Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

• Portal:Arts

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Architecture will have interest in putting on events related to women's participation in architecture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Great opportunity to improve articles like Eileen Gray, Marion Mahony Griffin, Charlotte Perriand, Denise Scott Brown, Elissa Aalto, Maya Lin, Zaha Hadid and many more. A collaboration of the month for getting one such article to GA status would be great. --ELEKHH^T 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also Julia Morgan and Mary Colter; both articles are a poor reflection of the rich writings available in libraries. This makes them both great opportunities for expansion! Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I created the article in December about the first known female architect Elizabeth Wilbraham, if anyone has any suggestions to improve it. I'll put it forward as a 'Did you know...' (something I've neglected to do so far). Sionk (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see DYK articles have to be nominated within 5 days of creation or amendment. I'll leave it to somebody else. Sionk (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice article start though! As a small compensation for missing out on that I suggest running it in March in the selected article section of the Portal which really needs to be revived. Would be great to have the picture of her and some of the drawings uploaded to Commons, as are PD by now. --ELEKHH^T 12:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Image added to Elizabeth Wilbraham and article expanded. I've not much idea how to nominate it for the 'Featured Article' so I'll leave that to someone else. Sionk (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That selected article process is dormant, so will consider this discussion here as the nomination itself, and unless others disagree will place it on the portal for March. The image actually can be uploaded as a public domain work in full resolution to Commons. The Museums's usual claim is not recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation, as "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". See Commons:Template:PD-Art. --ELEKHH^T 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should also consider country by country coverage. Women architects have been quite active in Denmark, for example, but few are covered to any extent in either the English or the Danish Wikipedias. Candidates for (mainly) new or improved articles include Karen Clemmensen, Ragna Grubb, Hanne Kjærholm, Eva Koppel, Dorte Mandrup-Poulsen, Lene Tranberg and Susanne Ussing. Come March, maybe I'll get around to it myself. - Ipigott (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised there isn't an article about Women in Architecture (similar to the Women in Art, or a List of female architects. The latter would certainly be easier to start. I've found the List of British architects, for example, useful for identifying which important people are still missing a WP article. Sionk (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Some starting points for Women in architecture might be Women in Architecture, which has reasonable international coverage, as well as Women in architecture timeline for the USA. I would be happy to collaborate on an article along these lines. But I don't think we can expect such historic coverage as we have for Women artists. - Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I see Sionk started working on a List of female architects. I think the list should be organized chronologically as List of architects rather than by countries. --ELEKHH^T 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm so elated to see this conversation taking place! A great collection of articles and ideas, for sure! Once a few ideas are solidified, please post it on the WikiWomen's History Month event section! :) Perhaps it'll inspire some others to participate in the architecture project, and maybe some off the off-wiki events, as well. Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month#Upcoming_online_events Anything I can do to help and spread the word, let me know. Thanks all for your passion and ideas! SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Posted Lady Elizabeth Wilbraham on the Portal, per above. --ELEKHH^T 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Building sizes

In an article I typed "465,000-square-foot (43,200 m2) 60 story existing structure" but realized that it wasn't likely that the building would be "sixty" stories. Do you think the writer meant six stories? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Based on this, I think the writer meant six. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Adding 57 stories to a 3-storey building would be a definite recipe for disaster :) Well done, it looks like you are busy writing some impressive articles! Sionk (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks :) - They added a 3 story building to an existing 6 story building (but not on top) - But in this case the writing did have quite an interesting error. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion ~ Architect Infobox

Template:Infobox architect is being considered for deletion. This seems to be part of a campaign by an editor who thinks everyone should use the generic infobox. I've added my comments to the deletion discussion. It seems useful to me to have a specific infobox for architects, using appropriate terminology. Any other views? Sionk (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is part of an initiative to reduce the number of infoboxes which are demonstrably redundant to others. Architecture project members are invited to review the articles, linked from the above discussion, which have already been converted to use {{Infobox person}}, and say whether, and if so in what way, they have become inferior. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest both of you rephrase to something neutral. --ELEKHH^T 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that if the proposer and an opposer have expressed their views, we have cancelled one another out :) As you have pointed out in the deletion discussion, WP Architecture members are quite capable of forming and articulating their own views. Sionk (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Help please

I thought I might have a go at a second Norfolk architecture FA, so I've been working intermittently on Blakeney Chapel. In terms of content, most of what is still to come is the medieval part of the findings of the 2004/5 dig, then it's just(!) in-fill research, write lead, copyedit etc.

