Template talk:History of architecture

Exclude Sumerian?

Maybe Sumerian architecture should go? I don't know how much they influenced their successors. Burschik 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Russian architecture

Let's decide whether Russian architecture is unique enough. Here are examples of Russian architecture from 1000s to 1700s: (snipped links to a blatantly ureliable, and rather vile, source) 65.92.53.23 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the article Russian architecture covers all architectural styles of Russia, it also covers Russian architecture as a distinctive style. Perhaps a separate article dedicated to this style should be created and partially merged with Russian Revival? 65.92.53.23 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How should Russian architecture be added to this template? The article discusses mostly Medieval, Baroque, and some neoclassical church architecture (there was no strict Renaissance there).

Also, please comment on the dispute at talk:Russian architecture. Some editors contend that examples of architecture of medieval Kievan Rus which lie in the territory of modern Ukraine may not be mentioned in an article entitled "Russian architecture". Other editors contend that the article is neutral as written. Please help resolve this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 21:30 Z

Michael, I attempted to insert Russian literature in the template when it was just created, but was reverted. See User_talk:Ghirlandajo#History of western architecture.

I strongly advise adding Russian architecture to the template, because in the period between ca. 1300 and ca. 1700 it was completely different from other architectural traditions of the West and East, unlike other national traditions of Europe. For instance, Polish architecture passed through the stages of gothic, renaissance, baroque, etc. As a consquence, there is no need to list it in the template as a separate article. Russian architecture, on the other hand, was isolated and pursued its own path. Therefore its omission from the template makes a void which other entries cannot cover or compensate. --Ghirlandajo 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see both your point and Burschik's. If the article grows, much of its subject will overlap with Byzantine, Baroque, Neoclassical and Modern architecture, however its material won't be covered in those articles. Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. architecture, as they are traditionally considered, each cover only a particular period, whereas the article "Russian architecture" is geographic in scope and covers AD 988 to the present.

If you scan through "Architectural history", you'll see that there are lots of articles in the subject that don't show up in this template. Perhaps the thing to do is to is to ensure that this article is well-linked-to in all the relevant articles, in mentions in the text where appropriate, and in the "see also" sections. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 16:37 Z

Can we start a new geographic template? A series that lists architecture by country, and or geography? There are enough of these articles that they might be better organized for their users in a template box. Here are some title suggestions:

• This article is part of the series on world architecture.
• This article is part of the architecture of different countries series.
• This article is part of the architecture by people, places, and countries series.

Any thoughts or potential participants? This other template would list and include articles such as Russian architecture, Sicilian baroque, Sassanid architecture, Dzong architecture and others based on countries, cultures or specific places that often get mistakenly added and subtracted to the western architecture list. DVD+ R/W 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your proposal is somewhat contradictory. I would prefer Russian architecture to be put in line with Architecture of the United Kingdom (as done in {Europe in topic|Architecture of}, check this template) rather than with Dzong architecture. Sicilian Baroque belongs to another level, it should be aligned together with Polish Baroque, Ukrainian Baroque, Naryshkin Baroque, Petrine Baroque, and other varieties of Baroque architecture. This is kinda complicated. --Ghirla | talk 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and articles by the way. DVD+ R/W 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Modernism or contemporary series

As the history of western architecture is a very long series, should we divide this template to form maybe another? Anyone want to help with another template, to list 20th century movements in architecture? Some title proposals are 20th century architecture, modern architecture, and contemporary architecture. It would list, modern architecture, postmodern architecture, deconstructivist architecture, critical regionalism, sustainable architecture, futurist architecture, and others. DVD+ R/W 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry, didn't sign earlier)

Oh my god!! You deleted Critical Regionalism!! You ... :)

Why was Critical Regionalism cathegorised under modern series while post-modernism is still listed under historical series. Critical regionalism is an extension of Post-modernism. Infact twice removed from Modernism. --Dado 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regionalism or critical regionalism now has its own template, {{Regional-arch}}. DVD+ R/W 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is valid. But it still does not fit under Modern architecture (I guess I need to pose that issue on that discussion page as well). If the Critical Regionalism got its own templete i.e. it is considered separate style than it certainly deserves to be listed here as well. Don't you think? --Dado 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd contend that critical regionalism does belong in the modern architecture template. It's not a modernism template but is really "a contemporary architecture of the 20-21st century template", critical regionalism, as a modern school of thought belongs there. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reform proposals

The vertically aligned navigation box has some drawbacks - it can play havoc with page layouts - the more links that are added to it the more unwieldy it becomes. Typical solutions are to introduce horizontal navigation boxes that span the page horizontally - these can then be fairly descretely added to the bottom of article pages in the See also sections. I propose such a change to this template. Secondly, I propose that the scope of the template is broadened to Architectural history - rather than just western arch history - there's quite a lot of articles now such as Mesoamerican architecture, Incan architecture or Newari architecture that warrant inclusion. We should maintain the list in the chronological order it is in now. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it's format looks something like this:- --Mcginnly | Natter 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Architetcure Template

I actually like it very much, it looks much better than the former version. This new version incorporates modern elements and serenity in colours. However, my only criticism is that there is no image, but that is just me being fussy!!

Abdullah Geelah 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps like this:-

Part of the History of Architecture Series

Moved from main page

The old template:-

This article is part of the  History of western architecture series

Neolithic architecture

Ancient Egyptian architecture

Sumerian architecture

Classical architecture

Ancient Greek architecture

Ancient Roman architecture

Byzantine architecture

Medieval architecture

Romanesque architecture

Gothic architecture

Renaissance architecture

Baroque architecture

Neoclassical architecture

Neo-Renaissance architecture

Gothic Revival architecture

Modern architecture

Postmodern architecture

Related articles

Edit this box

ro:Format:Istoria_arhitecturii

--Mcginnly | Natter 10:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Harappan?

Should Harappan Architecture go on the template? --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It would look like this:

--θnce θn this island ^Speak! 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions to organize the template?

I think I'm not the only one to find this navbox a little hard to navigate. As a list it's technically not that bad, and the attempted chronological order isn't perfect but it's somewhat intuitive; but displayed as a box it's hard to find what you're looking for and some of the links have the same names but lead to different articles (e.g. for the Revival styles vs the original styles). Could we maybe introduce some splits or subsections within the navbox? Even just something like pre-modern vs modern architectural styles (not necessarily in those terms) would already help, or something else simple and sufficiently universal. R Prazeres (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be reorganized somehow. A lot of the styles do not exactly fit the time periods, and the original vs Revival style is not really clear unless one is familiar with the eras when each existed already. The regional styles of Europe already have one singular navbox (by country + some general styles): Template:Architecture of Europe. Maybe all regional styles should be organized in similar navboxes per continent (as including all of them in here would take up half the template). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)