Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Categories

message: * Is there a reason we aren't categorizing buildings and structures by year (year completed, I would think)? This would seem to be a natural fit for :Category:Works by year which already includes books, films, paintings, plays and songs. --Dystopos 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buildings and structures by year?

message: i have a question- in what ways do you as architects use critical reading writing and thinking on the job?? is it important? i'm doing a project and was wondering?? thanks!! 66.32.59.54 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reading and writing

message: This isn't directly related to the Architecture category, but this seems like a good place to bring it up:
:Category:Human habitats overlaps a lot with :Category:Living arrangements, but they occupy completely different places in the category structure. I'm inclined to think :Category:Living arrangements should be merged into :Category:Human habitats. --Singkong2005 talk 05:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human habitats & Living arrangements categories 

message: :discussion moved from Category talk:Architectural glossary#Why does this category exist? jnestorius(talk) 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmm, I'm afraid I still don't really understand.  Could you give specific examples of articles or subcategories currently in :Category:Architectural glossary that would not belong in :Category:Architecture?  I'm not sure why you mention stubs: :Category:Architecture stubs exists separately.  If there are to-do lists etc relating to helping the editors in the Wikiproject to allocate and prioritise work efficiently on improving articles, that should be done in the Wikiproject: pages rather than in the Category: pages. jnestorius(talk) 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Joe, I'm neither defending or supporting the glossary category here but if we were to follow you logic above then anything in any subcategory of architecture should also be in architecture if you see what I mean eg :Category:Walter Gropius buildings - they're all buildings so they all belong in :Category:Architecture. It would make the root directory of the category structure far to unwieldy to have them all there. I think it's use might be a navigational tool for a casual reader - much like the Architectural glossary article that dogears mentions, except it has the advantage of being dynamically updated. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural glossary 

message: Someone has changed the definition of skyscraper:  He changed the lower height limit from 500 ft (152m) to 100m without references, only giving his point of view. I think that we must revert his editions. 
Sorry if my comment is difficult to read, but I think that is important if someone changes a value without reasons.--212.183.251.207 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of skyscraper modified without reasons 

message: This interesting case touching the spheres of architecture, politics, mass psychology  and ethics has not yet been taken account of sufficiently. I have tried to set a starting point - see Reconstruction (architecture). A fully developed category could easily list about 100 relevant items. Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 86.32.215.9 (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category Needed: Reconstructed Building or Replica Building 

message: I thought there used to be (or is) a category for the year a building was destroyed, as separate from the :Category:Disestablishments by year. Is there one? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction year? 

message: this list - List of Belgian architects.  About half of the names on the list are red links.  I am inclined to remove them. In fact am going to start removing them now but will not delete all of them pending further discussion.  I am also wondering if all the nationality lists are like this?  Guess I will find out.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just discovered 

message: I'm coming across the problem where landscape architects are considered (by other editors) to be architects, based on the fact the categories :Category:Landscape architects (and :Category:Landscape architecture) are sub-categories of :Category:Architects (and :Category:Architecture).
As far as I'm aware, landscape architects (previosuly known as landscape designers) have a different education route and are not qualified to to the work of an architect. Equally architects would find it a struggle to competently design a landscape!!
Isn't it clearer and more appropriate to categorize landscape architects under all the other design/horticulture/landscape categories but remove from :Category:Architects (and :Category:Architecture)? Sionk (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landscape architects 

message: (This is distinct from research in architectural history.) There are some existing pages covering academic research in architecture. There are already pages for some research and education organizations, such as ACADIA, eCAADe. Pages in this category should cover scientific and academic publishing in architecture (e.g., peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed conference proceedings), organizations that support such publishing, and university labs that conduct scientific and academic research in architecture (perhaps also doctoral schools granting research PhDs in architecture). Types of research covered might include design research, practice-led/practice-based research (see practice research), and interdisciplinary scientific research.HeinrichCeag (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Architectural research" seems a very vague category. Are there any Wikipedia articles on 'architectural research'? Do you mean "Architectural research organisations"? Sionk (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new category: Architectural research