Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments first from April 2004 

message: 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:
Name of building</td>
General view of building
Location
Architect(s)
Engineer(s)
Date commissioned/Date of competition
Date begun
Date completed
Please edit this! Warofdreams 20:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Greatbuildings.com  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)

text: *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)

text: (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)
thread_title: Info boxes

message: 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)
thread_title: Architecture history series

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Photographs

message: "... 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)
thread_title:  Skyscrapers

message: 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)
thread_title:  Firms versus architects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Version 1.0 core topics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reanimation!?! 

message: 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)
thread_title: An invitation to all members of this project

message: Am I missing something or are the  and  templates on the main page not active?--Mcginnly 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Building and Architect Templates

message: 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)
thread_title: Renaming and Moving Pictures

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've created it using the Wikiproject template. You'll need to populate it though. --Mcginnly 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Urban studies and planning? 

message: *Any thoughts?--Mcginnly 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion - Should urban studies and planning be a sub-project and sub-portal of architecture?

message: 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)
thread_title: Layout revamp

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Help needed at [[Environmental design]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need help with: Featured article candidate/Architecture of Norway 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Mainz Cathedral]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Streetcar suburb? -- M0llusk 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture and Community 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article [[Spanish architecture]] doesn´t exist.

message: :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)
thread_title:  Category:Solar design tidied 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unfinished buildings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reworking technopolis etc - any views?