Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Unreliable source?

I don't think this WordPress website is a reliable source, is it? Added (in good faith) by User:Eagledj to expand Edward Emmett Dougherty. But if it's unreliable, none of its related content can appear on Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Zigzig20s - well, it's a blog, and it obviously has a commercial element. That said, it's a well-informed and well-written blog, by a specialist in their field. And it's not being used to source exceptional claims. It reminds me a little of this, [1], which is an exceptionally well-written and well-researched architectural blog. It's a judgement call, but I think it might meet the Exceptions criteria published here and personally I'd be ok with it. If it was all we had, and/or it was being used to support something like "the world's best architect", that may be different but it isn't. KJP1 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback for a future FAC

Greetings and salutations, attentive members of WikiProject Architecture. As a fellow member of this WikiProject, I wish to ask your assistance with Ludwigsburg Palace in proofreading and the Featured Article process. –Vami_IV✠ 01:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Review request for a possible COI problem

Cherry Hill, Virginia Water was created at about the same time that it went on the market having been renovated for over 4 years. [2] [3]. i have a very strong suspicion that the editor who created this article may have a COI and be using this page as a means of gaining visibility for the property. As a grade II listed building and with a real historic background I had no qualms about accepting this AFC submission but I would appreciate it if someone with more experience in architecture than I have a look and clean up any unnecessary estate agent fluff. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis - You may very well be right on the COI. Let's see if there's a response to the Tag. That said, you're also right that it warrants an article, and this one's not too bad, although rather undersourced. I'm not see it stuffed with puffery. I'll keep an eye out too, and also see if I can find a few sources. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Chicago Law School

There's a major expansion in progress at University of Chicago Law School which includes a very brief discussion of the school's architecture, and a bunch of editors not very knowledgeable on the subject (I'm assuming; I'm certainly not). If anyone here with an interest in Gothic heritage architecture, academic heritage, Chicago in general, and/or the works of Eero Saarinen would like to contribute to the expansion, your ideas would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source

Looking for more input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Park_Service, about a source for Falcon Rest, a historic house in Warren County, Tennessee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sandringham House

Sandringham House is up for FAC here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sandringham House/archive1. As architecture, it leaves quite a lot to be desired, but it's a rare example of a fully-functioning Victorian estate surviving into the 21st century. And two kings died there, if that sort of thing floats your boat. It could do with a reviewer or two and any and all comments would be greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Now passed. KJP1 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories for buildings by year?

This talk page thread doesn't really answer the question posed there. If I have a building which was completed in year X, and was torn down in year Y, what category(ies) should it be in? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I would add the following categories:

Category:Buildings and structures completed in [X]

Category:Buildings and structures demolished in [Y]

Category:[X] establishments in [country]

Category:[Y] disestablishments in [country]

--Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace is on FAC again

Another FAC for Ludwigsburg Palace, the largest palace estate in Germany. At the moment, it and the Queluz National Palace are the only GA or above-ranked Baroque palaces in the WikiProject. I humbly request your comment and, if I may, support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Affordable housing has become very long - propose splitting off section

Hello, this is in reference to Affordable housing, which is about twice the recommended Wikipedia page size. Since this page is a C-class, High-importance page in your project, I wanted to drop by and propose splitting off the section on New York City into its own page. Please discuss: Talk:Affordable housing. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Page splits: Affordable Housing

Just to let everyone know, we split out:

• Affordable housing by country
• New York City housing crisis

Thanks and both need work :-)

Seahawk01 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sergei Tchoban

Hello all. I recently stumbled upon Sergei Tchoban which seems to have been created and edited mainly by Single Purpose Accounts and COIs. It seems resume like to me and does not have citations for the written part of the biography. I came across an article that supported parts of it but it was written recently and likely just copied what was on Wikipedia. I come here to see if any more experienced members could help with this article, especially the very lengthy Awards and Major buildings and projects section. Thank you, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Geobox nominated for deletion

