User talk:Joopercoopers/architecture

Problem - How to write a top level article? What approach should be taken? How do we make it global and concise?

1. Summary style - see Law, careful section headings required in order to be comprehensive. Architecture possibly lends itself less well to this approach, because of the nebulous and over-arching scope of its interest.
2. Technologically chronological - explores history through technological invention - makes social ideas harder to structure
3. Geographical....frought with too wide a scope.
4. Article deals principally with the current state of major global architecture, practice, then summary sections for history etc.
5. High level split between Architectural theory/study and Architectural practice.

Please note

Yes, I did realise this is just a subject list. I checked the redlinks because I was surprised there would be nothing on St Peter's, thought I might as well update while I'm at it. ProfDEH (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think there's still a few redlinks there which we might have articles on. Can you think of any subjects I've missed, or which we might easily leave out? I think most of the architects will go for instance and only a few of the buildings themselves will remain if they are exemplars, really the note was in case anyone else came stumbling by that hadn't seen Giano's page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Still thinking about what the scope ought to be, and how much could be mainly referred to another article. Apparently Architecture get over 3000 hits a day (http://stats.grok.se/en/200907/architecture), while Outline of architecture gets about 60, which puts things in perspective. Clearly it's the title that counts. ProfDEH (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One thought I had was, as architectural practice is essentially a multi-disciplinary discipline, we might omit, or severely restrict the amount of the article accorded to construction, law, engineering, material science, management etc. and replace with a small section explaining the 'polymath' nature of the discipline. But then I'm not sure architecture can really be divorced from these things. As you say, the beauty of the Law article is not that it is brief, but that it is comprehensive in scope - I'm just minded of those conversations with fellow students in my college years, when it seemed all things in the universe could be bent to an architectural angle of one kind or another. (cf. Jencks, Garden of Cosmic Speculation) --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)