Talk:Architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.
Portal:Architecture
 Architecture Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection Architecture is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Architecture has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

See also Talk:Architecture (disambiguation)

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Architecture as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Tamil language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] From PNA/Architecture

  • Architecture I would like some other opinions on the Architecture page, original author KRS seems to be a bit AWOL. Also, page seems to be inappropriately categorised on the main page under technology (I recommend society) but is under "arts" when I browse the category:main page separately, I don't understand why. Chwe 23:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To Archinect or not to archinet

There seems to be an edit war over whether or not to include a link to http://Archinect.com/ . What to do about it? --DavidCary 20:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's at least have a few votes on whether or not to include it. (Title added by me) --stochata 17:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One vote to include it either here, or under a subcategories as a online architectural zine.

[edit] ARCHILAB

This article has now been translated (from French), but it needs cleaning up, preferably by someone with some knowledge of archtecture (i.e. not me). Physchim62 11:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gingerbread/Gothic revival

I uploaded Image:Gingerbread (architecture).jpg, thinking there would be a place for it, but if it's there, I can't find it. The architecture articles seem to be limited to monumental structures. Am I missing something?

[edit] Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?

One thing that surprised me about the destruction wrought by hurrican Katrina on the Gulf Coast is that despite the fact that there were supposedly million dollar plus homes, they did not survive the tidal surge. Was that just negligence on the part of the architects? Aren't there reasonable ways to design survivable homes, at least in this price range? Do we really have to stop building in these coastal areas? Perhaps a section in this article that could point architects to the resources describing how this is done would be helpful.

On the subject of New Orleans, is there a way to construct buildings and infrastructure so it is less vulnerable to the flooding when it occurs? Perhaps on pilings or with 1st floor garages so that the damage is less? --Silverback 14:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?

Perhaps a better solution would be to live a less wasteful lifestyle? maybe consider living in a simple home, and using the rest of the resources as an emergency back up for such situations? I see architecture as well outside the reality loop when it comes to resource use. this is to some extent mirrored in society, where the rich minority of us (you have a computer? then you are one) use excessive amounts of resources, most of which we waste. --Naught101 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You underestimate the benefits of technology. For instance, computers allow me to telecommute, saving resources. Automobiles pollute far less per passenger mile than horses, etc.--Silverback 05:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
--futher off-topic replies moved to User Talk:Naught101 --Naught101 23:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?

Restored with a small amount of unfortunate duplication from User talk:Naught101

One thing that surprised me about the destruction wrought by hurrican Katrina on the Gulf Coast is that despite the fact that there were supposedly million dollar plus homes, they did not survive the tidal surge. Was that just negligence on the part of the architects? Aren't there reasonable ways to design survivable homes, at least in this price range? Do we really have to stop building in these coastal areas? Perhaps a section in this article that could point architects to the resources describing how this is done would be helpful.

On the subject of New Orleans, is there a way to construct buildings and infrastructure so it is less vulnerable to the flooding when it occurs? Perhaps on pilings or with 1st floor garages so that the damage is less? --Silverback 14:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Coastal architecture? Flood zone architecture?