It has been proposed that we delete {{Geobox}}. That may effect this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the Geobox deletion discussion. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Loud groan hope there's a bot that will convert the billions of Infobox building templates scattered across the the multiverse. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Grand Central lede image

There is a discussion that may interest members of this WikiProject, concerning the lede image of Grand Central Terminal: [4] . ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

• Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
• Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
• Format accepted articles
• Promote the journal

Authors

• New Wikipedia articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Existing Wikipedia articles to be externally peer reviewed (analogous to GA / FA review - see submission page)
• Image articles, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

• Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Two questions. Can you add WikiProject Germany to your list, and how do I subscribe to your journal? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Decimus Burton

Dear Fellow Wikipedians, without intending it, I have spent some time on Decimus's entry and I believe he deserves to be much better known. As I am still relatively new on Wiki, how do we get Decimus Burton to be a Did You Know? or Featured Article? Thank you.--Po Mieczu (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It is looking good, some impressive work there. I can't really advise on DYK, as I don't know about that, but I'm not sure it's the best way to raise his profile on here. As for FAC, you can certainly aim for that but there's work to be done:

• It needs restructuring - why's Moving Marble Arch a sub-section of his Education, or Legacy a sub-section of his Personal life, for example?
• There are way too many pictures. They're great for such articles but they need to illustrate specific points.
• Personally, I think the long lists of works need to go out. They can form separate Lists, or a separate List, done by theme. Have a look at something like these;

List of new churches by Anthony Salvin

List of church restorations and alterations by Anthony Salvin

List of work on castles and country houses by Anthony Salvin

List of miscellaneous works by Anthony Salvin

• It needs more references. It's not bad but less is rarely more when it comes to cites. Have a look at something like John Douglas (architect) which gives you a good idea of an architect FA.
• FAC is quite a jump from its current state. I'd suggest working it up, then trying GA, then Peer review, than maybe FAC.

Hope these thoughts help. KJP1 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Church buildings in Italy categories

Participation to the discussion is welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Church_buildings_by_region_and_province_in_Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Terraced_house#Townhouse_and_Terraced_house

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Terraced_house#Townhouse_and_Terraced_house. Seeking input on potential merger. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

map location parameters

I could use some help at 151 North Franklin in fixing map parameters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. See my edits there and Template:Infobox_building. Cheers! Levivich (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

List of house styles

Hello everyone. I would appreciate a second set of eyes to check the images I've added to List of house styles, as well as the categorization. I've generally deferred to the image descriptions and/or used the images listed at the articles for each style, but I'm not sure it's all correct (and I'm sure there is plenty missing). Thank you in advance. Levivich (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Loop map with coordinates

While working on 151 North Franklin, it has come to my attention that the Chicago Loop should have a map like File:Loop_Map.png that could be used for the map_type parameter in {{Infobox building}}. Can someone who knows how create one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe User:Dudemanfellabra could help out here since he created File:Chicago locator map.png.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Importance assessment of Megalithic Temples of Malta

Currently the article Megalithic Temples of Malta is assessed as being Mid-importance on this project's importance scale. Mid-importance is given to subjects which fill in more minor details, and I don't believe this article falls into that category. I am therefore proposing to reassess the article as Top-importance, since it is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. The Megalithic Temples of Malta are some of the oldest free-standing structures in existence, and they are also very significant from an architectural point of view, so I believe it clearly falls into the Top-importance category which according to this project's importance assessment covers:

"Regional and historic styles, world famous architects and works of architecture; "Most famous or beautiful, ancient or preserved, etc." may appear in the text; article that covers several topics"

Do other members agree with reassessing this article? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Architecture in The Bronx

I'm starting a longish project to document all the significant architecture in The Bronx. Buildings that don't currently have articles about them will get them written (assuming I can find suitable WP:RS), and the buildings photographed. Please take a look at User talk:RoySmith/Architecture in The Bronx and add suggestions for other notable buildings. Create new sections for styles as required. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Architecture by country categories

