Talk:Second Empire architecture in Europe

message: ----
Please provide some images of examples of this style.
You cite Opera Garnier as the canonical example of Second Empire style... yet when you go to the Opera Garnier page, it describes itself as being designed in the Neo-Baroque style...  I don't think that both can be correct.
*Added an image and removed image request template. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Wondering if anyone could help me verify this piece of info:
:Prior to the construction of The Pentagon in the 1940s, the Second Empire–styled Ohio State Asylum for the Insane in Columbus, Ohio was documented as the largest building under one roof in America, proving the style's adaptability.
I can only find articles here and there (not wholly reputible sources, either) that claim it was the largest building.  There is no mention of footprint size (foundation) or total square feet.  However, the exact same claim is made for Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, which does have verifiable square-foot information on the building.  I know every building wants its claim to fame, but I find it bizarre that these two Kirkbride buildings would both have the same claim attached to them.  Any help would be appreciated.  Rkitko 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest? 

message: This phrase puzzles me "Second Empire was succeeded by the Queen Anne Style era, and its sub-styles, which enjoyed great popularity until the rise of the “Revival Era” in American architecture just before the end of the 19th century." what exactly is the "Revical Era" is it the Gothic Revival, which contrary to the claim in the lead never fell out of fashion in certain areas of design, or is it something else compltely. Giano | talk 09:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that this refers to the Classical Revival phase that was kicked off by the Columbian Expo in 1893.  The Gothic Revival - used mostly for educational purposes did not really get going until the early 20th Century.  There were a couple of Gothic revivals, but the one that never went out of style is/was the use of Gothic for churches.  At least this is my opinion as to what this is about.  Feel free to improve the article so that it makes better sense to you, and hopefully everyone.  Carptrash 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the problem here, is one of transatlantic differences.  We on the European side regard the Gothic revival as having started in the late 18th century and continuing until at least 1914, and you are saying on the American side that is not the case.  I don't feel confident enough to edit this page, as I think it also probable (from reading the page so far) that the American version of "Second Empire" is not exactly comparable to what is understood here in Europe.  To my mind the Opera Garnier is not "Second Empire" at all but a Neo-Renaissance building with Baroque  influences - where are the particular "Second Empire" features? being built during the time of the second French empire is not a good enough reason -  However, far greater experts than me have differing opinions on this, so I don't think  I'll become involved in "Second Empire (Wikipedia style)" - it's far too much of an architectural minefield. Giano | talk 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Although American architectural historians [wikipedia style] are a opinionated lot I would not characterize any of the discussions that I have been involved in by using any war [i.e. minefield] terminology.  You do raise an interesting point about the role of the Atlantic in these articles and it might be best to turn this article into a "Second Empire style in America" one and let the Europeans do what they will with their buildings.  In America the term Second Empire is pretty widely used and understood.  I think the name was chosen because Americans [opinion] have frequently felt like Europe's country cousins, at least in the architecture world. Thus the term Second Empire, with its nod toward some French precursors was easily employed.  This style, even when used for residences, was considered to be flashy, expensive and "European" witnessed by the fact that the style pretty much gets absorbed by the slightly less pretentious Italianate style.  Hmmm, I wonder how wikipedia is dealing with that one? Carptrash 15:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmmm! Well having just clicked and read Italianate one can only say "Oh dear!" Italianate is in fact a form on Neo-renaissance.  The information on the Italianate page, to put it politely, is not something I would agree with 100%. Giano | talk 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well,  you might be more inclined to agree with it [perhaps up to 87% ?] if the article were just about American Italianate.  I just discovered the article while writing to you [see UP] so have only glanced over it, but as a description of the Italianate style as it is the the United States, it's okay.  In the US [in my opinion] Neo-renaissance revival would be much more formal designs.  Italianate dwellings were usually built as vernacular constructions, designed and built by local builders without an architect, much like the Greek Revival had been a generation earlier.  So perhaps I'll go to these articles and toss in a prominent "As used in the United States" right at the beginning.  Carptrash 00:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revival of what? 