Perhaps a better solution would be to live a less wasteful lifestyle? maybe consider living in a simple home, and using the rest of the resources as an emergency back up for such situations? I see architecture as well outside the reality loop when it comes to resource use. this is to some extent mirrored in society, where the rich minority of us (you have a computer? then you are one) use excessive amounts of resources, most of which we waste. --Naught101 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You underestimate the benefits of technology. For instance, computers allow me to telecommute, saving resources. Automobiles pollute far less per passenger mile than horses, etc.--Silverback 05:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that was worded oddly. I simply meant that the fact that you are using a computer right now probably means that you are part of the global minority of the rich, considering less than 1 in 1000 people have a computer. True, computers may use less resources while running than the postal service, which uses aeroplanes, but computers have an extremely high embodied energy.
Cars do not pollute less than horses. cars produce carbon dioxide, which, unless you're running hydrogen or biodiesel/gas, adds to the greenhouse effect, for decades. This has rather serious effects on climate change, and has a carry on effect to hurricanes. It's true that horses produce manure and methane, the first is a fertiliser, hardly a pollutant, the second is a greenhouse gas (but carbon neutral since it's part of the natural carbon cycle). Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. --Naught101 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
There are more environmental concerns than just CO2, which some have also considered a fertilizer of sorts. Horses were considered a major environmental hazard at the time partially due to the short working life in heavy duty, and thousands of carcasses often left on the streets. The dung attracted flies and generated terrible odors, and created runoff water polution. The din of noise from iron horse shoes and the damage they caused to roads were also problems. The next two paragraphs are from this blog, but they have some credibility because they have references [1]
"Historian Stephen Davies recounts "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894" in the current issue of The Freeman (some of contents on-line but, unfortunately, not Davies' piece). All urban non-pedestrian traffic was horsepowered and the stuff kept piling up. "In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day ... " And, "Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.""
"Even better is Davies' reports that, "In 1898 the first international urban planning conference convened in New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output.""
Evidently, the shear volume of manure and urine polution per passenger mile, created problems that your simple lawn analogy doesn't capture. Horse and the Urban Environment | HORSE WASTES AND COMPOSTING: PATHOGENS AND WEED SEEDS
One of the implications of wealth usually is an increased ability to survive or protect against environmental insults. Are there reasonable engineering/architectural solutions to building and living in a storm surge zone. It is perhaps similar to the situation with earthquakes in the San Francisco area. The hills around there are undeveloped ostensibly due to the earthquake risk, which on the face of it, given the price of real estate and homeless problem (I would probably be homeless there despite my apparent riches), is obscene. With the wealth of their population, they SHOULD be able to develop those hills and relieve some of the housing pressure on the lower and middle classes, by letting those that can afford to, safely develope there. Are the engineering problems that intractable, that we have to leave these areas undeveloped, or is it cheaper to just simply rebuild after destruction in these areas? --Silverback 21:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
heh, sounds like a load of fun. though if an enterprising person happened to also be a right-thinking person, they could see a way to clean up the streets AND make a profit. collect the shit (and carcases], sell it to farmers. I'm not sure about the water pollution, it does sound pretty bad, but proper storm water collection, retention and reed-bed/mop crop filtration should ba able to sort this out. CO2 hangs around for about 100 years, and is only slowly re-converted into oxygen and carbon molecules. and this rate may be less than previosly thought. and if you are worried about hurricanes, storms, floods, heatwaves, cold snaps, firestorms, or any other climate-affected natural disaster, you should be worried about climate change, cause it's only going to get worse.
I'm pretty sure the current solution is "survival of the richest," where you buy your way out of the disaster, leave for a few months, till everyone is dead or gone, then come back and take over their property. sorry, it's hard not to be cynical in the fucked up system.--Naught101 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
To show you how insignificant the UKs efforts were even if they hadn't been cancelled out, this effect is about two orders of magnitude larger so we end up with less than nothing for forgoing tens of billions of dollars of economic growth. What is strange about the coast, is that there did not seem to be any residences built to survive the surge, you'd think some owner or architect would have implemented a solution.--Silverback 02:51, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish baronial style

I've just started an article on Scottish baronial style. It has three sentence which contain the sum total of my knowledge, and I wouldn't even guarantee that that is accurate. I put it up because I want to know more and am curious what you architecture experts will now do with it. (It links from a reference at Aberdeen Grammar School.) Please visit this page and do whatever needs done. --Doric Loon 14:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look and expanded a little, perhaps it need to be moved to Scottish baronial architecture, or perhaphs just a subsection of Gothic revival - any views?