Currently, the majority of subcategories of Category:Architecture by country are in the format Fooian architecture. I think there's a case, for some at least, to split them into Fooian architecture (covering the architectural style) and Architecture of Foo or Architecture in Foo (covering architecture located within a country). Has this been previously discussed? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

PS Hmm. I missed this 2010 CfD. But the proposal there was for renaming, while I'm now suggesting splitting them, so most of the opposes there won't apply. Does anyone have comments or suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me there is no problem with revisiting a 9-year-old discussion. But can you give an example of "Fooian architecture" vs. "Architecture of Foo"? For example, I can imagine "Architecture of the United States" but I can't imagine a separate "American architecture" category (because there is no architectural style I'm aware of called "American"). I can't think of an architectural style named after a country, but I'm certainly no authority on such things. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The specific example that prompted my query was Category:Chinese architecture in Thailand, which I created and then had trouble deciding whether it belonged in Category:Thai architecture or Category:Chinese architecture. With the split, it can be cleanly placed under Category:Chinese architecture and Category:Architecture of Thailand. Category:American architecture is probably one that should just be renamed to Category:Architecture of the United States for consistency in the scheme. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, taking another look at the category, I think American Foursquare and Shotgun house are probably the kind of articles that could populate the American architecture category after the split. Though in the US's case, the distinction might not be really necessary. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I've started a CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12#Architecture by country. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; posted my further comments there. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help finding resources

I graduated from Mariemont High School and am rather astounded that the article on it says nothing about it's highly unusual architecture. Large portions of the school are octagonal "learning pods" without real walls between rooms. The original idea was that there would be no interior walls between most classrooms and students would sit on bean bag chairs. This was in the early 1970's, by the time I was a student there that philosophy was long gone and there were all sorts of half-walls and partitions but you could still totally hear everything going on in adjacent areas in many places and the classrooms had no "back" so right behind the last row of desks was a de facto hallway so anyone needing to go anywhere would just walk right through the back of classrooms to get there. This is the only image I coul did showing the odd layout, it is exterior only and doesn't show the absurd classroom designs, but you can see the octagonal pods.

I'm quite certain this was quite notable in it's time, to the extent that the university classes for teachers would regularly visit it to see this amazing new idea of how a school be, until it became clear that it was actually terrible and not conducive to learning. So, the school district basically doesn't talk about it anywhere that I can find, and I haven't been able to find any online sources about it. They are apparently planning to demolish the pods and built normal classrooms there in the coming months, so there may be more presss about it. Hoping the fine folks at this project may have some insight. I'll also notify the Education and schools projects in case they have any insights.

Thanks for your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A similar time frame and design story at Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School in Quebec.. If you've tried the local newspapers you may be out of luck, unless you can track down the architectural firm responsible. The school district is so small that it seems unlikely that it will ever have published a history. Meters (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Here's a pre-internet source that appears to discuss this very thing. [5] Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice. Clearly I'm out of my field here. Meters (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment List of churches in Sweden

I have started an RfC for this list. I would like ideas how to limit it somewhat, see tag on list and my comment on talk page for more information about what I'm trying to do. thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Real estate developers

I wonder if we should create a taskforce to focus on real estate developers, and/or real estate development firms. This would help us make more sense of postmodern architecture I think. Is anyone else interested in this topic please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Definition of a skybridge or skyway

Kingdom Centre has one, but the link to skybridge/skyway presents an article about a different thing. Please help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sydell Group

I believe the Sydell Group, owned by Andrew Zobler, may be notable, but it has been deleted twice. Is anyone interested in working on a draft for submission please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the Sydell Group owns some impressive buildings. My worry, which also relates to your Real estate developer query above, is that such articles have a terrible tendency to become puff pieces, rather than encyclopedic overviews. What were the reasons for the earlier deletions? POV? Lack of RS? Lack of Notability? An alternative approach might be to cover the buildings themselves? The Ned, 27-35 Poultry, for example, would be easy, given it's Lutyens and Grade I. But that might not be what you wanted. KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. - Looking further, I see the deletions were for Lack of Notability, 2015, and CV, 2012. Both of these would obviously need to be avoided in any future draft. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seems encyclopedic to figure out who owns what and who built what when.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S - The relevant Pevsner, London 1: The City, has a lengthy entry on 27-35 Poultry, and the HE listing is here, [6]. KJP1 (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