message: While excellent, the images don't really belong in the main body of the article. Because they're all in the en.wiki imagespace, an easy link can't be created to all of them. I would encourage whoever is working on this page to move all of the public domain or GFDL photos to Wikimedia Commons (reupload them) so that other wiki projects can use them. Categorize them and then remove these photos from the page in favor of a link to the Commons category or page with the photos. --Rkitko 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By images, I mean the image gallery section. The other in-text images are necessary. The ones under the section "Images" are extraneous. --Rkitko 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I do not believe that this is clearly the primary meaning of the term "Second Empire", I suggest that this term should be a disambiguation and this page moved. PatGallacher (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: As part of my recent edits, I have reorganized this article a bit.  Instead of a single block of text followed by lists of examples, there is now a division between Second Empire in France and the United States.  Of course since this article was writen almost entirely about Second Empire in the United States, the French section currently has no text. As I get the chance, I plan to add to France and better organize the United States section.  I could see additional expansion of the style in Canada and Australia as well as Great Britain which isn't even covered yet. Since I am not much of an authority on Second Empire outside of the United States, I would appreciate if anyone wanted to help me in this effort. --A.Fox 03:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section divisions 

message: that it is time to arrange at least the images in some sort of order.  I propose an Americas, Asia (?), Australia, Europe sort of thing, with each section subdivided into countries.  It's the sort of switching around that I usually make a huge mess out of when I attempt it,  but think I'll do it anywhay, barring a HUGE "NO" from someone here.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe 

message: I am inclined to remove the Brussels Stock Exchange from the article.  However this could be just American prejudice, so I thought I'd ask first.  To me we need good examples of the style rather than wild hybrids that could confuse the uninitiated. Also is anyone here bothered by the lack of inline citations that the tags warns us about?  I believe that most of those were added by me years ago (2006?) when I was editing here and I am more inclined to remove the tags than mess with citations.  Your thoughts? Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at this page for years, but have a feeling I've edited it in the past. I would have thought that the Brussels Stock Exchange was right up there with the best examples of Second Empire Architecture; whereas, one or two of the American examples are what I believe Americans call 'chateauesque' and I call Franglifried. Not that it really matters, all these 19th century styles are largely a matter of personal opinion and taste.  Giano  18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth is this building supposed to be? If that's a Second Empire court house, I think I would plead guilty just to avoid having to enter its horrible portals.  Giano  18:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

text: * Unfortunately, the term seems to be used in both Europe and USA; however, it's used for different styles. In Europe the style has to have a touch of Baroque about it (see Opera Garnier). In the USA: "the bulky forms derive from the new works of the Second Empire in Paris, but with an important difference - they are more loyal to their 17th-century prototypes than are such buildings in France itself." (World Architecture by C Trewin, p311) This presents another problem for you, when in the USA is a building Second Empire and when is it Neo-Renaissance (see Hôtel de Ville, Paris)? You have a problem. Coming to the Texan court house, that is not good architecture; it is horrible, p, and has arrive via Russia. It would be better if they demolished it.  Giano  16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the Euro insights - I'll not evict tht Brussels thing yet.  I looked at all the Americans and they are all more or less appropriate for the style in the US.  The Baltimore town hall's (?)  classical dome is almost a deal breaker and I am considering removing it because I do not want anyone thinking that domes ala St. Peter's are typical.  The Texas county courthouse (one of about 220 in the state)stays until such time as it is demolished - a event that you will be invited to. Carptrash (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boston, Vigo and Baltimore halls are all good examples of Second Empire - they are supposed to have a touch of the Baroque about them.  Giano  17:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have clarified the lead (with references). It seems one of the USA's most prolific architects doesn't have a page Arthur B Mullett; perhaps you know something about him?  Giano  07:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems he does, Alfred B. Mullett. Interesting, he's in most of my European books as Arthur - I wonder why. 07:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  a couple of points 

message: Further to debate above: here is the official description of 2E from what I still think is the definitive architectural Bible 'Copplestone, Trewin (1963). World Architecture. Hamlyn; (Page 310):-
"....this period of equilibrium (French Renaissance Revival: eg Hôtel de Ville, Paris) did not long outlast the 1840s..picturesqueness was revamped and popularised  in a new guise by the Ecologists and the High Vicorians, and the classic Romantic tradition was, at the moment of its demise, reincarnated in that eclectic idiom subsequently known as the Second Empire style whether in France or abroad. To a degree this fashion grows out of the 16th century Renaissance used in the extensions of the Hotel de Ville  and the 17th century modes that were employed for the sake of consistency in the continuation and completion (1853) of the Louvre. The style gained a certain spontaneity by the lavishness of which it made use of the mansard roof silhouette and bulbous square based domes, and by the pneumatic inflated scale of the masses. The most ornate monument in this vein is the Garnier Opera."
Besides the Palais Garnier, Trewin gives as prime examples of the style: 
*The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir George Gilbert Scott). 
*The Burgtheater, Vienna (Gottfied Semper).
*Former State War and Navy Building, Washington (Arthur B Mullet).
I think this does rather mean we have to look for baroque elements rather than the chateauesqe. Giano   (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitive description and examples of Second Empire

message: About this:
 
