Talk:Folly

message: I'd rather we had an article on architectural follies than this bizarre sanctimonious article -- Tarquin 23:34 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
: I agree with myself! (surprise!) Any objections before I remove the non-encyclopedic stuff? -- Tarquin 13:56, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: And I agree with you. Do it. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:07, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: There's probably encyclopedic stuff that could be written on "folly" (Erasmus' Praise of Folly, etc.) but the stuff that's there now certainly isn't it... Wield the knife! -- Someone else 14:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: No. The Taj Mahal is an islamic mausoleum. Cuddlyable3 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a pretty fancy tomb; I'd have to say it, some Communist mausoleums, and the Pyramids may well have had elements of folly, but there may have been a religious aspect to those structures. I'd proceed a bit cautiously before considering a religious structure a folly, although these structures are often quite fanciful.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What should this article be about?

message: Would some of the hotels in Las Vegas (specifically the New York New York) qualify as follies in the architectural sense?  The New York New York in particular is made to appear to be several separate buildings rather than one single structure. It seems akin to the imitations of Gothic castles described in this article. GeorgeJBendo 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "yes" to the above, then will you also include any of Disneyland's pseudo-historical structures? I think that buildings erected specifically for a modern commercial use (and liable to be replaced whenever that raison d'etre ceases) are too rational to be called follies. Cuddlyable3 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the edifices of the Disney amusement parks qualify (not necessarily all: some are very useful as well as good-looking, such as the Grand Floridian Beach and Polynesian Resorts). The Castles and the Matterhorn appear to be mainly for showing off (although the Matterhorn also serves as a roller coaster, while the Castles have such things in them as restaurants and a prize suite).  —  Rickyrab | Talk 01:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous parts of amusement and theme parks that are follies in their own right - architectural showoffs with little purpose other than to attract people and decorate the scene (or rides).  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Vegas Hotels? 

message: Just reading the article, I'm not entirely sure what the dividing line is between a folly and someone intentionally creating a ruin. e.g. Would the ruins at the Mackenzie King Estates count? http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-2802370-mackenzie_king_estate_ottawa-i A bit more elaboration would be helpful. Mucus 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folly or ruin? 

message: Not a folly by definition placed in this article, but deserves mention in the "See also" section.  Seward's Folly refers to the Alaska purchase. --Geopgeop 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't even the same meaning of the word 'folly'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Seward's Folly]] 

message: The external link section did not appear to meet WP:EL. I have moved them here for community discussion on which if any do meet the criteria and should be returned. Active Banana (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It seems unlikely that the alternative etymology can be correct, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the Ordnance Survey wasn't even founded until 150 years after the OED's earliest cited instance of the architectural sense of "folly." For another, the OED lists a separate dialectical sense of "folly," with cites dating only to the late 19th century, defined as a cluster of fir-trees on a hilltop. Unless somebody can come up with a citable source for the "leafy" etymology, I suggest we delete that bit. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leafy places 

message: Built originally as a water tower, should this be a folly ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezawadzki (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawson Tower, Scituate, Massachusetts ?? 

message: What about bowers?  Shouldn't they be mentioned? Chrisrus (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bowers? 

message: I think the page Folly should redirect to Folly (disambiguation), to avoid any confusion. There are currently many pages that link here incorrectly, due to the multiple meanings of the word folly in the English language. I was surprised when I found that this article was about architecture, instead of being about folly in the more general sense of foolishness.
:So which came first; the usage here or the synonym for foolishness. I would have assume the latter, not being particularly familiar with the architectural usage, but perhaps it was indeed the other way around. Wschart (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename the article to ''Folly (architecture)'' for the purpose of disambiguation 

message: Per the definition above in the section What follies are not: "Fantasy and novelty buildings are essentially the converse of follies...The many American shops and water towers in the shapes of commonplace items, for example, are not properly follies." Lucy the Elephant is a novelty building, a shop in the shape of another object. It has been a functioning building for most of its 130 years of existence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Lucy the Elephant 