They also own buildings in New York City, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Washington D.C., Austin, Palm Springs, Scottsdale...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, although I don't know how many are architecturally/historically notable? That said, some clearly are and I would have thought those would give you the basis of an acceptable draft. Happy to have a look at same, should that assist. KJP1 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Gym, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Architecture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Architecture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Architecture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Drawing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Drawing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drawing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Stub assessment

Hi. Currently, this wikiproject has ~2,274 pages that are unassessed-quality (see Category:Unassessed Architecture articles). Of those, 606 of the pages are already tagged as stubs. Would you be interested in / would you object to a bot going through those 606 pages and setting your assessment to "stub" class? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, I'm filing a BRFA --DannyS712 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

William J. Gage's birth/death dates

Hello. Is anyone able to find William J. Gage's birth and death dates please? The death date would be particularly useful as I may be able to retrieve his obituaries. Please ping me if you can find them. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Frank Matcham

Hello, I have just nominated the above at FAC should anyone wish to offer a review. Much thanks in advance. Cassianto^Talk 15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles need name change

Lath and plaster covers only WOOD lath and plaster, ignoring the existence of gypsum lath, metal lath and the use of Cement board for veneer systems. Plaster veneer is widely known as "Veneer plaster," and ought to be changed. Tapered (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Up for deletion: List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Needs moire and better sources. Several of the buildings on on NRHP. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

List of churches in London

Comments invited as to how best to divide up Wikipedia's 9th biggest article, at 445k bytes. Please comment here. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Aga Khan Award for Architecture 2019 winners announced

Hi everybody. The 2019 winners of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture were just announced today. Anyone want to join in updating the article?

Also, would appreciate additional eyes on a recent significant edit by Saisman974 that was reverted pretty quickly by MrOllie for being promotional. I read it and do not think it is promotional, but rather a valuable expansion on the topic using credible sources. Would help to get others to chime in on the Talk page. Thanks! -- Aylahs ^(talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Article

This article showed the basic knowledge of interior architecture. It did a good job giving information on what type of career a person might get into if their majoring in this. It also gave what degrees are needed, jobs that are available, and the pay rate starting at an internship and then working your way up. I enjoyed reading this article and I am going to read up more on interior designing.Kayla Johnson1 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

notice of requested move for stepped gable architecture

Hi, there is a requested move open at Talk:Crow-stepped gable#Requested move 2 November 2019, which you might be interested in. My proposal is to rename from "Crow-stepped gable" to what I perceive to be the more common, broader usage of "Stepped gable". --Doncram (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Today's article for improvement: St. Peter's Basilica

I have proposed that St. Peter's Basilica be added to the Today's articles for improvement list. The nomination is here. Input as to whether it should be listed would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 03:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested Move discussion

Please join the discussion at Talk:John_Hancock_Center#Requested_move_29_November_2019.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers needed!

Hi! I am looking for volunteers to do their local SpacesWorks.com office in a format like Wikipedia:Videos#Tour-type videos and the Colliers video. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

KatherineBusby2019 - These commercial office spaces are unlikely to have much architectural merit. And you have an undeclared Conflict of interest to IWG plc [7]. I'll leave others to decide if they want to volunteer for your commercial advertising project. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am the non-COI editor who suggested trying this. I think it would be a good idea to improve the article I am trying to help write about their SpacesWorks coworking. As for the merits, it's my fault that I didn't make clear enough that this video, with these sort of titles on white board instead of overlaid would be an easier prototype. I'm sorry for the offense. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Architecture since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Embattled towers

