semi-detached. Rewrite duplex (building) to cover only the form of building that is a horizontally-divided apartment spread over more than one floor (usually with an internal staircase). I would remark that the term "duplex apartment" is also used in the United Kingdom to refer to this form of construction where, although quite unusual, it is not unheard-of. DWaterson (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I think we should get rid of the sentence "During the house price boom in the years to 2004 many UK property developers found they could create value by demolishing semi-detached houses and building two detached houses on the same site, often with a very narrow gap between the new units." if no reference can be found. I have never seen this or even heard of it happening. While no doubt it must have happened somewhere, "many" is impossibly vague and misleading as the total number demolished must have been a tiny fraction of the total.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There should history section but only if someone can find a reference for where the semi originated. It may well be that it was in the UK but we need a reference for that. There should also be a picture of a typical semi at the beginning of the article rather than the rather untypical one that's used now. I've been meaning to take one myself but if you already have one please go ahead. Richerman (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion that the History section should start with the origin of the semi-detached house is an interesting challenge, as nothing has been written on it, so what I could contribute would smack too much of research, one of the 'No's of Wikipedia. I would welcome the advice of an oldie on this (I presume that is the opposite of newbie!). There are references in documents accessible on the internet such as Old Bailey Proceedings to 'double houses', the earliest of which is a will of a Londoner in 1660 (See: http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/g-s-gilbert-sidney-parry/genealogical-abstracts-of-parry-wills-proved-in-the-perogative-court-of-canterb-rra/page-7-genealogical-abstracts-of-parry-wills-proved-in-the-perogative-court-of-canterb-rra.shtml; accessed 6 October 2011). Although I have gathered sufficient original material to convince that a double house was what we would call a semi-detached house, I expect that for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia all that I could legitimately do is to refer briefly to 'double houses', without making the connection explicit. Chrisemms (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK section 

message: Shouldn't this be at Semi-detached housing? Lots of things are semi-detached. 216.8.175.138 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: A lot of research has gone into this page, but it's not ideal for a cogent overview of the subject. The History section is very long and detailed, with convoluted and occasionally archaic language. I've made numerous small changes to grammar, spelling and syntax without substantially altering the text. But I find that the really useful statements (eg. " They built double cottages as a means of reducing cost," "Semi-detached houses first began to be planned systematically in late 18th-century Georgian architecture," "After the Second World War, there was a chronic shortage of houses") are buried here and there among among wordy and overly technical ones (eg. "Estate villages followed vernacular patterns," "The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 (Addison Act) incorporated those recommendations including one that allowed for Radburn style estate layout").
The wording often presumes the reader is already familiar with the subject (eg. "At Bournville in 1879 the Cadbury development started with a detached house for the manager," "The examples of Bournville, and Port Sunlight were seized by Ebenezer Howard and became key models for the Garden City movement," "The model villages in Lancashire came later"), and each section starts somewhere other than the logical beginning. For example, the 'Housing the Urban Working Classes' launches straight into a general discussion about population shifts and societal restructuring without really signposting where it's going. It really needs to start out with a simple sentence explaining that there was a need for more, and cheaper, housing.
I don't know anywhere near enough about the subject to take this on myself, but I hope someone will consider trimming some of the detail, minimising superfluous technical detail, and making this a readable and accessible overview of the subject. Sadiemonster (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the edits and comments. It is indeed a massive topic and I do tread carefully to accurately reflect the sources trying to avoid OR. If you look back at the article in 2013 it was in a sorry state- the semi-D is the principal housing type in middle England and appears to be a rarity elsewhere but we had one editor demanding a a more global approach and equal prominence for other countries, back then there were merger suggestions and no details. The article was written backwards timewise- and I avoided the temptation to delete early off focus work- so your description 'rambling' is fair. Looking at it today I can see it is underlinked, or the link should be repeated for readers who are just reading one paragraph. But too technical- no. I haven't started to add the heavy weight technical detail such as floor pans, regional differences in land availability and the individual styles of individual mass builders complying with building regs and standards. I still haven't fully mined Burnett and I am looking for other sources. Time is the limiting factor. I believe that all articles have a life cycle- stub to B and over long.  Then we float sections to become new articles and aim for the perfect FA but we are not their yet. It would be really useful if you could look at each paragraph individually and comment on them- an article can always be strengthen by cooperation and I could be accused of being too close- I'll have a go at a few more links. -ClemRutter (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response, ClemRutter. I know the article has come a long way, and like I said, it's been well-researched and there's a lot of good information there, it just needs reorganising. I'll try to find the time to put together some suggestions for you. We probably have different definitions of "technical." You clearly have knowledge of the history of architecture - I don't, and I felt that the way the article is written presumes a certain level of knowledge that I don't have. Certainly floor plans would be a lot more technical for someone acquainted with the subject matter - but for the average reader, it would help if more general, explanatory information was prioritised over secondary detail. For example, the sentence "The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 (Addison Act) incorporated those recommendations including one that allowed for Radburn style estate layout" should perhaps be replaced by a simple sentence explaining that there was a need for economical housing after WWI. In the 'Housing the Rural Working Classes' section, you get 3/4 of the way through the paragraph before you get to the point: "landowners...built double cottages as a means of reducing cost." That sentence could be shifted to the beginning. I'll have another look at this just from a  readability angle if I can find the time. Thanks again, Sadiemonster (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rambling, too technical?

message: The suggestion is to merge in Duplex (building), paired home
*Oppose for the very reasons I gave on 21 February 2016 (UTC)  above. ClemRutter (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See. Talk:Duplex (building) ClemRutter (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussions 

message: I've lived in the UK my whole life and I have never heard the term "semi-D", nor encountered it before I read this page. Is it common elsewhere?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.53.154 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Zapped. The problem is the word often- it may be Estate-agent speak- but no longer current. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "often abbreviated to semi-D" 

message: this article focuses a lot on the UK. Why is the article primarily about UK semi-detacheds?
Serperior 1245, a Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Doctor who nerd 01:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  High UK focus 

message: fdgdfg 81.131.36.97 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  fdgfdg