Talk:Architectural history

message: I don't know why this is on here... it doens't seem to be to be realted to architecture at all... --Ducio1234 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Herodotus and Greek theory

message: I agree that this page is important and needs to be rewritten. For example, to state that architectural history in the nineteenth century was formalistic is false. In Victorian Britain, Pugin, Ruskin, Street and others wrote about architectural history as profoundly connected to societal change. And the architect as a heroic genius (a trope worthy of undermining, certainly) dates from the Renaissance, not the 19th century. 
This page used to be a redirect to architectural style, but I turned it into an autonomous stub. The reason why: many historical evolutions in architecture can't be fit into 'styles', most importantly in the 20th Century; and it would be good to have a set of pages that 'tell the story of architecture' in full text (as is the case with art history). It's a lot of work, but should be rewarding... Spinster 16:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page needs to be rewritten

message: I'm not so sure that the critical regionalism movement should be under "modernism and beyond," but I'm sure that it doesn't belong under post-modernism. it's a response to local conditions, with a nod to modern technology, but it isn't a reaction to modernism at all. infact some critical regionalist designs can be quite modern. --naught101 00:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Regionalism Vs post modernism. 

message: This article needs to be rewritten without this focus on 'critical theory'. Too much is given over to theory. While architectural history naturally has to contend with the theortical problems surrounding the writing and interpretation of history, the article in its current form gives far too much weight to what may be considered a marginal theoretical problem. The contributions of architectural historians, people like Summerson, Watkin, Pevsner, etc. need to be given much more attention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.6.51 (talk • contribs) .
 We should at least remember that Pevsner is beyond out of date when we think about this problem...Fixifex 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole article is slanted 

message: the main history of archetecture should not be emphasised in the greece,rome and western europe.It is just one style of architecture,not the whole!
:I think if you read the article again you will see that eastern architecture is represented under headings for chinese indian islamic etc. greco roman architecture is relevent to western architecture and so are represented as subheadings of western architecture - i've removed the npov tag.--Mcginnly | Natter 09:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean there are a sub-entry Regional architecture which classify all the so-called regional history in contrast to Western architecture.How can Western architecture stand for the main history of architect and others only represent the Regional history？Ksyrie 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! thanks for the clarification - that makes more sense now. Yeah the Regional architecture section at the end of the article is a bit of a peculiarity. I'll have a think about how the article could be better structured, but clearly writing the architectural history of every country in the world on one page is not going to be practical and regional trends might be a better approach.--Mcginnly | Natter 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should rename the article History of western architecture and cover other cultures only when they have an effect on western architecture. -- Petri Krohn 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer the encyclopedia to have an overview of global architectural history; Curtis, Fletcher, Cropplestone have all managed it - I think it's a worthy aspiration, but needs some thought as to how it might be best handled. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: totally biased,you have keep the Ancient Egyptian architecture as Western ones while claims that the term of architecture were only mentioned by greek and romain?you exclude other styles of architectures just because they had (maybe they had the term architecture)no architecture as a term,so why not exclude the Ancient Egyptian architecture from architecture?--Ksyrie 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not only greece or rome had a history of architecture

message: Just a question: If Sassanian, Byzantine, Sumerian and Egyptian architecture are to be counted as "Western", why is not the Islamic architecture – which is mainly the outcome of the former?
:That's a question I want to raise also--Ksyrie 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamic" or "Western"? 

message: Rather than splitting this article into sections which are just précis of the main articles, couldn't it treat with the whole history of architecture; its more or less linear development, if there is such a thing; and if not, its themes, with stated comparisons rather than insulated blocks of text? Njál 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: This section contains a lot of generalities. For example the sentence "Cities would mark a contained sacred space over the wilderness of nature outside," is a notion of the city that derive from the Romans. The Mesopotamians, who were much earlier, had different views on their cities. and so forth. The ancient Chinese did not have cities until very late in the game.
Brosi 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Architecture-warning 

message: This article does not contain one word about the Manueline style of architecture, prevalent in Portugal in the early 16th century, leading to some of the most important buildings in Portugal, such as the Jerónimos Monastery in Belém, near Lisbon. JoJan 15:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manueline style 

message: Since this article is not up to wikipedia standards. I have added the  tag.--Sefringle 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: expert

message: "The establishment of architectural history as a discipline in the West is reflected in the greater historical clarity of western architectural development, whilst the understanding of non-western architecture often proceeds with less historical context." 
So what does it mean? Please explain how ""The establishment of architectural history as a discipline in the West" can possibly be "reflected in the greater historical clarity of western architectural development". 
wtf is "historical clarity of ... development"? Is it supposed to mean a "clearer understanding of" or "more in-depth knowledge of" or what? 
There are a number of equally confusing/confused sentences in this article which tell the reader almost nothing because their writer needed to double-check to see if they actually said what was intended. It's meant to mean something. So please fix!
--Amandajm 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpreter, please

message: Historiography is not my subject. Can someone please write this in sentences that are grammatically correct and can be interpreted by, say, your average undergraduate. If that's not possible it needs scrapping.  
"In the 19th century, architecture was understood as formal perspective, Does the writer mean perspective or discipline? Or does the writer mean "from" a formal perspective? emphasizing the morphological Why use include "morphological" when it is not part of most people's vocabulary, doesn't link and doesn't add anything? when  characteristics of form, technique and materials. This period also saw the emergence of the individual architect,No it didn't. That had already happened the amalgamation of whose conscious intentions "Whose" conscious intentions? We jump from talking about the architect (singular) to an "amalgamation of intentions". The writer of this needs to figure out a way to move from the singular to the plural! would become the subject of artistic movements. In these respects, In which blinking respects? This doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph. Did someone jam something in the middle? architectural history is a sub-discipline of art history that focuses on the historical evolution of principles and styles in the design of buildings and cities." 
Someone with an interest in this page needs to sort out all these issues. 
--Amandajm 05:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix this please somebody

message: Prehaps somebody can explain why the content was moved here? It really doesn't make sense to have both articles, as they more or less discuss the same topics.--SefringleTalk 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention is this page deals with the academic discipline of Architectural history whereas the History of architecture is an attempt at just that. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as we have with Art history and History of Art. Johnbod 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movement of page to [[History of Architecture]]

message: I notice that the entry for "Architectural History" now directs a reader to the "History of Architecture" entry and are no longer separate entries.  The two need to be treated differently.  The old entry for the former rightly placed emphasis on the study of the history of architecture as a discipline, tracing its roots back to antiquity.  The "Architectural History" entry should be resuscitated.
Archhist (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable, considering that the above posts reinforce they should be separate articles.--Ducio1234 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural History is different from the History of Architecture