We have a lot of articles mentioning them,[8] but I can't find any explaining them. I came across this because someone redlinked one with an edit summary "What?". I've posted this to the archaeology wikiproject also. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It just means crenellated doesn't it? Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. By an odd coincidence I'm just reading A Guide to the Ancient Churches of Gwent, which discusses the prevalence of crenellated church towers and the resulting myth that they were intended as places of refuge, as well as prayer. I'm not sure it warrants a separate article. KJP1 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Three related Articles for Deletion

There are three AfDs on topics that editors here may be interested in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Streamline Moderne architecture

Old Gas Station in Hamburg.

I was wondering if the Gas Station is built in Streamline Moderne architecture design and if the picture can be used in related article? Thanks --Gnosis (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Gnosis - It's certainly an intriguing looking building, and a wonderful photograph. Whatever is going on inside? It doesn't look like it sells gas anymore. Do you know the date of the building? To me, it certainly looks like streamline moderne, but German architecture isn't my forte. KJP1 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi :KJP1 Apparently it is an old gas station in Hamburg that is now being used as a plant shop. Thanks for your reply. --Gnosis (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

List of works by Edwin Lutyens - York House, 292 Hills Road, Cambridge

Do any editors have further information on this house, the last in the list of Houses and Gardens in the List of Works by Edwin Lutyens article? It was added by an IP 165.225.72.59 on 29 October 2016. Looking to knock off the remaining red links, I've done some digging and there appears some debate as to whether it actually is Lutyens. The source seems clear that the house was undertaken to his designs. The owner, Ridgeon, was a major builder, so perhaps Lutyens just did drawings? But it isn't listed. That seems implausible, although not impossible (I know of a William Burges church that was not listed until last year). I can't see it in the revised Cambridgeshire Pevsner, although I could have missed it as the entry for Hills Road is quite long. Lastly, it seems to be threatened by demolition, [9], [10], [11], or perhaps has by now been demolished. [It's still standing on Google Earth - CB20QG but I don't know when that was taken.] It would seem improbable that HE would not take a view on the demolition of a Lutyens building. Any information would be extremely helpful. Have also posted on the List of Works Talk page. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Now removed. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque nominated for Featured Article Review

I have nominated Sicilian Baroque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A cross-cultural problem

Puck Building Lafayette Entrance - this is the supposedly Romanesque Revival building we're talking about.

First a bit of background. Several years ago disagreements between what I took to be British and American editors at the Queen Anne style architecture that could only be resolved by creating a Queen Anne style architecture in the United States. It happened again (not really sure which came first, at Second Empire architecture, forcing the generation of Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada. The same thing happened agin at Greek Revival architecture, forcing me to leave saying that a Greek Revival architecture in America had to be, though I never did it. Now it is happening again at Romanesque Revival architecture, to the point where I referenced an edit, or proposed edit from the AIA (American Institute of Architects) Guide to NYC” and was informed, “I’m sure the AIA is a fine august body, but in this case it is mistaken. “ I am afraid at that point I was reduced to using the term Eurotrash, which did not help, but can a wikipedia editor deny an edit because the AIA was mistaken? Or should I just publish a Romanesque Revival architecture in the United States and let it go at that? Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You should help ensure our articles reflect a proper view of what RR (or GR) architecture is, which at the level of the best RS is not in dispute on either side of the Atlantic. But this will involve ignoring a lot of seemingly respectable US sources that use these terms absurdly loosely. These will include many seemingly respectable local quides, the "reports" filed for State heritage registers etc etc. It is much too late for Queen Anne style architecture in the United States, where this has become the accepted term, and there is therefore a genuine difference in meaning - as with rubber. In the US the British version of Queen Anne style architecture would not be called by that term, but American (genuine) RR and GR architecture is called by those names, it's just slacker writers will also use these terms for a lot of other stuff with no resemblence at all to the original styles that are supposedly being revived, or virtually none. Such poor writers seize on a single feature, such as round-topped windows in the case of RR, and call any building with that feature by the term, regardless of the overall style or contradictory elements clearly derived from other styles. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

