Talk:Facade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

---

Contents 1 Fire? 2 It is a façade 3 gable 4 STUB 5 2nd meaning? 6 Movies? 7 False front 8 WTF??!! 9 Move to Façade 10 So what's the conclusion? 11 Requested move 11.1 Survey 11.2 Discussion

[edit] Fire?

Does anyone find it strange that an article about façade should turn into an article about high rise fires? I don’t really think fires should be mentioned at all. It really has nothing to do with the subject. If you like fires, you could add this stuff to most articles. The “See also” section defiantly should not have Fire door, Firestop, Fire-resistance rating, Fire sprinkler, Active fire protection, and Passive fire protection. There’s more on fires then there is on false fronts. It looks like some have tried to remove the fire references in the past only to have the page vandalized with fire again. As for the pictures given, I see a lot of fancy facades here, but no typical facades where a store front has it’s road facing gable end squared off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.255.30 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It is a façade

façade is only 1/3 as common as facade using http://www.google.co.uk with an English flag set:

• about 2,220,000 English pages for facade
• about 739,000 English pages for façade

So I think the wording at the begining should be changed to facade (sometimes façade). Any objections to this change and if so why? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Google ratings are hammered because very few people have ç on their keyboard... —Mulad (talk) 16:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to Google (which might be misleading for the reasons stated), we should take into account print sources, and you almost never see "facade" there. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My Chambers English dictionary simply says façade or facade. It does not put any particular weight on either, so I suggest this article do the same. Notinasnaid 08:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason behind there being so many fewer pages for façade compared to facade is that on most English/American keyboards there is no "ç" key, nor do many browsers support hotkeys such as ctrl+comma+c to type them in, so i don't think the Google search holds much merit. On a related topic, why is the pronunciation guide written the way it is instead of using the Phonetic Alphabet? Archtemplar 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither is "correct", common usage on the net is facade, as this is an online encyclopaedia there is no harm in using the common version on the net. We can play games of authorative sources eg:

• 32,600 English pages from bbc.co.uk for facade -façade
• 986 English pages from bbc.co.uk for -facade façade
• 17,500 English pages from guardian.co.uk for facade -façade
• 388 English pages from guardian.co.uk for -facade façade

2 for the other side of the pond:

• 160,000 English pages from nytimes.com for facade -façade
• 229 English pages from nytimes.com for -facade façade
• 982 English pages from washingtonpost.com for facade -façade
• 77 English pages from washingtonpost.com for -facade façade

but is it worth it? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this is an online encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can be less accurate than anything else. In fact, in light of the controversy leveled at it, i think it probably needs to be more so. Still, i don't necessary disagree with you. I would push to make it written both ways with no emphasis on which is "correct". Archtemplar 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the reason for the abundance of "facade" is the difficulty of typing funny letters on Anglo keyboards? If that's the case, the mere abundance is an extremely poor reason for preferring the crippled form. Not many readers are going to see façade and think, "Oh, I was looking for facade but I guess this is something else." Besides, using the cedilla means never having to say "c is hard before back vowels in all English words except facade." —Tamfang 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do dispute it, Please read the above (at least one dictionary disputes it). As words become anglicized they loose their accent marks. One never writes "Hôtel" in English, but there was a time when one would have done so. Common usage should be the guide and as shown above it is common usage not only on internet blog sites but also in reliable and reputable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 12:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Where? What dictionary disputes it? One dictionary is cited as listing both spellings (for unspecified reasons) and preferring façade. —Tamfang 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OED, according to Wikipedia (see below). Take this discussion to cedilla; it is pointless having it here, I think. Notinasnaid 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely if the contributors to Wikipedia decide they know better than a dictionary, that counts as the dreaded and forbidden "original research"... Notinasnaid 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

From a personal point of view, I'd expect to see "facade" and "façade" i.e. the second form italicised to indicate it is a foreign word. Where an English word is available, I'd expect to see it used. But that would just be my opinion. More research reveals that Wikipedia has an article on the cedilla and its use in English. This article seems to follow that one; if the article cedilla#Use of the cedilla with the letter C is wrong, that is the place to correct first. Notinasnaid 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There did not seem to be any consensus for a move. (In my view the cedilla article implies no move should be done, but it's still open to debate, of course.) Anyway, today there was a messy manual swap of contents, which breaks the edit history, so I reverted. An actual swap, preserving the edit history, would require administrator intervention, I think. Notinasnaid 19:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the Cedilla article based on my access to the OED. As of now, the online OED has an entry for "façade" and none at "facade." Further, the "façade" entry does not indicate any alternate spellings. The OED seems to be strongly in favor of the cedilla-ful spelling. I agree, and think this article should be moved. ^L_Wizard @ 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The OED has a limited number of quotations for façade, and both forms are cited; facade from 1796. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gable

This seems an odd redirect from gable? Notinasnaid 18:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] STUB

stubstubstubstub

Thanks for your input, anonymous. Next time, simply add the stub tag by using ((stub)) (but with curled brackets rather than parentheses) Archtemplar 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd meaning?

Should we add a note about the 2nd menaing of facade?[1]: "An artificial or deceptive front"--75.7.135.250 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of you mean putting a new front on an older building (eg a Georgian frontage on Tudor building [2]) then yes that should be here. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movies?

