Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Template:Frank Lloyd Wright

Does anyone want to help me organize Template:Frank Lloyd Wright before I deploy it. Feel free to swap in more representative images or break up sections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally find such massive and overwhelming navbars of limited use, and doubt many readers use them. Similar navbars deployed in the past failed to increase the number of readers of the linked articles. The List of Frank Lloyd Wright works linked in the See also section is more useful and sufficient for me. If is a must, than the more it can be shortened the better IMHO. The structure is also a bit problematic as does not help orientation, some of the most notable buildings being hidden in the "other" category, while the most notable houses are hidden within a seemingly endless list of houses. --ELEKHH^T 01:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How would you measure increased readership. If a template increased readership 10%, it would be virtually imperceptible. The test is whether there are clickthroughs on the template links. The general perception is that lists of works of an artist ARE considered likely to be used by readers who often are intrigued by other works by the artist. I would love a suggestion for a name for the other category. I would also appreciate feedback on whether shorter names are possible in the other category. Maybe if we subdivided the other category, we could make the names shorter. E.g., if there were a category for places of worship, we might be able to use one or two word for each such as Annunciation, Beth Sholom, and Community.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just eliminated all redirects which makes the list somewhat shorter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Increased readership can be measured by comparing monthly views before and after the navbar was implemented. The problem with the structure is that is a mix of criteria including: functional types (houses, home), history (unbuilt, posthumous) and non-criteria ("other", "related"). Since what is notable here is architecture, I would suggest architectural notability would be a better inclusion and structuring criteria: Prairie Houses, Usonian Houses, Mature Organic style etc. As before, I would leave less notable stuff out even if there is an article. It is the role of lists (which we already have) to provide comprehensive overview.--ELEKHH^T 01:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing that is consistent across biographical navboxes is that they generally attempt to be comprehensive listings of bluelinked articles. I have created hundreds and hundreds of templates (although only a few dozen biographical ones, see User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created). I have done authors, composers, artists, and architects. In almost all cases I have included all bluelinked content. It is quite POV for one author to say which things are notable unless you have some rule that you think is reasonable. That being said, I have been involved in editing {{Ray Charles}}, which only includes his "notable" singles. Would people agree only to include Wright work that is on the National Register of Historic Places? I personally prefer the comprehensive style and do not think this current template is too large. I would rather remove all the images so that the links have more room than remove them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in the topic, but would never engage in navigating the very extensive list of his works following an alphabetic order (often relating to the name of his clients). Clearly no artist's works are equal, and treating them as that would be the case is POV in itself. Regarding F.L.Wright, hiding his key buildings -which are regularly included in books about world architecture history- such as the Guggenheim within a very long list which could potentially include 1,000 items is not helping navigation IMO. Regarding inclusion criteria, NRHP listing is both very broad and problematic as its scope probably does not include unbuilt and destroyed projects, which nevertheless could be quite notable (Broadacre City). --ELEKHH^T 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to cut down the current list with something that is non-POV like NRHP, then we should just try to arrange all the blue links we have. There are not 1000 bluelinked Frank Lloyd Wright works. In fact, I am guessing that I have 80% or so of them in the template already since I have included everything on the list article page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks very useful and personally I don't think the lists are over-long. I see the point about how you would find his most notable works but the article about Wright does that. I went thought the 'other' category and quite a few are private houses, notably Fallingwater. Others are housing in some form and that might be a useful intermediate category, not sure yet. I will try to find time to move the houses at least. ProfDEH (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ProfDEH, I see that you have made some refinements. Thanks. I will deploy this soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the template. Feel free to revert whatever parts of this you think were erroneous. I am curious about the following terms and whether they should be on the template: Rubble trench foundation, Organic architecture, Usonia, Prairie School.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox museum

{{Infobox museum}} has been nominated for merger into {{Infobox building}}. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_30#Template:Infobox_museum -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Guibourd2855.jpg

file:Guibourd2855.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Brunelleschi not in list of renaissance architects

The page purporting to list "Renaissance Architects" seems to have no reference to Filipo Brunelleschi. Is there some obscure scholastic reasoning for this? Because I suspect that it would be a surprise to many visitors to the page.

--216.13.187.110 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please link to the page you're referring to? I'm unable to identify what you are talking about. --ELEKHH^T 23:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Long unsourced lists