PS, I can't see there actually was much in the way of "disagreements between what I took to be British and American editors at the Queen Anne style architecture" - it was clear to all that the terms had completely different meanings on either side of the Atlantic, as indeed they do. This was your comment back in 2010:

And we should also do the Queen Anne Style architecture (British) and Queen Anne Style architecture (US) thing too. I have seen no one objecting and they really are different styles. This need not be another American Revolution or War of 1812. Let's just Balkanize this article and go our sordid separate ways. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-Entirely right (without the bitter note) Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: I'd never looked at Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada before, but now I have I'm having some difficulty distinguishing the residential version from Queen Anne style architecture in the United States. Is the difference just having a mansard roof somewhere? Can a house be both? Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I dare say in the USA a building can be anything its local tourist office declares it to be, however, on Wikipedia we adhere to higher standards. I think we have (wrongly) surrendered Queen Anne architecture as the USA was ruled by a different Queen Anne to Britain. However, as the ignorant piece of Eurotrash in question, I still maintain that Romanesque architecture cannot change by crossing the Atlantic. Romanesque architecture is a well defined European style (predating the invention of America) and cannot be revived 1,000s of killometres from its home looking like a Baroque or even a Renaissance building. Otherwise, are we to assume that in the USA neoclassical White House is actually Tudor in design and the Empire State Building is Early Norman? No, we can’t and neither can we just declare a building to be whatever takes somebody’s fancy. If a reference is plainly wrong, then it’s not a crime to say so. Giano (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Was Queen Anne (America) perhaps related to your doughty friend Lady Catherine? One might think so from her style. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Very probably Johnbod, very probably indeed! When referring to architecture, our American friends would do well to study the architecture of my esteemed aunt’s country home; one of the architectural wonders of England and the finest example of the “Domestic Mausoleum Gothick Revival“ style in existence. Giano (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

So put another way, the American Institute of Architecture is not an acceptable reference for identifying American architecture. But you guys are. Got it.Carptrash (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In this instance, that would certainly seem to be the case. Giano (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

So I will be sure to check with you before I use it. Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, probable best to do so. Especially, as AIA seems to have quite a lot of referencing issues on its own page too. I’m sorry, you feel this way, but if a building is clearly not of the style the AIA says it is, then the problem is clearly not mine, but theirs. And, to be brutally honest, if you don’t know the basic differences between Romanesque, Renaissance and Baroque, are you really editing in the field best suited to your talents? I may, in your opinion, be Eurotrash, but I do know my Norman from my Palladian. Giano (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

But the important question to me is do you know your British from your American? Carptrash (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Carptrash: You said that the AIA guide described the Puck Building as "monolith red brick Romanesque Revival". Would this be the book in question? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Yes, different cover, so perhaps a different edition but it is on the bottom of page 50, #10 in the Little Italy section. Carptrash (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the Puck Building has never, afaik been mentioned in the article, except that about 5 years ago it was added to the US gallery (I think by a British editor). Giano removed this & a few other pics, rightly I think - there were too many & they were not appropriate. Puck Building (which has not been changed) describes its style as Rundbogenstil - that article had nary a link to Romanesque Revival architecture until I added one just now. I can't see the Puck building is in that style either (as the article describes it). Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Rundbogenstil, per the article. All it takes is a couple of round-topped windows folks!