[edit] Arpingstone's changes

The article definitely needed some tidying up, and Arpingstone's changes seem like as good a start as any. However, the changes include a whole paragraph erroneously attributed to Vitruvius (now corrected), and it is still seems very fragmented. I could follow Arpingstone and go for some more bold editing, but perhaps we should discuss some things first: should we merge the two introductory paragraphs, and talk about architecture rather than the architect as we do in the new Introduction section. Diving into Vitruvius is centered on Western values in architecture -- should scope and intentions be broadened? --stochata 12:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I was very bold in my changes because the article was phrased in a peculiar style that was very hard to understand. I'm a fairly intelligent person (University degree etc) but much of the stuff I could make no sense of. Heaven help the general reader! So I set about simplifying the language. I don't want to take part in any further discussion on architecture because this is not a subject I have any knowledge of, so please carry on and further improve the article - Adrian Pingstone 18:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russian architecture

Please comment on the dispute at talk:Russian architecture. Some editors contend that examples of architecture of medieval Kievan Rus which lie in the territory of modern Ukraine may not be mentioned in an article entitled "Russian architecture". Other editors contend that the article is neutral as written. Please help resolve this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 21:30 Z

[edit] Adding of General Architecture Definition paragraph

I added a more general definition of architecture since today we speak of the architecture of buildings, languages, people, clocks, virtual machines, .... My suggestion is that it be the leading paragraph, since it encompasses all of the other elements on this thread, and many more 'things' not on this thread. normxxx 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided to be be bold and removed it. I hope this doesn't incite an edit war, but I thought the paragraph was un-needed and ugly, and well...redundant and used too many neologisms. If you contest it, go ahead and put it back. I will try to resolve this in the meantime. -- Natalinasmpf 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To: Natalinasmpf

Are you playing some kind of game? You don't approve of my trying to broaden the definition but you insist this is not a definition of building and shelter architecture. Show me where this definition addresses anything other than shelter structures of some kind.

How about beginning with the disambiguation page, as in other definitions? 165.247.89.101 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 1 [from Natalina]

Well it addresses the philosophy of architecture in general. The previous definition wasn't good because it wasn't concise enough, used too much bold formatting and was largely redundant. This isn't. Yes, biology is not mentioned after that, but it merely defines the scope of architecture in which the reader can branch off later. -- Natalinasmpf 03:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 2 [from normxxx]

Adding cell as an example of a "built environment" is objectionable to me (as a committed atheist, I do not believe that a cell has a builder) and it is wholly inconsistent with the Wikipedia definition of built or built environment. It only serves to confuse the issue, rather than broaden the definition. Throwing a cabbage into a collection of coins does nothing to extend any usable definition of that collection. I agree that the bold formatting was inappropriate; I do not agree that my original definition was redundant. Can you give me an example? In any event, I do believe my current changes are an improvement.

What about my suggestion of changing the opening page to the disambiguation page?

What is the purpose of the Architectural Portal, which completely repeats most of and otherwise overlaps with the main definition? normxxx 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 3 [from Natalina]

A cell certainly has a builder - that builder is DNA. Whether or not that builder is intelligent is entirely a different theory (there are in fact, philosophical tenets that hold DNA to be some sort of semi-sentient entity on its own, given the proliferation of otherwise meaningless junk DNA or Alu sequences. Then there are viruses, which are technically non-living pieces of genetic code, but carry out their purpose of ever-increasing (sabotage and) design. In any case, it was merely to clear up the etymology, and it's hardly mentioned later on. Structural biologists do get described as the architects of the cell, by the way - we are going to start modify things at the cellular level heavily, starting with nanotechnology, so clearly, the cell is a built environment. In the 1500's, it was not a build environment. But to hell with archaism! -- Natalinasmpf 22:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 4 [from Stochata]

Architecture in the context of the built environment surely has to include the fact that it is for human occupation in some way -- i.e., it is the subject of architects. While a cell might be used as a structural component by an architect, it is not going to form a liveable environment of itself, so I would disagree strongly with its inclusion. Furniture is on the border -- it can in some way be occupied by people. Designing cells should surely come under other uses of the word architecture. --stochata 23:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 5 [from normxxx]

A cell certainly has a builder - that builder is DNA.

That is simply not true! At most, the DNA may be understood to correspond to a very rough plan of the cell. From reference: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug99/936039442.Dv.r.html "Rather than contain a 'blueprint' of the adult, and then organize the cells accordingly, the genome contains the step-by-step instructions on how to build an embryo, without any one step 'knowing' what step comes next." Or, for that matter, without any one step 'knowing' what step came before!