Thing is, I'm having doubts about the current structure. Would I do better to replace the current "Architecture" with a "Surveys" section listing the three investigations, and a "Findings" section giving all the results, perhaps broken down by historical period (early, C11, C14, C16)? Any suggestions for structure, section names or anything else would be most welcome. Although I've written a few FAs, I'm a bit of a noob on the pick-and-shovel stuff, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for buildings

I've recently been quality-reviewing architecture articles but am becoming increasingly frustrated by the large number of articles on (what I would describe as) non-notable buildings - this particularly applies to newly proposed tall buildings in, for example, cities like Dubai where tall buildings are endemic. Generally, in my view, most tall buildings are non-notable pieces of real estate, unless they particularly stand out as a local landmark, or have architectural merit.
I'm wondering whether it is time to revive the idea of a notability guideline for buildings. Has anyone been involved in previous discussions on this subject? Sionk (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested a couple of times in DR discussions that such a guideline would be very useful. Currently the tendency is inclusionist, to keep articles on buildings based on trivial dimension or ranking attributes (i.e. Xth tallest building in the town, second luxury apartment in Y), based on any distinction (local or company award, local heritage, etc) or if mentioned a few times in the press (regardless of context, and much more likely in countries with broad online content). Online source availability is very different of course between countries, so the result is that almost any non-private dwelling is "notable" for some countries, while considered not notable in others. The tall buildings bias comes from popular media and readership, well reflected in the list of popular pages, where #2, #4, #8, #12, #13 are skyscrapers. I would welcome a guideline which would provide some guidance for new article creation, DR discussions and establish more consistent notability thresholds globally. A related problem is that most articles about buildings are being tagged with the WikiProject Architecture banner, even if the building is not notable as architecture (but local history, engineering, etc). In that regard would be also interesting to have a discussion about this WikiProject's scope (which now includes "architecture, buildings, construction"), so that there is less duplication with sister wikiprojects such as WikiProject Skyscrapers or WikiProject Civil engineering. --ELEKHH^T 02:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems here seems to be a matter of the preferences of individual editors. I have noticed that some editors who create articles on listed buildings such as churches invariably add the WikiProject Architecture tag to the talk page whereas others don't. Often, of course, the articles have a well developed section on architecture too, making it difficult to avoid their inclusion. In the United States, editors often seem quite happy to limit their tagging to the city or state where the building is located. Any ideas on this? - Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of notability, the popular skyscraper articles (highlighted above) are all 'notable'. On the other hand, many dozen aren't, they seem to arise from certain editors' pet projects to list every tall building in a locality. The same liberal attitude to notability isn't afforded to shopping malls, or schools, which are often deleted at AfD.

On the subject of Project guidelines, it's true that some people see a Project tag as legitimisation of the article. Churches generally are accepted as 'notable' and, more often than not, have an architectural interest, so are less of a 'problem'. On the other hand there are dozens of embassy stubs with the WP Architecture tag whose building is not of any particular note (the subject is 'notable' for its embassy-ness). Maybe a project guideline tightening the scope of WP Architecture, like Elekhh suggests, would be something we can develop more quickly (unlike the notability guideline, which will have greater controversy and ramifications). Sionk (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture scope

So should we change "architecture, buildings and construction" in the project scope to simply state "architecture", thus excluding buildings not notable in architecture history? The WikiProject Council states that too large scope and too much overlap between WikiProjects might be a problem. We are a relatively large WikiProject with 22K articles (top 100 of ca. 2,000 WikiProjects), although there are much larger ones like WikiProject Biography with 931K and WikiProject US with 290K. PS. Good to see that we are also in the top 100 of most active WikiProjects. --ELEKHH^T 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the change would have any real effect. Indeed, the overall scope seems OK to me. I think it would be a mistake to exclude buildings that are not notable from a historical point of view. There appears to be real interest in the latest developments in the field. In any case, all Wikipedia articles are supposed to comply with the need for notability. Are any data available on the number of articles by WikiProject? If so, I would guess Architecture would be pretty high on the list. - Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Having had a second look at the Scope, I tend to agree with Ipigott, it sets reasonable boundaries for this project. However, I would only ask myself where does 'architecture' become 'engineering'? There is a separate 'sister' project, WikiProject Engineering, for engineering articles. They list WikiProject Civil engineering as their daughter project, so I think we should not list is as a daughter of WikiProject Architecture (and also delete the {{engineering-stub}} from our page to save any confusion). Sionk (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with "history" I meant until present day, under a long term perspective, but I see it was confusing so I removed that part. Removed the engineering stub link as irrelevant and confusing per above. Not so sure about removing Civil engineering as is related (as a "daughter" project of a "sister" project, is actually our "nice" project :). My concerns is that not any building should be tagged as within the scope of this WikiProject. While theoretically any building is a legitimate subject of architectural analysis, not all buildings (or structures) are notable as architecture. I removed maybe o hundred tags from dams, and as Sionk pointed out above there are many buildings notable for political or historic reason, not architectural reason. So how to get that more clear into the scope of the WikiProject? --ELEKHH^T 00:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a couple of (hopefully) non-controversial tweaks to emphasise the scope of the project. I've re-ordered point (2) of the Scope section, which will hopefully give more emphasis that we are concerned with articles that have architecture as their subject matter. The Template explanation about the {{Architecture}} template was already very clear, that is should be "for articles about architects and important topics in architecture, notable buildings and structures". I've simply re-ordered the sentences to make abundantly clear the direct connection between the template and when it should be used. As Elekhh says, it already said enough to justify any of us removing the template where an article did not directly discuss the 'architecture'. Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Khajuraho Group of Monuments