• Ah yes, Rundbogenstil! A little bit of this combined with a little bit of that, and we have a marriage made in Hell! If the writers of the Puck Building want it to be Rundbogenstil that's not my problem. It's not a page I frequent - I do wonder, though, how the "Baroquish" portal fits with Rundbogenstil. However, a quick read of Rundbogenstil only raises more questions than it answers. Quite how the Bavarian State Library can be Rundbogenstil, when any fool can see it's a near copy of the Palazzo Pitti or even Palazzo Medici Riccardi, which last time I was in Firenze were quite definitely Early Italian Renaissance, which , yes, I know, is derived from both both classical Roman and Brunelleschian principles, but that is not the same thing at all as Romanesque in any of its forms. If there were such an architectural style, the Puck would be 19th century Industrial or even a combination of what Osbert Lancaster termed Municipal Gothic and Public-House Classic. However, whatever the Puck Building is, it most definitely not Romanesque Revival. Giano (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed - I see our English article has no mention of the architecture at all, but the German one (from which ours is mostly or entirely translated) has "Das langgestreckte Backstein-Bauwerk umschließt zwei Höfe und basiert auf der Palastarchitektur der italienischen Frührenaissance, es wird dem Florentinischen Stil zugeordnet. Die ursprünglichen Sitzfiguren griechischer Gelehrter an der Freitreppe wurden von Ludwig von Schwanthaler geschaffen" (my bolds). I'll remove from Rundbogenstil. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vielen Danke und Ich habe just removed London’s Natural History Museum, and with a little more courage, I shall take out The Astor Library. The Germans have tried a national style a few times and, with the possible exception of Bauhaus, it’s never been a happy experience, especially when over plagiarised, exported and then as misunderstood as the proverbial oversexed errant husband. Giano (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Scope of article Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques

Please consider contributing to this Request for Comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

New Classical architecture

I have been discussing possible original research in the article with User:Herrikez at Talk:New_Classical_architecture#Original_Research?. There was also a discussion on synthesis in the article in 2016 at Talk:New_Classical_architecture#Synthesis?. The article currently covers traditionalist architecture since around 1900 as well as recent Greek/Roman revival architecture. Any suggestions for improving the article would be helpful. The specific questions I asked were:

• Is there a reliable source for the definition "The New Classical movement, or New Classical architecture, is a contemporaneous movement in architecture that continues the practice of classical and traditional architecture", implying that New Classical architecture refers to traditionalist architecture in general.
• Is there a reliable source which says that the Egyptian architect and 2009 Driehaus Architecture Prize winner Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil is "a representative of New Classical Architecture"? TSventon (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there is an issue here - Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil seems to do revivals of historic Islamic architecture, more or less, & I don't believe this, or revivals of Euroopean medieval vernacular styles, should be given a "classical" label. Nor do I believe this is at all usual. It's very confusing for readers, who mostly have a clear basic idea of what Classical architecture means. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• TSventon & Johnbod, what if we just move the page with a new name "Neotraditional architecture"1314111215, most of the architects associated with New Classicism like Leon Krier123, Robert Adam14, Quinlan Terry1, Robert A.M Stern5, Demetri Porphyrios4 are also commonly referred to using that term. I would even argue that New Classical architecture is a mere subset of that broader movement, as many of the "New Classical" architects of the 80s and 90s are now acting as directors6, juries7, advisors16 and board-members of organizations like the Driehaus Prize8, INTBAU9, ICAA10. Herrikez (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Herrikez: I think that moving the article to "Neo-traditional architecture" could be part of the solution. It would be useful to find reliable sources about "Neo-traditional architecture" that would confirm what it is as well as who is involved. Of the five "Neo-traditional architecture" links you provided ThoughtCo looks like a blog and the other four focus on planning rather than architecture. TSventon (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this might help, although the article concentrates on large and grand public buildings, where the more plausible of the sources concentrate on commercial domestic projects with relatively small units. Better sources (and less exclusively US ones) are needed. I see we have an article on McMansion (I hope this is linked to here), but not one on mock-Georgian, which we ought to have. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

mock-Georgian now set up as a redirect to the real stuff's last section. Interesting to see the dozen or so articles already using the term. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon:Sounds like a plan. On my preliminary research I found the book "The Tale of the Scale: An Odyssey of Invention" by Solly Angel where he makes a short description of neotraditional architecture as "The neotraditional style, based on the revival and conservation of the old and established forms rejected by modernism.". He also calls the book "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander, as the 'Manifesto' for this "neotraditional movement". Herrikez (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

In his book "The Humanists Versus the Reactionary Avant Garde", Charles Siegel divides neo-traditional architecture into two sub-groups: eclectic traditionalism and second group that he calls "the break-up-the-box style", could this be an article about the second one?