message: Per the section General properties: "They have no purpose other than as an ornament." "They are purpose-built. Follies are deliberately built as ornaments." "They were built or commissioned for pleasure." And per the section What follies are not: "Follies often look like real, usable buildings, but never are" "Many mansions and castles are quite eccentric, but being purpose-built to be used as residences, they are not properly follies." The article on Usen Castle clearly indicates that it violates all of these properties. It is, and always has been (since its construction in 1928), a functional building. It is not strictly ornamental, it was not build or commissioned for pleasure. It is simply a modern building with an unusual design.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  just removed both 'Usen' and 'Lucy', though I have to say that MOST of the US entries seem to be 'novelty buildings' … but I didn't have the heart to remove most of them !Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Usen Castle 

message: There is a German-language article on "Folly (Gartenkunst)" - folly (garden art) that clearly shares the same semantic intent as this article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly_(Gartenkunst) In my opinion it should be linked here.  178.12.39.33 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'm trying to do so (despite my uselessness at interwiki links) but am currently being prevented by some, er technical ishoo. Watch this space (but do not hold your breath). DBaK (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm ... I have had a try. It hasn't shown up yet. If the Universe explodes later today, it is probably my fault. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please link in the German-language article 

message: The grammar in the opening sentence is broken at the moment. Can someone who knows that that sentence is trying to say please fix it, because I have no idea what it's trying to say. 116.48.12.222 (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: that work for you? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Think that 'by' breaks the necessary negation. So, I made a new edit that restores the negation ('but') and then adds the missing verb in the 'or' section of the either-or clause. The essential sentence now works out to "A folly is a (decorative) building..., but either (1) suggesting... some other purpose, or (2) appearing to be so extravagant that it transcends..." On another note, I do have an issue with "transcends the normal range". Do we mean somethings like "transcends the usual traits/characteristics"?  —Waldhorn (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're right about the by/but … I also think your thought is right about the 'transcends etc.' phrase, but even your suggestion still seems unclear/complicated. Also the link to 'extravagance' leads to 'Tryphé' as a concept in antiquity (and doesn't really deal with 'excessive design'). I wonder if someone can come up with a simple phrasing of 'appearing to be … …' onwards (or even a reliably sourced definition).Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the opening needs simplification. The extravagance link should simply be removed. The core of the article appears to suffers from WP:SYNTH and lacks authoritative sources; so dolling up the grammar and sentence structure might be beside the point. By the way,  introduced the current definition. I'll contact the editor to see if he has a source for the change. —Waldhorn (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree 100% .... It occurred to me after posting my last comment, that garden ornaments are PRECISELY what follies are. However, ornaments of such a scale of conception, design and execution, and often in gardens/landscapes of such a scale, that the normal term no longer seems adequate. That thought is probably not helpful for the article, but helped me to clarify my own understanding.Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wording is so dense, if not pompous, that I didn't even notice the negation was intended. Sorry about that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: The article contradicts itself in several places about how useful or practical a folly can be, I've just repaired one point of contradiction, however we need to decide. IMO, a folly can be a practical building, but its design has to not primarily be practical (an elaborate abbey ruin to keep the lawn mower in!). However we need to be consistent.Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the present description in the Characteristics section is clear. Probably there are follies with some practical use, for example as a viewing point or as a place to store things, but minor compared to what it looks like. Bever (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree I think, not PRIMARILY practical, or a design which is incredibly elaborate for its practical purpose. The content has actually been 'toned down' considerably since August, such that the NO practical purpose condition has gone. Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How useful ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Folly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060711233348/http://europeanfollies.com/ to http://www.europeanfollies.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Fellow wikipedias, I have just included the very extraordinary structure, the Palais idéal built by the French postman, known as Facteur Cheval. It may not fit in to all the criteria met by the other listed "follies". It does however have no practical purpose: it cannot be lived in. Moreover it is considered as an example of striking naive architecture. If you think it should be removed, I would not object, but would think it a shame. What do people think?--Po Mieczu (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Palais idéal'' 

message: Duwisib Castle etc … do they qualify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.149.57 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as they served other practical functions, namely as forts, barracks, or purpose built residential structures. --Katangais (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree. Certainly they are practical & functional - merely having a fancy design is not enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Namibia's castles follies? 

message: Grotto of the Redemption Does this  count? If it does feel free to add it yourself. Xannon (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Xannon, this probably wouldn't meet the definition as it has practical purposes (albeit religious ones). The usual definition is that there should be no practical purpose, or a very minimal one disproportionate to the elaborate design (a mock Roman villa/mock medieval ruin serving only as a sun-shelter or garden tool-shed for example). But mainly we need sources describing something as a folly. Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa's Grotto of Redemption