Provincial architecture at its worst. The building is too tall for its footprint. The segmented windows should be on the first floor not the ground. The ground floor windows should be smaller -  the same size as those on the second floor. The oculus windows in the portal towers should be smaller and set within a cartouche, and the spires/domes on top of the towers have lost all sense of architectural rhythm and look ridiculous. What are all these towers for anyway - it's supposed to be elegant Baroque revival, not William the Conqueror building a secure holiday home. Yellow brick should never be employed for Second Empire and the coloured brick banding is a vulgar, cheap architectural trick more reminiscent of Legoland than Second Empire. Such examples should not be included in a page on the 2E style. As for the central clock tower, let's just not go there. --Giano
:Yes about "what are all those towers for anyway".  The forest of towers seems contrary to the characteristic solid massing in French Renaissance styles including in 2E.  McAlesters comment about the efficiency of the mansard roof: "...particularly adapted to town houses, for it provided an upper floor behind the steep roof line, and thus made the structure appear less massive than most other styles with comparable interior space."  Here, the cluster of towers will provide terribly little useful space.  There is little/no proper mansard roofed regular space above the lower floors, it is all towers instead. --doncram 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it mixes straight "rooflines" (of the corner towers) vs. convex rooflines (of the taller towers).  Maybe convex rooflines are in fact always ugly in regular rooflines as well as in towers;  McAlesters say they are very unusual, and from my browsing other photos the convex or straight rooflines look good while convex always look bad. --donoram 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless this is an example of 2E in America, called a "Second Empire masterpiece" in The Courthouses of Texas.  Our task at wikipedia is not to impose our views on any subject on the article but to go with what the references tell us.  But these discussion real should be taking place here. Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada.  This article is about the style in Europe, which we are all aware, does NOT include piles such as this one. Carptrash (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly in Texas

message: So it begins! Thanks Giano for the start. Did we keep the lists in a sandbox somewhere (to work off of when adding back in) or should I set one up? Garchy (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think set one up. Most of them are not good examples and I'm not convinced that the stereotype Hammer house of horror design is 2E anyway. I think we need a prime example from each significant country  - one each to start off with. The Eisenhower building is as good as it gets for the USA. Giano   (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But be emotionally prepared for when the vernacular residential examples from the USA begin to appear because they are an important subset, or whatever, of the style over here.  Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And I guess I'd like to see a source for picking the Burgtheater as being 2E.  Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am about to do so, but if you read section above you will see the ref. Giano   (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No it won't be, but do we need the low-brow examples? Would it not be better to stick to easily identifiable examples, rather then examples by mediocre architects working in a provincial, often vernacular style. There has to come a point when an example is so bad it ceases to be an example. Take that Texas courthouse; true, it had a few 2E motifs, but the architect had lost his sense of scale and perspective. The Chiaroscuro wasn't working at all, and even the building materials were plain wrong. I think we have to be ruthless here or the page isn't going to inform at all - merely confuse. Giano   (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it's needed I've retained a copy of the original list here. Edit as needed! Cheers, Garchy (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