Hi all,
What should be done about the various lists of skyscrapers - {{TBSW}} - which tend to be very long and mostly unsourced? I have tried trimming the "bottom" of the lists - for instance, on List of tallest buildings in the European Union I tried removing the ones less than 140m tall, ranked from 96th-highest to 372nd-highest (of which only 4 had sources), but these edits tend to get reverted by the article owner. Even if somebody were to put in the effort of sourcing them, I'm concerned that the very long lists are still likely to be error-prone and have little benefit for readers. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed skyscrapers without sources or separate articles. I left skyscrapers that have a sources or separate articles with sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner, you must refrain from personal attacks, and read WP:CIVIL. Your reference to Subtropical-man as "the article owner" is evidently sarcastic since you know there is no ownership and he has never behaved in such a way as to give others that impression. All lists are prone to errors but from what I could see, the sources on the individual articles clearly established each construction's place within the 100-139 category. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree even a list should have sources - as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources- cant expect our raeders to run all over the place to find source that may or may not be in the parent articles. If there is facts in a list they should be sourced period. That said a conservative effort should be made to retain valid edits that are done in good faith - this would entail searching for sources in parent article or new off site references before deletion.Moxy (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally thought they clutter but given that the constructions had wikilinks to articles, couldn't the height source from each page be added to each entry? If this is possible, how is it better blanking the section and producing a vacuum? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Thanks for help organizing the template above. I have also created Template:Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Feel free to get involved in that one if you like too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, please, try to understand what I wrote above. If you really must go on and do such navbars, at least use architectural notability criteria for the categories. If you don't have good books about the subject to understand how best to organise the list of works, or don't have time to read the Wiki article even, maybe don't create a navbar. Categories based on geographic location are most appropriate at Wikivoyage. Here chronologic order would be more appropriate, per MOS. --ELEKHH^T 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is orgnanized per Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe#List_of_works. I am not an architects student or scholar. I may bow out of architect navboxes if I am causing harm to Wikipedia with my work as you seem to suggest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No harm, just confusion, and is not your fault, so please take no offense. Most architect articles are ridiculous indeed, and not a very good guide. In this case the FLW article is much better than the Mies one. I wish there would be more editors concerned about this topic participating in the discussion, to help establish some key principles for navbars, and have some consensus built around questions such as (a) is a navbar with 100+ items useful, (b) as many architects have a very large body of works covered by wiki articles, besides a List of works by and a Category of buildings by do we need a mega-navbar on each article, (c) when a navbar is considered useful, should it follow a principle consistent with that of architectural critique, or should be based on popular understanding, (d) should trivia be included in navbars. Most importantly the question should be asked what form and content of navbars do best contribute to the educational scope of Wikipedia, and what is more a distraction? --ELEKHH^T 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see someone taking an intelligent interest in the subject. Elekhh has a point which I didn't appreciate at first, the FLW navbar does look over-comprehensive in some respects and it might be better to simply provide links to the relevant lists, and transfer the information to those lists if they are incomplete or incorrect. I haven't checked the one yet. ProfDEH (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have bowed out of architect navboxes. I personally prefer single-glance single-click access afforded by navboxes. Categories and lists do not provide this. Mosts lists require continued scrolling to find what you want (not single-glance) and often there are several categories summarized in a single navbox. The FLW list is particularly unmanageable. It is pages and pages of scrolling to find what you want. I find a template a far superior presentation in this regard. However, if people prefer to scroll forever as is required by that list, who am I to stop them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's too bad, my intention was not to put you off. This project needs all the help it can get.ProfDEH (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Angle projection images up for deletion

file:ThirdAngle.png and file:FirstAngle.png have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are meaningless alone and there is a version with the angles shown together. ProfDEH (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Name this article: Saarinen tower

I am working on a list article which is intended to list every building that is said to be based on Eliel Saarinen's 1922 Tribune Tower contest entry, which was awarded second place and not built. The name I gave to the article is Saarinen tower but I think it could be more descriptive. What do you think should be the name? Here are some suggestions:

...Let's see some other suggestions from the Project. Any thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering WP:CRITERIA, in terms of precision and recognisability the clear winner, and my preferred option, is Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design while in terms of conciseness it is Saarinen tower. The JPMorgan Chase Building (Houston) is also claimed to be influenced by it. --ELEKHH^T 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the old Gulf Building in Houston is on the list, and now it is in the new article. Thanks for your observation! Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the first option is the best name. ProfDEH (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move the article to that name. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is ready for others to contribute. Once we settle on a name, it should be inserted into a few articles such as Modern architecture, Architecture of the United States, Architecture of Houston, Early skyscrapers, International Style (architecture), and of course Eliel Saarinen and Tribune Tower. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done The recommended name is now in most of the articles above. I did not take the time to figure out some surrounding prose and context to bring it into the International Style (architecture) article. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Barrowby

Could someone assess the importance of this one please - thanks. Acabashi (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. I'd also say it's a reasonable 'C' class, rather than 'start. Sionk (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This reads like an add

for Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Associates. All the links appear to be outside wikipedia etc. Please take a look and help me decide if it should be nominated for deletion. Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear yes, all those links that look like wikilinks but are not, purely promotional. ProfDEH (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

J.J. Donnellan

Greetings. Would anyone like to help me create a page for J.J. Donnellan? I am finding it a bit challenging to find sufficient information/sources about him. I know he designed the Church of the Good Shepherd in Beverly Hills, California, and I think he must be the same architect who designed the Albers Brothers Mill in Tacoma, Washington (see this)and many buildings in Vancouver as well (see this at the bottom and this, and also this), but I just can't find one book or article piecing it all together. Anyone else interested? Please leave a message on my talkpage if you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