Moreover, the DNA is interpreted by the ribosome for protein sythesis. http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/ribosome.htm

Actually, the quaternary structure and the tertiary structure shape much of the cell. The plan is hardly very rough. DNA's correspondence to cell structure is highly intricate and shall I say, "beautiful", and is much an architectural science as it is a biological one. The entire nature of receptors and the engineering of proteins in structures to determine it's almost exact position in the cell when compared with other structures. There is of course no blueprint of the adult, but structural biology is the field of studying how results are achieved (at any stage of the cell's life) through the programming mediated through genetic information. There is no instruction of "have the receptor here", but through manipulation of a protein's hydrophilic and hydrophobic components in relation to other proteins, a purpose is achieved. -- Natalinasmpf 01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But I do not wish to engage you in a spurious metaphysical argument over whether a builder implies an 'intelligent' agent or not! Suffice it that it is not how builder is defined by Wikipedia. And there is also a clear conflict with the definitions of built and built environment which you seem to have chosen to ignore. The very next sentence contradicts your insertion. Since when does the "Architectural design [of a cell] ... account for feasibility and cost for the builder, as well as function and aesthetics for the user"?

In any case, it was merely to clear up the etymology, and it's hardly mentioned later on. Structural biologists do get described as the architects of the cell, by the way - we are going to start modify things at the cellular level heavily

But that's just the point— it clears up nothing; it just confuses things. I believe that at least 95 people out of a hundred would not assume that a cell had any intelligent builder other than God! Remember, this is for people looking for a definition of architecture who are not assumed to be conversant with modern cell biology.

DO YOU OBJECT TO MY CHANGING THE ARCHITECTURE PAGE TO THE DISAMBIGUATION PAGE? If you let me make that change, you can have the 'built' architecture all to yourself (except that I still think the reference to the cell as you have it is maximally unesthetic, and very confusing besides). normxxx 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 6 [from Natalina]

I object - I was simply presenting the context of the Greek word architecture. The Greek architects of their day, had they known about DNA and cells, would have very much considered structural biology architecture. Aesthetics indeed does not play so much a role in a cell, but is are not the structures precisely positioned? Do not let this dispute mess up the current page, I was just including it to define the scope of the philosophy of architecture in general. This leads up to any encyclopedic definition of architecture, which the article then points to the disambiguation page. I think that disambiguation headers should be made short and concise, and the instruction to look to the disambiguation for anything else other than building environments is implied beforehand. I don't want this to become entangled because of something so minor. -- Natalinasmpf 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 7 [from normxxx]

I was simply presenting the context of the Greek word architecture.

I simply do not see that! Nor, apparently, does Stochata. The introduction of the phrase artificial cell structures in structural biology seems to come in from left field. If you really are trying to establish a context for the Greek word architecture, you'll have to provide a lot more explanation than these six words— which seems to strike everyone as inappropriately placed, even after your explanation in the talk page.

Any arguments about the esthetics of a definition are purely subjective. Myself, I consider any definition that is confusing or wrong or inconsistent or incomplete to be unesthetic! That would also be the definition of esthetics from mathematics. And even a mathematical definition (much less a lexicographic definition) cannot be so concise it does not explain! If concision were the sole criteria, even in mathematics, then there would be no need for mathematical proofs— the theorem would be assumed to immediately follow from the identification of the axioms from which it derives!

Moreover, you continue to ignore the clear conflict with the definitions of built and built environment. Do you intend to change those references or redefine those terms?

I was not planning to mess up the current page; I was only planning to make the opening page the Disambiguation Page, with this page being the page for "Architecture, built" or however you wish to qualify it. If you want it also to be Architecture, ancient" or "Architecture, philosophy" then you will have to expand on those latter topics. As it stands, it certainly does not offer sufficient coverage of the philosophy of architecture (the apparently arbitrary insertion of six words does not do it).

This leads up to any encyclopedic definition of architecture, which the article then points to the disambiguation page.

But that's a principal reason for my objections! It first points to the disambiguation page; then goes into an explanation which includes the phrase artificial cell structures in structural biology and no other references to any type of architecture other than built architecture or the architecture of the built environment. Your definition is maximally inconsistent. An encyclopedic definition cannot be carried on the back of six (apparently) misplaced or inappropriately placed words!