text: * Carptrash. I think having a seperate page for North America is a very good idea. The style clearly takes a very different form over there, although I still think a lot of the buildings labelled as 2E are in fact Neo-Gothic, Neo-French Renaissance and that awful loose, misleading term "chateauesque." Howver, it's not just North American architects who designed some pretty poor examples - I have just found a book referring to this London building as a good example. Giano   (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every now and then we need to remind ourselves that just because we don't like something it does not mean that whatever it is is bad.  However your Lambeth Town Hall would not pass muster as 2E in the US.  Or Canada either, so we agree on somethings. I also looked at the history her and we both have been editing this article for over 10 years so it is important to me that we both feel good about it.  You might want to import  some of the US stuff back, maybe the War Department and the Philly City Hall just so that there is not a large hole Carptrash (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I can usually find something nice to say about most buildings, so if I don't like something, then yes, it is bad......very bad. And that courthouse building is truly bad, and so is Lambeth Town Hall - there are so many good examples, I don't see the point of exhibiting bad ones and confusing people - the point of Wikipedia is to inform rather than to confuse. I don't think we do really disagree about what should be included anyway; however, splitting the page is an excellent move because the style itself seemed to split when it crossed the Atlantic, as our old friend the oddly named Trewin Copplestone said; "in the USA the style stayed closer to its Renaissance roots." But as it undeniably started in Europe where it showed little if any evidence of the French Renaissance roots (which materialised in the USA), I'm not sure I even agree with that statement as the European Renaissance roots (even in France) are clearly Italian Renaissance rather than French. I suspect, if my old fried Wetman were to participate in this conversation, he would tell us to stop trying to label buildings and that in Europe we only have neo-Baroque and in the USA you have Second Empire, which was so named because some long forgotten worthy thought, for residential properties, it sounded rather grander and more concise than "Looks-a-bit-like-a-French-chateau." Giano   (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

text: We are disagreeing, I'm afraid (nicely I hope), but bad examples serve no use whatsoever other than to confuse. I could build a tree house for my children and claim it was Palladian, but that wouldn't mean it should be included in the article here. Since you asked me to correct you: there were Greek Revival houses, but as this photo shows, the style did not happily adapt to domestic architecture, which probably explains why it didn't catch on. Incidentally, that house's best claim to fame is not it's architecture, but a poem by John Betjeman: "And even in the summer, On a bright East-Anglian day; When round your Doric portico; Your children's children play; There's a something in the stillness; And our waiting eyes are drawn; From the butler and the footman; Bringing tea out on the lawn,; From the little silver spirit lamp; That burns so blue and still, To the half-seen mausoleum...." The original builder is better known for his mausoleum than his house! Giano   (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "which probably explains why it (Greek Revival as residential architecture) didn't catch on." Here (again) you are taking the European experience and making it universal, which I am not willing to agree is appropriate.  I am looking at my copy of Talbot Hamlin's (hmmm, shouldn't be a red link?)  Greek Revival Architecture in America: Being an account of important trends in American architecture and American life prior to the war between the States  (1944) and, without counting pages yet, a large chunk of it is about residential architecture.  Think Gone With the Wind. You've come up with one (failed) example of British GR residence, as a student I was involved in the research for a thematic National Register nomination, "Rural Greek Revival architecture in Washtenaw County" (not sure it was ever submitted) and there were dozens of extant example all over 100 years old at the time, just in one largely rural county in Michigan.  It was successful.  As was the use of 2E as a residential form.  These are NOT bad examples of some pure ideal, as they might be considered in Europe, in North American they are the form.  Ugly as they might be to some eyes, they are the style over here. Carptrash (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say Greek Revival didn't catch on the USA, I said it did not really catch on in Europe as a domestic style. However, this article is about 2E not Greek revival, and it is undeniable that in a domestic capacity the style is vastly different in the USA to Europe. Giano   (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul begins 

message: Second Empire architecture page should not just be a redirect to Europe but should rather leave the patron with the choice to going either to Second Empire architecture in Europe or Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada - which perhaps should be Second Empire architecture in North America.  Sooner or later the ANZAC forces will arrive and I suspect that they will go along with NA, but I am happy just waiting on that. Carptrash (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Second Empire architecture should be an overview of the history of the architecture, at a minimum a page stub. If we are creating two pages for the geographical differences there should still be "main" page with an overview, even if brief. Garchy (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have started a very simple page there that, hopefully, we can all agree on.  check it out and expand it - be bold. Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems to me that the 