Hi,

Articles related to Khajuraho Group of Monuments (one of the world heritage site) can be considered for this portal. Media related to the monuments is also available at wikicommons. Arhitecture of these monuments have common features.

The related articles are

• Khajuraho Group of Monuments {{Main|Khajuraho Group of Monuments}
• Southern Group of Temples
  • Chaturbhuj Temple
    Main article: Chaturbhuj Temple, Khajuraho India
  • DulaDeo Temple
    Main article: Duladeo Temple, Khajuraho India
• Eastern Group of Temples
  • Vamana Temple
    Main article: Vamana Temple, Khajuraho India
  • Javari Temple
    Main article: Javari Temple, Khajuraho India
  • Jain Group of Temples
• Western Group of Temples
  • Lakshmi Temple
    Main article: Lakshmi Temple, Khajuraho India
  • Varaha Temple
    Main article: Varaha Temple, Khajuraho India
  • Lakshmana Temple
    Main article: Lakshmana Temple, Khajuraho India
  • Kandariya Mahadev Temple
    Main article: Kandariya Mahadeva
  • Mahedeva Temple
  • Devi Jagdambi Temple
    Main article: Devi Jagadambi Temple
  • Chitragupta Temple
  • Vishwanath Temple
  • Nandi Temple
    Main article: Nandi Temple, Khajuraho India
  • Parvati Temple
    Main article: Parvati Temple, Khajuraho India

Rajenver (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The ceiling of the 400 year old Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque in Isfahan, Iran

Featured picture candidate

This picture has been nominated as a featured picture, please voice your opinion if this picture meets Featured picture criteria for the category "Featured pictures/Places/Interiors". Discuss on the page at here. All editors are welcome to vote. Penyulap ☏ 04:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dilemma

For clarity purposes observatories are sometimestimes part of a building i.e. Sherzer Observatory, should the infobox be listed as a building or observatory or both? if both is there a way to list that both? has there been a consensus on this? Pwojdacz (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Using two infoboxes would defy the purpose of an infobox, that of providing a succinct summary of the article, so I suggest using one, which is more relevant to the notability of the subject. --ELEKHH^T 21:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think a good example this would be {{{Template:Infobox_NRHP}}} this infobox has different levels so that includes multiple infoboxes for example: {{{Template:Infobox Lighthouse}}} and {{{Template:Infobox_NRHP}}} I just want to make sure that there was/wasn't an accommodation for this. Pwojdacz (talk)

Women in Architecture

A long awaited Women in architecture article has recently been created. There is some differences of opinion, on the Talk page, about the scope/format and therefore a wider range of opinions/suggestions would be useful. If you have a knowledge or passion for the topic, please contribute. It will be great if this new article can become a valuable and authoritative resource! Sionk (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a disagreement. I'm sure we are both striving to achieve the same goals. Indeed, the points you have raised coincide exactly with the areas I would like to see included. I also back you up on the need for wider participation. Let's hope the topic is of wider interest. A one-man show is hardly Wikipedian! - Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is great to finally have an article about this important and much discussed topic, and is the most comprehensive summary I have read so far. As the article evolves naturally some of the WP:DETAIL might be transferred into other articles. That could include the List of female architects, if the scope of that list is expanded. Unfortunately I am not very knowledgeable on the topic so I will not be able to help very much. Just wanted to say that don't be be discouraged by the lack of contributors: usually one gets about 1 edit per 1,000-2,000 readers... Happy to place it on the Portal as selected article, if everybody agrees. Is great to see so much work being done recently on architecture articles, and I'm sure we'll manage to increase readership accordingly. Two days ago the Victor Gruen article has been very briefly shown on Arte. 24:50. Hope is a sign of Wikipedia being taken increasingly seriously. --ELEKHH^T 11:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as ever for your constructive and encouraging comments, Elekhh. I was in fact wondering myself whether it might not be useful to have an article on Women in American architecture as there is indeed an abundance of material to draw on. But for now I would like to see this one sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. You might therefore like to have a look at the article's talk page and comment on the issues raised there. Maybe one of the ways to create interest wider interest (perhaps even contributors) would be to submit the article for DYK -- "...that Finland was the first country to grant qualifications for women in architecture?" - Ipigott (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Ipigott for putting the article together. Of course it can be expanded. I don't see a problem with scope; it can absorb quite a bit. The topic is broad. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I thought about that, but missed the five days deadline unfortunately. --ELEKHH^T 20:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As discussed, placed the article on the Portal:Architecture. As there wasn't any really good generic illustration in the article I used an image of Hillevi Svedberg which has articles on the German and Swedish Wikipedias. --ELEKHH^T 03:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to back issues of "The Builder"?

