Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture

WikiProject Architecture	(Rated Project-class)
v t e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13
Threads older than 90 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II.

Rova of Antananarivo featured article review

I have nominated Rova of Antananarivo 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. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Conway Library

Hello! I thought I should write and say 'hello' as I have been tagging several drafts and new article talk pages with the WP Architecture, and I wanted to check if I was using the category correctly! I'm helping a group of volunteers to create articles about architectural photographs and academics, who contributed photographs of architecture to the Conway Library of art and architecture. We have quite the backlog of articles for creation that are pending review, as in the group there are lots of brand new wikipedia editors who need to go through the AfC route. You can find the project page here Wikipedia:WikiProject ConwayLibrary I wondered, firstly, whether WP Architecture are interested in such biographical pages? Secondly, I thought I would drop here some articles that are waiting for review - - and give many thanks in advance if any experienced eyes might give them a look over! I understand not all of them will be wiki-worthy, but many of the creators are feeling de-motivated that the review process can take so long. So even a rejection will be super helpful, as it will help people to 'move on' to tackle another possible new page, or make edits to existing ones! Here are the drafts: Draft:Millard Fillmore Hearn Jr., Draft:Stephen Murray (historian); Draft:John Higgitt; Draft:Frederick Reginald Pinfold Sumner; Draft:Jeffrey K. West; Draft:Peter Anthony Newton; Draft:David Hemsoll. Many thanks indeed, and happy to share more about the project, too! - KerstingFan (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

KerstingFan Millard Fillmore Hearn Jr. (i.e. Fil Hearn) now done, but NB no real article yet links to it. (List items do, but they're insignificant.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look, Hoary! I'll ask the creator to see if they can't fix the orphan status this week/ weekend! - KerstingFan (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

KerstingFan, Stephen Murray (historian) now done too; but again, it's effectively an orphan. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I think this is a great project, and a wonderful library. I shall certainly take a look at a few but RL is taxing just now. All the very best with it. KJP1 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and luck, KJP1, and for the additional feedback Hoary! - KerstingFan (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

KerstingFan, Draft:Peter Anthony Newton was declined on 9 September (two months before you mentioned it above), and not touched since. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoary yes indeed, and I did wonder about it, as, reading it, I can't see where the problems are with peacock words or npov. To me, it reads similarly to many other pages, and all claims are cited. The user who drafted the page just isn't sure what to change, and neither am I. Guidance here would be appreciated if anyone has the time! - KerstingFan (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it soon, KerstingFan, but not today. (Meanwhile, you might take another look at Draft:David Hemsoll.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Amazing, and no rush of course - I didn't mean to say it had to be you :D and thanks for the nudge, will do! KerstingFan (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done, KerstingFan. I started out in a good mood -- I have a high regard for this Conway Library project, and like to read about this kind of thing -- and I too wondered about Utopes's comments. I think and hope that I improved the draft somewhat. However, I'm not convinced of the biographee's [Wikipedia-defined] notability, and am disappointed by other aspects of the draft. Please look at the rant I posted to Draft talk:Peter Anthony Newton, and if you agree with some of it then consider passing this on to your participants. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Schmitt

Notable, or not? Please fix it, or risk deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Repurposed churches, etc

Category:Repurposing contains Category:Adaptive reuse of industrial structures, but no "Adaptive reuse of [anything else] structures": Ecclesiastical, military, monarchical, etc. Am I failing to notice some set of categories with similar purposes but very different names? -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary Category:Buildings and structures by former use exists, but also includes demolished structures (and oddly doesn't include Category:Former Barracks in Australia). TSventon (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, TSventon. I wonder how I missed that. (And now I wonder about the distinction, if any, between demolition and destruction, and whether Hornbach Abbey should belong to Category:Demolished Christian monasteries or Category:Destroyed Christian monasteries.) Suddenly I notice surprising absences from Wikipedia: though the "St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel" recycles railway company offices, its article doesn't have any category suggesting this; the article on Tokyo station doesn't even mention either the hotel or the gallery created within its building. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, some thoughts: I started by finding a former church and working up to Category:Former churches, which oddly doesn't include Panthéon. Demolished and destroyed are not used consistently, e.g. Category:Destroyed churches by country includes "demolished" churches in the Soviet Union, Ukraine and the US. Destroyed buildings include ruins, e.g. Category:Ruins of churches destroyed during World War II was discussed at WP:CfD earlier this year. The St. Pancras Hotel is perhaps not classified as former offices as it was built as a hotel (then converted to offices and back to a hotel). TSventon (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This may be going off on a tangent, but... any distinction between destroyed and demolished should be articulated in the categories. I think there is a legitimate split – for example a natural disaster such as an earthquake might destroy or damage a building but not demolish it – but is that the kind of thing that would be lost on the readers? Richard Nevell (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a tangent worth going off at, Richard Nevell. I don't see any urgency to a discussion, but such discussions are better earlier than later, when subcategories might well have proliferated. And therefore see the thread below. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Eve of Demolition?

