Portal talk:Architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Architecture Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

January 6, 2007

Featured portal candidate

Promoted

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Portal about Architecture; content disputes should take place on the appropriate article's talk page.

Please ensure this portal's details are listed in the Portal directory and its status is assessed.

For discussion about Portals generally, please see the WikiProject on Portals.

Architecture Portal

This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.

This article has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Misc

industriel designer

Perhaps our article on industrial design may be of some help? Warofdreams talk 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selected articles and photos

The current selected pages have been posted for two months, when other portals rotate about weekly, so I have some suggestions / nominations for articles and would like feedback and to see more suggestions and articles from others.

Selected article noms: I have started this subpage for nominating portal article features: Portal article nominations

Selecteded picture noms: for nominating and discussing portal features: Portal picture nominations

DVD+ R/W 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to chip in to refresh the articles on the Portal with others - once a week..? -- Dogears 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

- I have been refreshing them every two weeks, if you can provide more nominations we can rotate them weekly. DVD+ R/W 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I have created the following two archives:

[edit] Portal Column Boxes

I can't get the two columns (the div left and right) to sit next to eachother on the page. It was fine on a different browser, and seems to be fine on this browser for other portals, ie. portal:art and portal:trains. I tried reducing the featured image size to 275 px, but that hasn't helped. If someone can do this, please help. DVD+ R/W 06:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Hopefully it is still fine on other browsers. DVD+ R/W 07:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to sidebars

Is there room in one of the boxes on the Portal (& a need) for links to the following?

History of western architecture series. Archhistory series (template) (see Architectural_history)
One of the tall building series
Architecture timeline -- Dogears 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think there is. DVD+ R/W 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards!

This portal has been recognized by Planetizen as one of the Top 10 design sites on the internet for 2006! http://www.planetizen.com/websites/2006

Congratulations, folks! - Amgine 21:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Somebody has inserted "vaginal fluids are very tasty" in the lines immediately preceding the Vitruvius quote. I'm cleaning it up.220.227.249.162

somebody deleted entire portal and inserted "ricardo" instead! Admins, please reverse last edit. Alsandro 15:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured pictures

I recently added a box of featured pictures. I listed them in text but am now considering listing them as thumbnails, maybe 25, 35, or 50 px. Any thoughts? DVD+ R/W 03:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I set the images as thumbnails, and there are various versions saved at two sizes, with and without title captions. Right now they are set at 50px and have titles. Scroll through the versions in the edit history. Any feedback would be helpful. DVD+ R/W 05:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the featured pictures to the bottom with a 100% width, and still could use more opinions, about this and the image sizes. DVD+ R/W 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it looks untidy at the moment. Perhaps if each was a cell in a table, or if the box was split into several columns with enough pictures in each to tile evenly? Warofdreams talk 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right about it being untidy. I don't know the markup for tables, can you do it or show me where to find the table code? DVD+ R/W 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured out how to put them in a table, could you take another look and tell me what you think? DVD+ R/W 21:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I have the right answer for you, but have you considered using the <gallery> tag? I think a subpage of all the featured architecture pictures would be very nice, using the gallery format. I have done something like that with U.S. government pictures, User:Kmf164/U.S._Government/Featured_pictures. Such a page would be too long to be tacked on at the bottom of the portal. Rather, I think there could be a link beneath the "Selected picture" that says "More featured pictures", which sends users to the subpage. Just a suggestion. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a possibility, but I think the table looks good now. Good work, Warofdreams talk 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

I've tweaked the layout to move Categories higher up the page so that the general reader might be able to navigate more quickly to find specific architects, buildings etc. Your comments would be appreciated. --Mcginnly 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the addition of images to the categories. At first it made the columns misalign but now it doesn't. The images are well chosen and make the categories more accessible. DVD+ R/W 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The images make a great addition to the page, and the click-links are very cool. Can the text & images be made smaller (and cropped) to reduce the column width? —dogears (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

- I had to muck about, quite a bit, with the column width yesterday. The column width is now the same width as it was previously (43%) of the total page width - Do you still think it needs reducing? I'm concerned that if the images or text get too small they'll be unintelligable. --Mcginnly 11:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  - Logging in at a library I sometimes edit from, the columns don't align. It looks from this browser like the images should be 75% of their current total width. DVD+ R/W 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    - I've reduced the images to about 75% of their initial values. Does anyone know how to centre them in the vertical direction - Marcel looks like he's floating to the top of the page?--Mcginnly 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      - The problem is for monitors set at 800 by 600 pixels. The last reduction wasn't enough, and they seem too small at 1024 by 768. Maybe we can revert the last size reduction and align them 3 wide instead of 4? DVD+ R/W 21:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        I tried some formatting tweaks, to fix alignment, background color, and adjust overall width of the two columns in the portal. Not sure if this entirely fixes the problem with smaller monitors, though? -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        Looks good at 1024 by 768, but now the selected picture is too wide at 800 by 600. We should try to form a consensus about whether we split the portal down the middle or have one column (the left) slightly larger as on the main page, before proceeding with any further image size adjustments. I am not sure which would be more advantageous. Any thoughts? DVD+ R/W 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        I am for moving the column widths back to 56 and 43, and placing the category images 3 wide instead of 4 and restoring their size a little. DVD+ R/W 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        Well, to deal with vertical alignment of the images, I have made them all the same height (55px), with the widths appropriate proportion for each image. 55px might (probably is) be to tall. The images can be made shorter. The widths of the two main columns, and selected picture can all be adjusted too, as needed. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        The height adjustment looks good. DVD+ R/W 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        For other ideas, look at Portal:Geography which has all the categories in one row, 100% wide across. Portal:History has another arrangement. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        I like the 100% across idea and then keeping the rest of the columns as they were, with the left pane larger than the right.--Mcginnly 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        
        I moved the categories to 1/3 instead of 1/4 of the window, and the column widths back to 55 44. If we had one more category it would be a 3x3 grid, but who knows what categories will be added, maybe more than one. The 800 by 600 resolution aligns fine with this configuration. Portal:Geography/Articles has a similar 3 wide format but uses a much simpler code. Maybe we should implement it? DVD+ R/W 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to categories