I'm after some pages from 1948, volume 175, as there appear to be some pages at 265/66 and 290 (at least) that cover my current pet topic of churches in Anglesey. I've put in a request at this point on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page but no joy as yet. Can anyone from this project help, or suggest where I might also try? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

They have copies from 1947-1966 at my local university library. Unfortunately, it looks like they might be held at their off-site store and I know one will need to be a library member to retrieve them (my membership has lapsed). However, I'll have a look on the shelves when I next visit (will be next week at the earliest). Sionk (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and fingers crossed! Bencherlite^Talk 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've had no chance to visit the library, life gets in the way. Maybe next week... Sionk (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush. Writing articles about all the listed churches on Anglesey is a (very) long-term project, and I'm just under halfway through at the moment, with life increasingly interrupting my Wikipedia time! Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Official website linked in infobox?

Please discuss at Template talk:Infobox architectural practice#URL?. --ELEKHH^T 00:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Orbit Tower

The article ArcelorMittal Orbit is being considered for the In The News section of the Main Page, and has far more support than opposition. However, the article has major problems, and it would be great if someone from the project could come fix it up. Any takers? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start, but the remainder will have to wait until I (or someone else) has spare time. I look forward to seeing the article finally complete in all its glory! Sionk (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New article: St Mary's Kirk, Auchindoir

I've started an article on St Mary's Kirk, Auchindoir. Probably a great candidate for WP:DYK if we can get a solid references section going (quite easy) and de-stub it. The hook ought probably to be something to do with surviving the Reformation largely intact. Help, as always, much appreciated. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. But I'm afraid I can't help with the DYK. The procedures are far too difficult for me to follow and there is also a requirement that an assessment of another DYK has to be undertaken. Any offers? - Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice kirk, happy to nominate. Any suggestions for a blurb, maybe with the doorway, so we can include the image? --ELEKHH^T 08:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. There are a number of Norman doors around but the sacrament house (for which there is also a picture) is one of only a very few. So how about "...that the ruin of St Mary's Kirk, Auchindoir, in northeastern Scotland has a highly decorated, stone sacrament house set inside a former window?" Mais oui! has promised to reference the section on "Unusual survivor". - Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominated here. Feel free to make any amendments. Current DYK backlog is about 10 days. --ELEKHH^T 01:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Elekhh! --Mais oui! (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming of articles

Hi. I think it's inconsistent to name bridges as "Bridge (Place)" and churches as "Church, Place". Compare for example Veterans' Memorial Bridge (parentheses) and St. Peter's Church (comma, the latter recommended for churches at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture)). What's your opinion? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm easy either way. If we're going to do it one way or the other, let's get moving on fixing it. Does anyone have a bot we can use for this purpose? - Denimadept (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The guideline states that "any specific national convention takes precedence". Maybe that is the reason why US articles tend to have parentheses, and others not. Sometimes inconsistency is unavoidable, as a change towards consistency from one point of view might result in new inconsistencies from a different point of view. --ELEKHH^T 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly prefer parentheses, as in most of the examples cited for geographic names. According to the disambiguation guidelines, commas are acceptable before higher-level administrative divisions, but apparently not much else. --Martindelaware (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Per WP:NCGN, a comma should be used only in cases of settlements and administrative divisions: "With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions, the tag is normally preceded by a comma" (emphasis mine). I haven't found anything to support its usage in other cases. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should forget practical considerations here. Use of a comma often facilitates using the title of an article as a wikilink without having to add the precise wording required for the context. Compare "Unusually, [St. Peter's Church, Vienna], has an apse in the south rather than in the east," with "Unusually, [St. Peter's Church (Vienna)|St. Peter's Church] in Vienna has an apse..." Wikipedia has very many more articles on churches than on bridges so if the goal is standardisation, then the titles of bridge articles should be adapted to the style for churches. In the past, I've seen enterprises of this kind move first in one direction and then in another. I would therefore argue in favour of keeping the status quo. - Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A single style for bridges as well as other works of architecture would be preferred to make the wiki more consistent, to make a better impression on the reader and simplify creation of direct links to articles. We also have to consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Article titles: "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards". Even if bridges are disambiguated by place, instead of author, judging from this, brackets are preferred for works of art, which means for the majority of bridges. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are remarkably optimistic to think that most bridges are works of art. I am sure many would disagree. In any case I agree that the status quo should stay as long there is no strong argument for change and no consensus. Moving around pages like here do not "make a better impression on the reader". --ELEKHH^T 11:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. The difference becomes evident (and ugly) when a category contains both a bridge and a church with almost the same name, like St. James' Bridge (Ljubljana) and St. James' Church, Ljubljana. See Category:Center District. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure there is a problem, and I would not support large-scale moving of articles merely to conform to perceived convention. WP:NCGN and WP:NCDAB don't give any guidance on naming specific buildings. I actually prefer commas, as it makes more sense when writing about a building, in that you write the "address" of the building: e.g. St. Peter's Church, Vienna, Austria. A building name is rather like a place name in this respect. Looking at dab pages like St. John's Church or St. Mary's Church there is a clear division between parentheses (US articles) and commas (most other places). There may be a need for local-level standardisation, but I dont see that this needs to happen across the board. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion - local-level standardisation is completely ok for me. Your comment about the European/other places and the US-style also makes sense. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Theatres by capacity