message: A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia & Lee McAlester, Alfred A. Knopf, 1990 (but with copyright 1984, perhaps for a hardback edition?) introduces Second Empire as one of a group of Renaissance Classical styles "based upon buildings built during the revival of interest in Ancient Classical models which bagan in Italy in the early 15th century and gradually worked its way" to France (mid 16th century) and to England (early 17th century).  "In America.... The French Renaissance tradition inspired the Second Empire (1855-85) and the Beaux Arts (1885-1930) styles as well as some subtypes of the French Eclectic (1915-45) style.  A steeply pitched hipped roof, or dual-pitched mansard roof, is a characteristic feature of many of these French Renaissance-inspired houses." (p 6 & 8)  Page 9 has simple sketches.  
"Victorian Houses: Second Empire", is a chapter from page 240 to 253.  Page 243 has detailed sketches of 5 roof shapes (between "curbs" [called "molded cornices on page 240] at bottom and top).  Very common: Very  straight, straight with flare, concave.  Very unusual: convex, S-curves (two types).  5 typical dormers & window surrounds. 6 typical cornices. Typical elaborations (in a sketch of a full house, from top to bottom: cupola, round window or dormer, cresting along roof line, patterned roof, projecting central pavilion, bracketed window, paired windows (sometimes triple), quoins, belt course, hooded window, one-story porch, one- or two-story bay windows, paired entry doors sometimes with glass in top half.
Pages 241-42:
Identifying Features: Mansard (dual-pitched hipped) roof with dormer windows on steep lower slope; molded cornices normally bound the lower roof slope both above and below; decorative brackets usually present beneath eaves.
Principal Subtypes [sketches for these appear on page 240]:
*Simple Mansard Roof (about 20%) ...
*Centered Wing or Gable (about 20%) ...
*Assymetrical (about 20%)...
*Towered (about 30%)...
*Town House...
Variants and Details: The style is characterized principally by its distinctive roof:  five principal mansard silhouettes occur.  Decorative patterns of color or texture are common in the roofing materials, as is iron cresting above the upper cornice.  If a tower is present, it may have a roof silhouette different from that of the main house; the convex and ogee (S-curve) shapes, in particular, are more common on towers than on houses.  Dormers and dormer windows appear in a great variety of styles. Beneath the distinctive roof line, Second Empire houses have details that are similar to those of the closely related Italianate style.  Many show Italianate brackets at the cornice line; note, however, that Second Empire houses normally have less eave overhang than do Italianate examples.  Window, door, and porch details are similar to those used in the Italianate style (see the drawings of those details in the Italianate chapter).  Unelaborated windows, usually arched above, are also common on Second Empire but are rare in Italianate examples.
Occurrence: Second Empire was a dominant style for American houses constructed between 1860 and 1880, although the first examples were built in the 1850s and late examples were not uncommon in the 1880s.  The style was most popular in the northeastern and midwestern states.  It is less common on the Pacific Coast and relatively rare in the southern states, although scattered examples survive in all regions settled before 1880.
Comments: The contemporaneous Italianate and Gothic Revival styles were part of a Picturesque movement which looked to the romantic past for inspiration. In contrast, the Second Empire style was considered very modern, for it imitated the latest French building fashions.  The distinctive roof was named for the 17th-century French architect Francois Mansart.  Its use was extensively revived in France during the reign of Napoleon III (1852-70), France's Second Empire, from which the style takes its name. Exhibitions in Paris in 1855 [ Exposition Universelle (1855) ] and 1867 [ International Exposition (1867) ] helped to popularize the style in England, from whence it spread to the United States. The boxy roof line was considered particularly functional because it permitted a full upper story of usable attic space. For this reason the style became popular for the remodeling of earlier buildings as well as for new construction. The Second Empire style was used for many public buildings in America during the Grant administration (1869-77) and has been facetiously called the General Grant style. It rapidly passed from fashion following the panic of 1873 and the subsequent economic depression."
Pages 243-53 are photos of specific houses, grouped by the 5 subtypes, with comments.  E.g. in the Towered section, with 8 photos: "5. Auburn, Maine; ca. 1880. Jordan House; Charles A. Jordan, architect-builder. Note the arcaded front porch, also seen in figure 8."
About the McAlester material:  Yes it is about fashion.  I note the U.S. version was contemporaneous with the style in France.  Which tends to make meprefer for there to be one article, unless/until necessary for size reasons;  splitting was premature perhaps.  It may be that splitting out U.S. domestic architecture rather than all U.S. may make sense. --donoram 18:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   This whole section should be moved over to Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada, this article is just about the style in Europe and the McAlesters are strictly American. PS My version is a 1986 paperback, copyright, 1984.  Carptrash (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to agree with you - I don't think there is enough material to warrant THREE separate articles on this topic. What is preventing there from being ONE Second Empire article that covers, in subsections, the differences between North America and Europe? Splitting the pages tends to make things more convoluted than it needs to be for Wikipedia - the information contained in all three pages can easily be moved into one article. Garchy (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  McAlesters about American 2E houses 