There is currently a discussion about alleged feminist theories of the Taj Mahal. Comments would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Grade" or "grade"

Hi. Hope someone can help. When confronting UK listed buildings I come across "Grade" and "grade", as in "Thurlby Hall is a grade II listed small country house", which might also be seen as "Thurlby Hall is a Grade II listed small country house". Is there any WP guideline preference to capitalize or not ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

English Heritage and CADW capitalise the 'G', so I'm sure that is the correct way to do it. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - especially as your links to official pages show "Grade" capitalized within a sentence, rather than at its beginning - which is what I wanted to see. Useful. Acabashi (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Main01.jpg

File:Main01.jpg has bee nominated for deletion. Can someone identify this? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Institut auf dem Rosenberg, Historic Main Building (1902).gif

File:Institut auf dem Rosenberg, Historic Main Building (1902).gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Guerrilla architecture notable?

Unreferenced, stub, orphan.. I know zip about architecture so don't know what to do with it. Thought someone here would know. The Potato Hose ↘ 00:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The term has been in use [1] but the stub is poorly written, so deletion would do no harm. --ELEKHH^T 01:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the term is not uncommon, but often means a variety of different things. I don't think there's a dominant definition. It's basically an adjective added to a noun... or, erm, a noun added to a noun? Sionk (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly not agree to the article's deletion. The term has been used and described quite widely in the literature. See for example here. Maybe the article can be improved on the basis of these sources?--Ipigott (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

New articles

The New Architecture Articles tool on AlexNewArtBot ceased functioning some time ago. As far as I can see, no one has the time or inclination to get it working again. Maybe it would be useful to see if other tools are available to identify articles of interest to the architecture community.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

AlexBot is operated by TedderBot, and the issue has been reported at User talk:Tedder#Odd behavior of TedderBot and hopefully will be taken care of soon. --ELEKHH^T 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's hope so. Tedder himself seems to be too busy to take care of it on a regular basis. It's really a pity we cannot see new articles of architectural interest more easily. Over the past year or so, I have tried to copy-edit the more interesting ones and add them to WP Architecture in the hope that others will assist too. As a result, many have made DYK. Unfortunately, we seem to be losing out here too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot is back on, although still has some glitches. --ELEKHH^T 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:TUStephConstr.jpg

File:TUStephConstr.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mural LA Central Library.jpg

File:Mural LA Central Library.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mortar

The usage of mortar is under discussion, see talk:Mortar -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Jewry Wall Museum

The article for the Jewry Wall Museum has been proposed to be merged with the article for Jewry Wall, which is covered by your wikiproject.

The discussion can be found at Talk:Jewry_Wall_Museum#Merger_proposal if you would like to contribute.

Many Thanks
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:LGBT architects

I started a discussion about this newly created category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 17#Category:LGBT architects. Any feedback welcome. --ELEKHH^T 02:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I replied. I think we should keep it...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sheely Drive

Dear architecture enthusiasts:

There's an article in the Afc Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sheely Drive that could use your attention. Knowing nothing about architecture, I am unable to determine what may make the homes being discussed more notable than millions of other homes. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Historic districts are typically older but in this case the character thought worth preserving is the 1950s suburban lifestyle. Many of the houses and presumably the overall character of the area remains in fairly original condition. The article does of course need more material and especially images to show what is interesting about it. ProfDEH (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with

Second Empire architecture. I have come to believe (but could be convinced otherwise) that this is a term only used in the Americas - particularly the US and Canada. The few book I have on French & British architecture do not use that term (Second Empire). So I am wondering how this epiphany (albeit a minor one) should be reflected in the article. Should I continue calling the Paris Opera - for example - "Second Empire" when the French call it something else? What are these buildings called in Australia? Because the British do not seem to be inclined to call these buildings by a French name. Etc. Your thoughts please. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Balbardie House1910.gif

File:Balbardie House1910.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing architecture

Is this a meaningful category of architecture, or just a misinterpretation based on a few press releases? Rant just added at the talk page. ProfDEH (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your rant: the article is nonsense as it stands and the only inline reference provided doesn't even mention the word "architecture". Looks to me like a personal essay more likely to confuse than enlighten. A good candidate for deletion. --ELEKHH^T 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I tried to remove a couple of links to pages that don't even mention architecture, but they got reinserted. Now the article looks more like an advert for one particular business... bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has added more stuff which makes a particular business startup in Cambridge, Massachusetts seem quite prominent. By extraordinary coincidence, their IPv4 address geolocates to Cambridge, Massachusetts. What are the chances of that? bobrayner (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Haydarpasha train station istanbul - Recoloured.jpg

File:Haydarpasha train station istanbul - Recoloured.jpg has been nominated for deletion (here and on commons) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Latte stones 2.jpg

image:Latte stones 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Kirkstall Power Station.jpg

File:Kirkstall Power Station.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Kgvlagilama.jpg

image:Kgvlagilama.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)