Hi, folks! I'm surprised that we have lists for covered stadiums and indoor arenas by capacity, but none for theatres. Actually, the only international list I've found is List of national theatres, and I had to add it to the main article because there wasn't any in "See also". Can anyone start List of theatres by capacity? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New article: List of first mosques by country

I recently ran across mention of the "first mosque built" for a given location, so thought it would be interesting to have a list of when/where the first mosque was built for various countries: List of first mosques by country. It's been relatively easy to find citations thus far (although in some cases I have trouble finding an extant Wikipedia article on a given mosque). I'd appreciate any help in adding countries to the list! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Temple architecture (LDS Church)

I think the article Temple architecture (LDS Church) has a lot of potential to be very interesting. Mormon temples, most built relatively recently, are quite interesting architecturally, but not necessarily well studied. The article itself currently reads more like a list of Mormon temples, with basic descriptions of the features of each. The article could be improved more by discussing the history of Mormon Temple architecture, the influences on the style, the materials and construction methods, and the motivation for the style of architecture that is used. It also seems to be written by someone within the Mormon church. It could benefit from bringing some outsider perspective. Bonus Onus (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article would be a good place to start: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2002/02/latterday_fortresses.html Bonus Onus (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What word should we use for châteaus/manor houses/kasteel? Does using the word 'castle' for these even make sense?

Hello. At Talk:List of castles in Belgium there's an ongoing RfC about what to call stately historical homes/châteaus in Belgium that have been incorrectly translated as castles. Hopefully the members of this project will have some insight. -Oreo Priest ^talk 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar discussions have taken place with Schloss and the pages referenced from List of castles in Germany. You could use the general term historical residence but then this could then expand to any form of house. I would however tend towards leaving the term castle which is a commonly used term, if technically incorrect, then providing an explanation at the start of the page as with List of castles in Bavaria. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Calefactorial explosion

A bit of untidiness I spotted:

• Warming house is the longest article on the subject. It has several incoming links from other articles.
• Pisalis is a stub. Calefactory redirects to it and has incoming links from a different set of articles.
• Calefactorium and warming room are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Skysmith's list of missing articles/Architecture and Engineering.

All these names obviously refer to the same thing, but which one makes the best article title? Bo Lindbergh (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, well spotted! Looking in my Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, Calefactory is listed, but not Warming room or Pisalis. I'd heard of calefactory before, though wouldn't have been able to tell you what it was. But all three clearly seem to be the same thing.

For what it's worth, my suggestion would be the merge the two existing articles, rename the article Calefactory with redirects from the other terms. Sionk (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Core Contest

The Core Contest is underway until the end of the month with Amazon vouchers to win. Architecture, Great Wall of China or Stonehenge could be great candidates for improvement for anyone with time in the next ten days. Any prize or improvement to GA level I will be topping-up with an Architecture Barnstar. --ELEKHH^T 08:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To do lists

Would like to enquire if participants in this Wikiproject are satisfied with the way open tasks are announced, or see any potential for improvement. Most to-dos are listed at WikiProject Architecture, where the Architecture Bulletin is also transcluded. There is for instance a peer review request waiting since March. At the requested articles list there are entries languishing since years, and GA review requests are also often on a long wait. The bot generated list of articles needing attention doesn't seem to get any shorter, currently comprising 40% of articles. So any suggestions welcome. --ELEKHH^T 23:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We could clone ourselves ;) Thanks for the timely reminder and useful links. I've already had a hand in editing the Hoffmann Architects article, so could make some comments at the peer review (once I've understood the process). I could make a stab at an article about Patel Taylor too, now I notice its on the requested articles list. Sionk (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply follow WP:BOLD :). --ELEKHH^T 01:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Julia Morgan 2012 Celebration, Landmarks California

• Julia Morgan 2012 Festival, Landmarks California
• California Cultural and Historical Endowment, California State Library
• Julia Morgan 2012 Festival Gala on October 12, 2012, at Berkeley City Club
• Julia Morgan Discovery, Asilomar Conference Center, November 2–4, 2012
• Discovering Julia Morgan, AIA California Council

Landmarks California is kicking off their first event and they have chosen Julia Morgan as a way to highlight the importance of the historical preservation of buildings. October and November 2012 are going to be the active months. It would be fantastic if editors here could buckle down and make improving the Julia Morgan biography a priority. Articles about her buildings could be improved, too.