What categories could we add? Is it complete already? If we add one category it makes a 3x3 grid, only thing I can think of is Category:construction. DVD+ R/W 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added category:construction. Here are three possible images:

Any feedback? DVD+ R/W 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC) I posted the first for the interum. DVD+ R/W 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the one you went with. The second image doesn't look 'under construction enough' as a thumbnail, and the third risks confusing constructivism with construction.--Mcginnly 10:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected anniversaries

I'm somewhat confused by the "Selected anniversaries" section. Are these supposed to be June anniversaries? or what? -Aude (talk contribs) 19:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further meddling

The box headers have had a colour change towards a more punchier look - the idea was to give the page layout a hint of Blueprints (and loose the pastelly light blue). Many other portals carry a Related Portals Section so I've added one. Oh and I've changed the selected picture to include some more text - Is it too small now? Comments gratefully received. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to:-Maybe the featured pictures box(the big one) shouldn't be there, just link in the current featured pic. I've put the Selected pictures into a Show/Hide frame so it can be expanded. I did the same to the To do list - in that way they are both closed when one arrives at the page (just one show/hide section starts with the section open). I've put a request in to change the colour of the show/hide text to white and I'll add edit links for both pages. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Topics

I've added a list of major topics shamelessly ripped from the German Portal. Once I've finished the translation, the job will be to give it a global scope. Does anyone read this page anymore?--Mcginnly | Natter 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mcginnly. I like it, you've got the hang of the hide/show boxes. You've managed even a rare reduced width one, which I'd never seen before. The major topics box has a lot of information, a lot of links, which should be usefull. DVD+ R/W 04:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article recommended for deletion

I just prodded the Architectural visualization article for deletion as a dictionary definition. I would normally notify the original creator, but s/he seems to no longer be editing, so this seemed like a good place to let people who might have an interest in the article know. If you think it should stay it should probably be expanded at least a little to make it clear what such an article would encompass. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great fire of London

I'm considering adding this recently promoted FA to the list of FA's because of it's importance to architecture and the "Aftermath" paragraph that details wren's churches and the reasons why London did not receive Paris style boulevards. But perhaps the architectural link is too weak for inclusion in the Portal - does anyone have a view? --Mcginnly | Natter 09:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate because of the precident it might create - potentially we'd need to include the 1906 San Francisco earthquake if it became an FA and then every other natural disaster that resulted in rebuilding, Hurricane Katrina etc.etc. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really so?

According to first paragraph: Vitruvius added that an architect should be well versed in fields such as music, astronomy and philosophy. This holds true to this day – as music is a play of pitches/tones with silences (modulation in sound), architecture is a play of solids with voids, geometry with proportion. I would dispute this, or at least state that this is the case in the opinion of some not others. There have been MANY definitions of what the architects role is since Vitruvius and I hardly think that his definition should be held out as still serviceable.Brosi 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured portal candidate

The portal's currently up as a featured portal candidate. It's been generally well received but some input would be appreciated regarding the news section. The comments have been that a news section should reflect current events, as the section is not updated massively regularly, the reviewers feel it's not really reflecting current events. I've argued that architectural news is rather scant and suggested renaming the section to something like "Architecture in 2006-2007" but I'm not sure they'll go for this. Other suggestions include a "Architecture in this month" section. What should we do? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit links

I would suggest the redundant edit links be removed within Things you can do, Major topics, and Featured pictures. Rfrisbie^talk 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted - they're a relic from when we had expandable boxes - I've removed them now. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Mahal - Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view

During efforts to improve this article, a number of editors asserted the need to emphasize a non-academic minority theory. Initially proposed by P.N. Oak, this theory asserts that the Taj Mahal was not originally built by the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan, but was a much older Hindu temple or palace stolen by the Mughals. It is instructive to note that Oak also claims that the tombs of Humayun, Itmad-Ud-Daulahand Akbar — as well as the Vatican in Rome, the Kaaba in Mecca, Stonehenge and "all historic buildings" in India — were also stolen Hindu temples or palaces.[1]