Furthermore, artificial cell structures in structural biology follows the defining sentence, "Architecture (in Greek #### = start and #### = craftsmanship) is the art and science of designing buildings and structures."

The "art and science of designing buildings and structures." does not in any way relate to biological cells. Neither designing nor buildings in any way relate to the Wikipedia definitions of biology or cell or cell biology.If you look under structure, which has a very wide reference list, neither biology nor cell is listed. The list to which you append "artificial cell structures in structural biology" is meant to amplify the first part of that sentence which reads, "A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture". As stochata has pointed out, even furniture would be considered a stretch— but cells are beyond the pale. It does not fit with any of the preceding definitional words! (Also, you are not entirely free to introduce a few definitions which are entirely at variance to the Wikipedia definitions; you must modify all relevant Wikipedia definitions— even the disambiguation pages! Do you plan to go through the entire encyclopedia modifying definitions as you go? Good luck!)

(Moreover, you are taking liberties with the truth. We cannot as yet design, much less build artificial cell structures from scratch! Although we can already mass produce viruses from scratch. But viruses are little more than bundles of RNA or DNA; they contain no complex organelles. It took about a billion years or so just to get from prokaryotes to to eukaryotes. And you can't get from viruses to either." See Lynn Margulus' stuff http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/margulis/ )

normxxx 18:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 8 [from Natalina]

We cannot, but that is the entire goal of structural biology. At present we can modify those structures, remove receptors, et al. I was just giving the example that architecture is the science and the art of creation and design of structures (which by the way, is listed under structure (disambiguation). The entire thing about the built environment remains, and does not really conflict, because it focuses on the built environment, but the entire thing of furniture and cells was merely to define the scope of architecture as an occupation. This page suffices. We don't need separate pages (as of yet), especially since this architecture is so short. We might in the end, define architecture in general using Template:main, focusing on construction, then having sections elaborating on the philosophy of design and construction that is architecture, as well as ancient. "Built" suits cells, whereas things like "information architecture" isn't really built (they are abstract systems) which is why it is listed as disambiguation. Perhaps, the dab header should be clarified to "this article is about the design of built structures", to which built structures may well range from the nanometric to the macroscopic. It is the introduction header, it can temporarily go off tangent from what the dab header precisely defines, because it says what it is roughly about, not what it is precisely about. Anyhow, thanks for your emphatic concern. -- Natalinasmpf 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 9 [from normxxx]

See stochata's reply below. He likes the idea of opening the definition with the disambiguation page, with no references to cell biology. I can live with that. normxxx 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To: Stochata

Do you agree with my changes to the definition? See link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architecture&oldid=32292114

Please advise. normxxx 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Normxxx, no I would rather see the disambiguation in the disambiguation page. The everyday usage of 'architecture' would seem to me the built environment architecture, and thus that is what the main architecture page should be about -- IMHO. I certainly wouldn't see cell biology as a part of the common conception. That the ancient Greeks may have thought differently (although we can never be sure) is not to my mind grounds for inclusion in a modern encyclopedia. Best, --stochata 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Stochata, what about opening on the disambiguation page?
What is the purpose of the Architectural Portal, which seems to completely repeat most of and otherwise overlap with the main definition?
normxxx 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the opening on the disambiguation page is excellent -- you've done a thoroughly professional job. As for the architecture portal, I have the same reservations as you. I've avoided getting into discussion about it because I don't like portals in general, and so tend to ignore them completely! No offence meant to developers of portals -- perhaps some people want to access information in a different way -- personally I like a no frills straight to business encyclopedia. --stochata 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] revised proposal

Let the disambig stay where it is - let me have a clarification: a disambig page is merely for ease of use for several topics with the same name. A lot of times, they are related. Therefore, they may be mentioned in the article, or even covered briefly in terms of "architecture", or perhaps how "architecture" has evolved with history. This would also add a feeling of comprehensiveness to the article, although yes we would have to modify it first. Perhaps, "this is about design and creation of structures" would be satisfactory, we could extend the modern definition of structure later (ie. transistors, organelles, etc.), while people who didn't want to go through all that would just skip to the disambig page. -- Natalinasmpf 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the Main page Intro as is, except that I would revert the sentence:
A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture or artificial cell structures in structural biology.

to

A wider definition would include within its scope the design of the total built environment, from the macrolevel of town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture to the microlevel of creating furniture. normxxx 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the Main page should be left as the exclusive domain of the architecture of built environments as currently defined by Wikepedia. Any changes to this definition would likely require a series of cascading definition changes!