A new book has been written about Julia Morgan's life and career: Julia Morgan: Architect of Beauty, by Mark Anthony Wilson, an architectural historian. Interested editors would be encouraged to locate a copy of this book because it brings some new information to light. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, and I think it will be also a good candidate for our portal for October/November. The article is not in bad shape (needs some external links cleanup), and could be much better illustrated with what's already on Commons. --ELEKHH^T 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article does not suck; it represents a median sort of quality, the kind of patchwork effort that is common to Wikipedia. I would love to see the article brought higher up in quality, and a sense of uniformity applied to the writing so that it seems as if only one voice wrote the article. In the article's entire history, nobody has given more than 16 edits to it. DelDav did the most work by quantity of edits, but he's not active anymore. Rockero added a bunch of text, but he hasn't touched Wikipedia for two years. Look2See1, Sharanth and Tjmayerinsf made significant additions; they are still active. Jengod put the original article up in 2004 and she's still active. I think it would be optimum if one of these editors or a new face increased the cohesion and flow of the article while adding more text about Morgan's work. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Posted on the portal. Hopefully we'll see the article further improved. --ELEKHH^T 22:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Super! Thanks for putting Morgan up there in such a fine fashion. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Architecture articles on the Core topics lists

If anyone cares, there is a proposal to remove Fallingwater from the list of vital articles at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#The Fallingwater problem. --ELEKHH^T 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of tallest buildings in Toronto for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) 17 November 2012

Proposed buildings

Harbor Village Resort was a set of proposed buildings. Since they were never built, should they be in the category tree of Category:Buildings and structures in San Francisco, California, etc.? i think that proposed buildings should not be in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense! I've removed the category for you, but you're welcome to make edits like that yourself in future. Sionk (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

emilio ambasz stub created

• ambasz GlitchCraft (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambasz certainly seems to be a distinctive designer, but the article will need expanding and sourcing rapidly to avoid an unsympathetic editor deleting it! Sionk (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seven other language wikis already had an article about him, so is good to see en.wiki catch-up :) Also waiting is Oscar Tusquets (Óscar Tusquets) --ELEKHH^T 00:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hector Guimard in PD

To anyone interested, Hector Guimard's work entered public domain on the 1st January 2013, thus formerly deleted images have been restored on Commons and new images uploaded including some of his drawings. --ELEKHH^T 06:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles)#Suggested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Treasury big2.jpg

File:Treasury big2.jpg, a former featured picture candidate from 2005, has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving a file to Commons is not "deletion" is it? Jim Derby (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Was previously tagged for speedy deletion but I removed the tag as alternate versions exist with source information. --ELEKHH^T 04:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomtown Architecture

Is Boomtown Architecture too obscure to have an article? I searched for books using the term and only found a few so it would likely be hard to source. Jim Derby (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In Australian architecture history and heritage registers the term "boom style" is often used, but can't find any single book dedicated to the topic. --ELEKHH^T 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I created User:Canoe1967/List of acute angle buildings a while ago. I am wondering if the term 'acute angle buildings' is correct. Is their a codified term for this type of building?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If this were me doing it, I'd start an article Acute angle buildings and go from there. A google search pulls up quite a few hits, including one that looks as if you asked the question elsewhere and got "Flatiron" as the answer. Be bold, and be sure that if you do the article that you define whether on not you are referring to the building's foot print (sounds as if you are) or, for example, the top of the building, or something else. Of course you might be challenged as presenting original research, so be ready for that. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As per my comments at the AfC Talk, 'acute angle buildings' is a problematic term because it could describe any building that is off-square. And looking at your current draft, the Montana Club seems to be made up of obtuse angles, so you can see how important it is to get the selection criteria for a list article correct.