Description by Siegel: "The second neo-traditional style of our time is what we can call "the break-up-the-box style," which is probably the most common style of new residential buildings today (Figure 4-20). Like many postmodern buildings we have looked at, this style tries to imitate the massing and the human scale of traditional architecture, but it avoids any traditional ornamentation. It is very common in suburban apartment complexes and urban housing developments that are designed to have the scale and some of the feel of old-fashioned urban row houses or apartment buildings.

Reading further the work of Siegel, he establishes a genealogy of this neo-traditional style from a "serious" and "humanistic" postmodernism and the works of Quinlan Terry, Christopher Alexander, Alan Greenberg and New Urbanism. (Some chapters missing from the source) Herrikez (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

More Sources Herrikez (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

More Herrikez (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Not clear but useful information ref, putting Seaside, Florida by Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Krier and Battery Park City by Cooper Robertson explicitly in the neo-traditional bag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrikez (talk • contribs) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Here Carol Strickland equating "Neo-traditionalism" to "New Urbanism style", listing most of the architects on our article ref Herrikez (talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Any form of classical architecture, new or otherwise, has to have its roots in Ancient Greek or Roman Architecture and some people might argue that Napoleonic/Soane Egyptian is classical. However, Byzantine, Muslim, Mughal etc are not classical and derive from different sources. This article is very confused and mostly erroneous. Giano (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another possible solution could be to remove the information about architecture which is not "classical" from the article. This would be in line with earlier versions of the article (up to February 2014) and preserve the link to other articles about classical architecture. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hum... What?? The 2013 version still lists Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil as a "New Classical" architect! 2:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Herrikez: True, I missed El-Wakil, but the February 2014 version is more focused on architecture in a Greek or Roman classical style than the current one. TSventon (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

From 11 January 2014 "Fundamental tenets of the New Classicism is that it is not neo classicism and that the classical is not a style but a way of elevating the art of building to the art of architecture".

Also, you will have to provide a source for "New Classicism", in specific, being exclusively about Greek or Roman classical architecture, I don't see any mention of that on the 2014 and 2013 articles. Herrikez (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The section on Philosophy is sourced to Demetri Porphyrios' book, "Classicism is not a Style", and I think the section should explain that as other classical architects have their own ideas. I don't think a source is needed to confirm that one meaning of "New Classical architecture" is "Classical architecture" which is new. TSventon (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you do. If it is just new Classical architecture then there is already a page for that, two actually. If "New Classical" architecture is a different thing, then we have to define what that difference is, and for that, I need a source.Herrikez (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Buckyboot, Sarah fides & Keroscene777, what is your take on this? You are probably better fit to argue this with TSventon than I am. Herrikez (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think I found both the origin and the solution to our dilemma, in his book "Modern Classicism" Robert Stern divides Modern Classicism into five subcategories: Ironic, Latent, Fundamentalist/Essentialist, Canonic and Modern Traditionalism ref. We can use Stern's nomenclature as a template and go from there. I found two second-hand (partial) sources, 1 2.

P.S. I still think that "New Classical architecture" is a dumb name and ideally we either move the page to "Modern Classical architecture" or "Neo-traditional architecture" Herrikez (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Update Herrikez recently found a Google books link to The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture where pages 520 to 522 cover "New Classicism" and link it to Classical architecture. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

New Classical architecture 2

Moved to Talk:New Classical architecture

 – This returns the discussion to the New Classical architecture page. TSventon (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations#Home

A nomination is open at the above link for the article Home to become a weekly article for improvement. It would then be offered for editing to those signed up on the articles for improvement list, so please ivote if the mood hits. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)