message: There was a discussion going here which has been split, with at least one discussion section here being moved to another Talk page.
Although I expressed some sympathy for the idea of differentiating between a high-type style in France vs. a low-type style in American domestic architecture, IF THERE WOULD BE SUPPORT IN SOURCES, I don't happen to agree that splitting "Second Empire architecture" makes sense yet, or at all, and not to "Europe" vs. "United States and Canada".  Indeed, what about 2E in Australia: :Category:Second Empire architecture in Australia.
It may in fact make sense at some point to split out Second Empire in houses, which exists in the U.S. (does it exist in Europe, I am not sure). But the major American governmental buildings (not including one regional bad example in a remote county in a remote U.S. state) so far appear to me to be fine "high" style architecture.  And I believe they were contemporaneous with the use of the style in France and England, and it doesn't make sense to split.
It is also unfortunate to lose the continuity and quorum of discussion.  I gather that Giano would not participate in discussion about U.S. or Australian or elsewhere, for example, while they were commenting about the Texas example when that was here.
Further, it is fun to talk a bit rudely and frankly at a Talk page, but some of what went on was uninformed and simply incorrect speculation, i.e. that American 2E was a corruption/transformation of "French" or "Chateauesque", which is just not so.  As covered in the McAlester quoted material that has been removed from this talk page, it was explicitly Second Empire, following from the 1855 and 1867 Paris exhibitions, in the same time frame as the Second Empire in France.
Should I put merger tags on three articles now?  This is a mess. --donoram 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are serious about trying to reconcile the differences here it is no problem returning your previous comments, which just got moved.  Also, if you look at the history as presented on this talk page you'll note that Giano and I started this discussion ten years ago, in 2006 I believe, so this is nothing new.  It appeared to me that the best i was going to do here was squeeze in some "poor country cousin" stuff, which would be kept totally separate from the "real" 2E style least some contamination occur, and I was not going to settle for that, I'd rather cut the baby in half.  I looked over the Austrailian examples a while ago and decided that most, if not all of them, MIGHT fall into the "high style" category, but was going to allow Giano to make that call. If he wanted them, fine, if not, well they are colonials and as such are welcome with the rest of us.  If you want to broker a deal, okay, don't tag them because who knows what that would drag in, we can, as my wife says, have a relationship because we can talk about it  Carptrash (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Carptrash, I did not say that all American examples were bad or a corruption of the style. I said that one or two of the given USA examples were poor and should not be included. Similarly, several European examples have been removed for not being good examples. The style differs greatly within the USA and hugely from the style in Europe; if the pages are to be reunited, then that needs to be explained. For instance, the Eisenhower Building fits more or less perfectly with the European interpretation of the style, but isn't recognizable as belonging to the same style as most of the towered residential buildings. I for one, would love to know why that is. Giano   (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I was never that thrilled about the separate but equal approach to the subject that, in all fairness to you folks,, I initiated.  If you want to understand how the War Building in Washington and some towered 2E residence in, say, Ypsilanti, Michigan, could possibly be in the same style you will need to accept the definition of the style as used in the US. It was almost painful for me to have you say "such and such in not a good example" when you were, so it appeared to me, not really clear as to what the style consisted of over here.  I am very curious as to who first used the term 2E to describe an architectural style, so if you have any insight into that plea toss it out.  Carptrash (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for tossing down the gauntlet of peace, which I will pick up, though bending over is not as easy as it used to be.  Unfortunately, I have to prepare fro my Wednesday afternoon gig (today we are doing an all Dylan event to honor his Nobel Prize) so will not be able to work on this much today.  However I did a quick look on my A.B.Mullett book and found that he did use cast iron structurally in his Army, Navy Building.  Regarding the Two Towers (sounds more like a hobbit issue than an architectural one), remember this is American, where if one two is good, two is even better.  In the words of Douglas McArthur, "I shall return."  Thanks again don cram for your good work. Carptrash (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you for that.  LOL re: "Gauntlet of peace"!?!?!. :) Hmm, I wish I were in SoCal now where my favorite local group did an all-Dylan concert/jam every year for 15-20 years I think.  They must be having a big celebration. --doncram 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everyone - Just wanted to check in to see if we have a plan for restructure. I haven't had a chance to work on this in the last few weeks (hence why it's been silent on my end) so I figured I would reignite the discussion :) Garchy (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of splits and re-merging