'Flatiron' is a term used in the States for acute triangular buildings similar to the Flatiron Building in New York. However, this seems restricted to the early part of the C20th in the USA. 'Triangular' buildings are sometimes noteworthy by their uncommon shape, a possible alternative? Overall, you need to avoid making up a list of things that is not of wide interest or study. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about Horizontal triangular buildings constrained by a triangular parcel? Kidding. Acute angle (flatiron) buildings may be more apt, with re-directs. Commons seems to be confused on the term as well, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buildings_called_flatiron

Thoughts? --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm liking Triangular footprint buildings more and more. Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem with me. Are we  Done here and continue at the article talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're quick..., I would suggest waiting more than a couple of hours for input. How are you going to deal with the fact that while triangular footprint buildings are rare in cities with grid structure (and therefore outstanding and possibly notable), they are common in cities with irregular street networks? Do you know of any book dedicated to the topic? --ELEKHH^T 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant the discussion may be better at the draft talk page. I did come across at least one book written on them when I was trying to find a codified title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the term Flatiron better than Acute Angle because it is commonly used (not just in the US, we have one in Toronto with this name) and indicates that the building has only three sides. Plenty of otherwise ordinary buildings have a side that is out of square. It's also a more interesting name! However, if you look for Google Images of flatiron buildings, you'll see that they are not just triangular, but have one corner which is very acute compared to the others.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

University of Cambridge

In light of this discussion it would be fantastic if somebody with some knowledge about the architectural history and features of the University of Cambridge could give me some help in writing a small paragraph or so about it. Thanks! --Mark91it's my world 23:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Today's Article for Improvement notifications: Wonders of the World, Novelty architecture, Church (building)

Hello, Please note that Wonders of the World, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team) Hello, Please note that Novelty architecture, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team) Hello, Please note that Church (building), which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Priorities for 2013

Maybe a good way to focus the WikiProject's efforts would be to establish some priorities for the year, possibly a list of ten articles which than we should aim to get to at least B and preferably GA class. These could be pursued together or one by one as a Collaboration of the Month, or it can be six articles on a bi-monthly basis. My criteria would be (a) topic importance: articles rates as top and high importance; (b) reader impact: articles with broad readership as listed here, (c) Currently poor quality: stub or start class, cleanup tags. Based on this criteria I would suggest:

• Acropolis of Athens, World Heritage, 40,000 views. Improvement drive has started on this in December by Ipigott.
• Ancient Roman architecture, start-class, 20,000 views.
• Arch, start-class, cleanup tags, 25,000 views.
• Architect, start-class, 50,000 views per month
• Mughal architecture, start-class, cleanup tags, 18,000 views.
• Oculus, stub, cleanup tag, 8,000 views
• Plinth, stub, 10,000 views
• Patio, stub, 10,000 views
• Stairs, rated C-class, but is mostly a long list with a large gallery, 30,000 views.
• Victorian architecture, start-class, 20,000 views.

This can only work is multiple editors are interested in the same topic. Anyone interested, in an improvement drive along these lines, please make suggestions on how to organise this process, and which articles to select. --ELEKHH^T 22:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found an interesting book on medieval building design (and professionals) and might be able to add something to the "Architect" article. The Wikipdia article's problematic because it is mainly restricted to describing the modern architect's role in developed countries only. And it's largely unsourced, of course.Sionk (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I will probably take a look at the list of articles here and try and improve them. Starting (maybe) with references at Arch. But not at work (where the heat was off last night at around 0 degrees - real American degrees, not whimppy Eurodegrees) Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you are moving ahead with this Elekhh. We do indeed need to concentrate on improving these articles. On Mughal architecture, I see that the Hungarian and German articles offer an excellent basis for improvement. I believe you speak Hungarian Elekhh and I speak German -- so between the two of us we should be able to move forward. The German article on Ancient Roman architecture could also help us down the line. Victorian architecture is a more difficult one to improve, especially as the Victorian style has different implications depending on whether you live in North America or Europe. However there is quite a lot of literature on the subject for those able to draw on English-language library services. I'm still waiting, by the way, for support in improving the Acropolis of Athens article. I've added quite a bit of content and many references but for an icon such as this, I do not think it should be a one-man assignment. Any offers? Or have the classicists completely disappeared from the Wikipedia scene? --Ipigott (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC) And for Oculus, I see there is quite a good explanation here. --Ipigott (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad there is significant interest already. It sounds like the best approach is to go on with multiple articles, so I reinstated in the Bulletin the collaboration of the month section, except I renamed it to "season", and listed the first five from the list above, which were mentioned as being of interest. --ELEKHH^T 06:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated three of the above for the main page advertised Today's article for improvement. It might take months tough until it comes to that, even if gets sufficient support. --ELEKHH^T 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have done what I can for the time being with Oculus and Acropolis of Athens although I would have welcomed more assistance from other contributors. I also see there has been a bit of work on Architect. Maybe, in connection with women in history, a short section could also be included on "Women in architecture"? I'll perhaps try to do something about it. The next priority aeems to be Ancient Roman architecture although before I start on this one I would appeciate hearing from anyone else interested in assisting. One of the main problems is of course lack of referencing. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Architecture!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

• Women architects and related figures in architecture that had an impact on women's history
• Buildings and works that have significance in women's history[ - women's hospitals, religious sites, political sites, homes

