Category talk:Architectural glossary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why does this category exist?

I question the usefulness of this category. It seems to me that everything here simply belongs in Category:Architecture. I don't see what is gained by having this subcategory: how do you decide what goes in which? The separation of the subcats seems especially arbitrary: why is Seismology under glossary? So many are acts are subcats under both "Architectural glossary" and "Architecture" (like "architectural styles"). Categorization is meant to assist navigation between related articles. This scheme seems an unhelpful tangled mess. I suggest deleting this category and moving everything not already under Category:Architecture up there. Of course, some things belong under one of the other subcats of Category:Architecture, but that's a separate issue. jnestorius^(talk) 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with and appreciate your comments - except moving everything into architecture, as many are separate disciplines and not directly related to architecture. This category was created to figure out what to do with all the stub articles in architecture, and to create an article in response to a "requested article" from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences. Architects have to deal with many these issues in professional practice, but dumping them inro architecure would be too much. There is an article called Architectural glossary collected from the Encl. Brit., and a List of classical architecture terms which seems like a good way to make subtopics, to keep the article from growing to large. This category has existed for months, with no contention or even comments from editors in the other disciplines. Can we reach a consensus (at Wikiproject architecture?) before making changes? Happy to see your interest. — dogears (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I've copied these postings to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Categories#Architectural glossary, so discussion can continue there. Thanks jnestorius^(talk) 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)