"The Taj is only a typical illustration of how all historic buildings and townships from Kashmir to Cape Comorin though of Hindu origin have been ascribed to this or that Muslim ruler or courtier."P.N. Oak at www.hindunet.org

We seek comment, prior to an overhaul of the article, to establish "to what extent we are obliged to include minority points of view within this article." 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone would like to comment the link is Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. --Joopercoopers 17: 43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hello. Can some good soul please tell me, in what architectonical style is this house built? commons:Image:Czciesz 826.jpg Thank you very much. - Darwinek 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed on infobox

Hoysala architecture is in peer review (the general peer review, and not the architecture portal's peer review) now. The auto peer review adviced that a "box" appropriate for the topic should be added. Can anyone please suggest some appropriate box? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs an infobox - perhaps they are suggesting the {{Archhistory}} navbox? --Mcginnly | Natter 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the archhistory template. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geison merge

There is a merge proposal on the Geison article that needs some participation. Thanks. -- Jreferee 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikinews

Someone started a page n:Architecture (which has been deleted) on Wikinews, apparently a mirror from this portal. Unfortunately, we cannot allow mirrors or copies from Wikipedia, because the GFDL licence of Wikipedia does not allow to copy information and then redistribution under the cc-by-2.5 licence of Wikinews. Nor de we display just a list of external links: Wikinews is for writing news stories themselves, which is our major advantage over Current events on Wikipedia. If anyone here is interested to write news stories on Wikinews related to architecture, they are most welcome!! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance in identifying the form

There is some debate regarding the Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn as to how to describe the form. Image here [2]. Some say it is "mastaba like", others not. The structure is apparently solid. Any opinions would be helpful. Thanks. Martintg 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House Plans

Hi Peoples.

I am looking for house plans for download. I want to study how build a house plans artycle.

Thank's.

Please, if it is posible, place a Direct Link

--Libertad0 ॐ 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick google search provides many [3]. But house plans vary in terms of where you are in the world, your culture, the available building materials, the climate, how green you want to be, what style you want, what structural system you intend employing, price, how much accommodation you want to provide, are you designing for the car, how the house fits into the rest of the built environment.......etc.etc. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hut Headaches

I was tracking down some links on climbing huts and uncovered a bit of a mess.

There is hut (dwelling), alpine hut, backcountry hut, bothy, climbing hut (which redirects to alpine hut) and wilderness hut! While Hut (dwelling) is the main one, the rest all refer to some type of mountaineering/backpacking/wilderness accomodation. I'm tempted to rebuild a main page as Wilderness Hut, redirect climbing hut to there, and then have subsections and main article linkes for Alpine hut, Backcountry hut (which could actually be called Tramping Hut) and Bothy. Another alternative is to merge the whole lot into one!
Suggestions welcomed! Malathos 04:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cupola, Coffer , Dome - would like to have comments

A coffer, a cupola, and a dome - are they the same or similar? Or does each have distinct characteristics? (The words are used often in articles on architecture so it would be good to know.) Or are they all related to dome which is the longest article)?

What is the deal here? Thanks! --Mattisse 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

erm, they're all distinct. you know what a dome is; you can have a dome with a cupola on top (like a lantern) but you can also find cupolas on pitched roofs. You can also have coffering on the underside of a dome (like at the pantheon), but you can also find coffering on any soffit. So you can have all three independantly of each other. --Joopercoopers 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic architecture

I have created a new category of architectural style (as listed in the title), and it is important to notify other architects so that they can comment on it. I am a registered architect, but I do not recall this being considered an "official" architectural style in the sense of gothic, streamline moderne, etc. However, I could not find any any existing wiki category that these structures should be placed in, and they are a vanishing piece of Americana (to the degree that I associate them with early to mid 20th Century buildings). I am not entirely comfortable with the category (my architectural history profs may not approve of it), and have not research references yet (beyond other wiki listings and a Wisconsin page). However, I have thought about this for months before beginning the page. It is NOT a clearcut style, and if I have overstepped the bounds of the category, please let me know. But I need some fellow professionals and other wiki members who are interested in architecture to critique this, and either expand the stub or merge it with another cagegory. (The existing "futurist" category came close, but appeared to fall short - in my opinion.) Thanks. --Baxterguy (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cowl (oast)

I've created this article, basically as a sub-page to the oast article so that it doesn't dominate that article. Is this within the scope of the Architecture portal? Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment request

James Duncan (labor leader) - this article has been assessed by its author. Could someone supply a second opinion? It is on the main page of wikipedia now and is assessed as a B and of mid importance to architecture. Apologies if this is the wrong place. Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Victuallers - I thought the subject, the leader of the granite cutters union, was such a tenuous link to architecture that it warranted the removal of the arch project banner. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Itten

Why is Johannes Itten, the Monthly Improvement Drive subject of March 2008, even within the coverage of the Wikiproject? While he did teach at the Bauhaus, and the Bauhaus is of interest to architecture historians, Itten was not an architect, he apparently did not design any buildings, nor did he teach architecture. The Bauhaus was not exclusively a school of architecture. Shouldn't improvement drives be focussed on more important issues? Rick lightburn (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia featured portals | WikiProject Architecture articles