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and stop by my talk page with any questions! SarahStierch (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We had Elizabeth Wilbraham and Julia Morgan featured on the Portal last year, and I think it would be a good idea to feature a related article in March again. Any suggestions? --ELEKHH^T 06:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want a really "historical" woman, I would suggest Elisabeth Scott but it would also be good to have someone who is not part of the English-speaking world. Maybe Margaret Staal-Kropholler or the Austrian Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky (although her article, like many of the older contributions, needs to be properly referenced).--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chose the Frankfurt kitchen by Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, as seems most notable and is best illustrated, although the article is much improvable as well! Is now up on the Portal:Architecture. --ELEKHH^T 03:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go with sourcing the Schütte-Lihotzky article. There's plenty available about her online. Now she is deceased I expect there will also be a 'fair use' photo of her available somewhere. Sionk (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Since she graduated 1919, there might be pre-1923 images which could be uploaded as US-PD on en.wiki only. If not, this seems to be a good candidate for fair use. --ELEKHH^T 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the chance of having a PD image soon seem to be nil, I uploaded the above as fair-use. Also maybe some of these images could be uploaded as fair-use given that have been released for the media. --ELEKHH^T 03:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Roof

I just had occasion to remove some spam links from this article, and was shocked by the absolutely abysmal state of an article on such a basic architectural topic. Surely people who are interested in architecture can do better than this? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sure they can, but as long as pages are not protected it will remain a question of whether constructive edits can outnumber non-constructive edits. Just look at the mess of vandalism in the edit history of that article, and consider how much editing time is consumed by reverting that shit - surely not an attractive job to volunteer for. In the meanwhile even individual requests for page protection are routinely dismissed with justifications like "not enough vandalism". --ELEKHH^T 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On rereading my comment I see that I came across as a little more combative than I intended. Sorry for that. I think the main problem has been that none of the constructive edits have come with references, so it's difficult to distinguish them from the non-constructive edits. I'm certainly no expert in this field, so would find it difficult to improve this article myself, but if anyone more knowledgeable would like to do so on the basis of reliable sources I'll keep it watchlisted and do my bit when it comes to reverting vandalism and spam, which is the way we manage to handle things in much more controversial articles without resorting to page protection. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

3D printing of buildings

Someone has started an article on 3D printing of buildings, currently titled: Building printing. It was started with text split out of the 3D printing article a few days ago. I've made a few edits to it today.

This article clearly needs some help from the more architectural and building-oriented Wikipedia editors. Please come on over and help if the topic interests you. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Architecture

Category:Architecture seems to be a repository of stubs, half-baked articles and advertising matter because any decent article gets into the right subcategory. How worthwhile the exercise is I don't know but I'm working my way through the list to find appropriate categorization? Unfortunately nearly everything in the top level category needs reclassifying. It's quite a long job since it involves reading each article and looking for similar material to decide where it belongs - so if anyone else might feel inspired to help out that would be greatly appreciated.

I will try to flag doubtful articles here, starting with Architectural management and Opera Design Matters which so far are just tagged as adverts. ProfDEH (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure how the subject of Architectural management can 'advertise' itself :) But I removed the embedded url in the lead paragraph, if that is what you were referring to. Sionk (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a promotion for a consultancy selling a publication, Architectural Management - A Practical Guide and offering some taster guides. ProfDEH (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc.

Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc. looks like it is an advertisement for a non-notable small practice, and more or less repeats the text on their website. Should we look at deleting it? I removed the category Architecture but not sure it should be in WP at all. ProfDEH (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The article is hanging its notability of the fact that Gwynne Pugh used to work for a (possibly) notable practice. Like you say, Gwynne Pugh's Urban Studio doesn't seem to have made much impact yet outside of Santa Monica. I'd be inclined to nominate it for AfD. Sionk (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've subsequently noticed there is already a poorly sourced lengthy article about Pugh's previous (award winning) company Pugh + Scarpa. In addition, Lawrence Scarpa has a problematic and lengthy article about himself as well as his new 2010 company Brooks + Scarpa! They all seem to be claiming notability on the back of the awards won by Pugh + Scarpa!! Sionk (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems that architecture firms start to discover Wikipedia. I noticed recently an increase in promotional articles on companies, sometimes proven COI edits by their PR. I nominated both Brooks + Scarpa and Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio for deletion, given that both articles are promoting recently established firms which didn't even had the time to become notable on their own. As usual after such splits, both claim Pugh + Scarpa's legacy. --ELEKHH^T 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, a lot happens in one week! Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc. and Brooks + Scarpa have been deleted, following AfD's. I've spent some time editing and improving Pugh + Scarpa, adding some sources and rehabilitating Gwynne Pugh. The Lawrence Scarpa article is still wildly promotional and will need work. Sionk (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)