We have Category:Demolished Christian monasteries and Category:Destroyed Christian monasteries. The distinction between the two doesn't seem to be explained anywhere; and it's not obvious (to me, anyway). I'd say that categories of the "destroyed" versus categories of the "demolished" is a category matter for discussion. However, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion seems to require actionable proposals, and at this point I'm neutral. If demolition implies destruction but destruction doesn't imply demolition, then destruction is the broader term, and I'd propose standardization on "destroyed". Opinions? -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, "destroyed" seems to be the standard term for subcategories of Category:Demolished religious buildings and structures. You could ask a regular from CfD for feedback before submitting a proposal if that would help. Explanations from other categories:

• Category:Destroyed churches: Churches that have been destroyed intentionally or by natural means
• Category:Demolished buildings and structures: buildings and structures that were deliberately demolished. TSventon (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You say (disabling the links):

• Category:Destroyed churches: Churches that have been destroyed [demolition|intentionally] or by natural means
• Category:Demolished buildings and structures: buildings and structures that were deliberately demolished.

Now I'm totally confused! I would take "demolished" to mean knocked down in an organized way as redundant or for redevelopment, and "destroyed" as this, plus, fire, war, iconoclasm/change of religion, earthquakes etc. So yes, standardization on "destroyed". Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

TSventon, Johnbod, thank you both for your comments. I'm now exploring the category trees, getting a better idea of what's what, and, I hope, starting to move towards a proposal that would be easy to understand and easy to implement. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated New Orleans Mint 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Antae temple

Hi. I recently proposed a merger of Antae temple and Temple in antis, since they seem to concern the same topic. I haven't had any response to that so far. Since then, I've found that there is also Distyle in antis, whose subject seems to be only marginally, if at all, different. I don't know enough about this topic to see if, how, and what should be merged, but it seems clear that there is at least some duplicity here. Additionally, it appears to me that Temple in antis contains a fair amount of original research, which I've also brought up at Talk:Antae temple#Merge proposal. I'm hoping that someone with the right expertise is willing to take a look at these articles and see what should be done. Thanks in advance! Lennart97 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Carbon12 in Portland, Oregon

Carbon12 has been expanded recently. I'm not 100% sure all of the sourcing is Wikipedia-compliant. I'd invite project members familiar with architecture articles to take a look and make improvements, or leave feedback on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Tsunami-proof building

Could we work to fix this article? Bearian (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frederick Mathesius

The article Frederick Mathesius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN architect, tagged for almost nine years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Frederick Mathesius for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frederick Mathesius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Mathesius until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bearian (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mausoleums for heads of state

Crossposting this to WikiProject Death as well, but I feel like there could be a better way to categorize the mausoleums for heads of states. Looking at the See also sections for Washington's Tomb (United States Capitol) and Lenin's Mausoleum, both contain fairly long lists of other, similar tombs or mausoleums, and I feel like creating a dedicated category and list article for this topic could be a better way to organize these related topics. Thanks, --JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Or you could just trim the SA sections, which are gross breaches of WP:SEEALSO. The idea seems to be to collect "Father of the Nation" tombs, but this is a subjective group (not all heads of state - eg Che Guevara) & I think a category would run into trouble. Perhaps a list too. Most head of state tombs are for royalty, often going back a long way. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § RFC: sortkeys for church articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § RFC: sortkeys for church articles. Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)