Note that the current article is unsatisfactory and actually just lists topics rather than discussing them in context of architecture as a whole. I feel this proposal would unify them, as well as providing a basis in which to integrate the topics. It would be mostly about the built environment, but mention other derived subjects briefly. -- Natalinasmpf 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to re-do as you will; but use the Architecture/sandbox until we have a consensus.
Earlier, I did not persue your comment about DNA not being a very "rough," step by isolated step instruction set, as I thought it inappropriate to persue that here. (And I remain firmly against the inclusion of any architecture in this Main page article not designed by humans or for human habitation— and no viable living cell has yet been designed by a human nor do humans inhabit cells.)

Actually, the quaternary structure and the tertiary structure shape much of the cell. The plan is hardly very rough.

But you have just proved my point! A blueprint contains virtually all of the information needed to construct a house. I doubt if 20% of the information needed to construct a cell resides in the DNA. Rather, the DNA relies on the laws of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and protein physics and chemistry to supply the remaining information. (It is more like the plan of a city, which omits most of the details, and includes only a very rough sketch of the important stuff, e.g., the sewers and other infrastructure, since their placement need not be exact— only their relation to each other.)

DNA's correspondence to cell structure is highly intricate and shall I say, "beautiful", and is much an architectural science as it is a biological one.

I will not contest your vision of what is "beautiful" (though that's not NPOV), nor whether the structure of the cell has an apparent architecture. I would only point out that this page is otherwise exclusively devoted to the purposefully planned architecture of human architects and this inclusion is maximally confusing (unless, perhaps, you are a biologist).

Having thought about it, I see the merits of this revised proposal. So long as the derived subjects are dealt with in a subsection of their own, it makes sense for the overview to cover more than it does at the moment, and in more integrated fashion. I am sure this would make the overall content stonger. I am not sure that it needs much of a tryout elsewhere -- a self-contained section on derivations outside the built environment would probably be all that is required -- in fact, normxxx's intro to the disambiguation page might well be a starting point for it. --stochata 16:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comment on entries 10 - 12

Whatever is decided and done with this article's introduction, will likely be fine with me. The discussion is provocative and the changes discussed recall a summary of Charles and Ray Eames powers of 10. I would rather see this article remain somewhat metaphoric and over inclusive than become the equivalent of the architect article- a strict restating of requirements for licensure. DVD+ R/W 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fragmented definition

I thought the fragmented style was awful, so I integrated them into one definition, which I hope everyone will accept. -- Natalinasmpf 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separation is Cleaner

I believe that addressing the differences in seperate sections is cleaner and less confusing for the reader, but I will go with whatever Stochata, DVD+R/W, or others decide. (Others: don't worry about the differences in wording of these sections, unless you want to modify the latest. Natalina and I are almost in agreement on wording— see latest changes.)

Alternative format: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architecture&oldid=33064936

normxxx 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Norm -- I agree, I think separation is clearer, although it might need a little more tweaking to get it looking just right (I assume why Natalinasmpf thinks it was looking bad). BTW, it seems like your and Natalinasmpf's modifications are really coming together to make a more readable page. --stochata 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for the Architects

Do you consider architecture to be a technology? normxxx 16:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

> No. It may USE technology, but it is NOT technology in itself. It is one of the fine arts.

> It's an art that subscribed by words.

[edit] Taming the External links

Quite a few architectural societies are cluttering up the external links now. Maybe they deserve their own subsection?

A new subsection with links to various architectural zines and news sites might also be in order.

And what are the thoughts on linking to sites that provide no English language support on the English language version of this page?

[edit] Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/c/Talk%7EArchitecture_838c.html"