Not sure if the facade reference to movies here is relevant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.220.225 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False front

I just created false front to redirect here. I feel like it is a more common word for describing the big square facades you see in the old west, as in this picture, as opposed to "facade". Thoughts? —Ben FrantzDale 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF??!!

Move this to Façade for God's sake, just because our keyboards are retarded doesn't mean we have to be. Facade implies a very wrong pronunciation. My Webster's dictionary favo(u)rs façade over facade as well.Cameron Nedland 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you prounce Worcester and Southwark? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

/'wɔɹ.stɚ/ & /'sʌð.ɚk/. BTW facade implies a rhyme with arcade.Cameron Nedland 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It may to you, but not to me any more than Moscow ends in the word cow, or Warwick starts with the word war, or that Wagner starts with a W. It is one of the more interesting features of English that these things are not consistent even within every day usage by different people or even the same person depending on context of the usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, true. It just seems unnecessary to change ç to c. I don't know.Cameron Nedland 14:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Façade

I have never seen 'facade' in any written material, it is less common using a google search, all of my dictionaries (three of them) favo(u)r façade.Cameron Nedland 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. 'Facade' is simply incorrect. ^L_Wizard @ 16:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, so long as there is a #REDIRECT from Facade. --Ziusudra 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia does not function by counting votes, but by the strength of arguments as applied to Wikipedia's policies and, where the policies cannot guide us, by reaching a consensus. Stating arguments is good; keeping count is contrary to the way things work. See Wikipedia:Voting is evil. I also observe that if you were counting votes, this could be seen as an attempt to wipe the slate on those who, above this section, argued against. Notinasnaid 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that voting is evil, and would gladly engage in a discussion about whether to move the page or not. However, the past several months, no one who is opposed to the move has expressed that opinion. As soon as we find anyone opposed to the move, we can discuss and establish consensus. Until then, this straw poll could serve to show that there is consensus already. I've read the discussion of eight months ago, but as my position makes clear I don't find the arguments against a move compelling.

I see that you made some of the arguments eight months ago. You noted that according to Cedilla according to the OED, 'facade' is the preferred spelling. I refuted that in July, both here and on Cedilla, and was ignored. If you have a further argument to make, or want to respond to my refutation, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise I see no evidence that any current editor of this article is opposed to its being moved. ^L_Wizard @ 19:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago I wrote: "My Chambers English dictionary simply says façade or facade. It does not put any particular weight on either, so I suggest this article do the same." This seems a storm in a tea cup. Notinasnaid 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we can't help putting weight on one or the other, because the article has to have a title. We currently are putting weight on 'facade', so I take it that you, too, are unhappy with the status quo?

Furthermore, your Chambers English isn't the only dictionary out there. The OED says "façade", with no mention of "facade" (though it does appear in one quotation, explaining a sense of the word other than what this article is about). I'm strongly inclined to side with the OED. ^L_Wizard @ 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Façade is preferred in all my American dictionaries, and that's saying something considering how diacritiphobic Americans are.Cameron Nedland 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Common usage seems to favour facade, so it should remain there. BTW it is not just blog sites were facade is favoured, for example google on [-facade façade site:bbc.co.uk] and [facade -façade site:bbc.co.uk] or on the other side of the pond [-facade façade site:nytimes.com] [facade -façade site:nytimes.com]-- Philip Baird Shearer 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Common usage can be incorrect. As an example, consider "L'Hôpital's Rule". Common usage is without the diacritic. We've recognized that that's wrong, and have our article correctly at L'Hôpital's Rule. For another example, consider the Rose Parade. I was surprised to find that a redirect - common usage is "Rose Parade," not "Tournament of Roses Parade." Yet common usage is inaccurate. There's no reason for us to cater our article titles to the lowest common denominator. If we did, we'd have to move our article Vinculum (symbol) to That fraction bar thingy, which apparently has some other uses too. ^L_Wizard @ 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What's right isn't always popular, what's popular isn't always right. Case in point, if people started killing each other randomly in huge numbers, that wouldn't be right. Besides, my google search got more hits for façade.Cameron Nedland 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC (an official policy):

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Common usage is the agreed naming policy. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that before, but I think it's lacking. In the three examples I mentioned above (L'Hôpital's Rule, Rose Parade, and Vinculum (symbol)) Wikipedia is ignoring the naming convention. In each case, the name used instead is more "true." I agree with the decision in each case (despite what I said on the Rose Parade's talk page, which was really just making a WP:POINT). Now I know that Wikipedia doesn't run on proof, it runs on verifiability, but I don't see how an article name can be verifiable. Do you agree that we should prefer true/accurate/correct article names to commonly-used ones, at least in some cases? ^L_Wizard @ 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is common usage, English is not French there is no is no such thing as "true/accurate/correct" as there is in French. As a word gets Anglicized it looses its funny foreign squiggles and facade is a long way down that path. If people did what you suggest we would still be writing hôtel.--Philip Baird Shearer 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We still write cliché, jalapeño, and háček, so words don't lose their "funny foreign squiggles" unless they are bastardized.Cameron Nedland 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• about 1,650,000 English pages for cliché -cliche -wikipedia
• about 1,770,000 English pages for -cliché cliche -wikipedia
• about 746,000 English pages for jalapeño -jalapeno -wikipedia
• about 1,250,000 English pages for -jalapeño jalapeno -wikipedia
• about 78,100 English pages for -háček hacek -wikipedia
• about 393 English pages for háček -hacek -wikipedia

So who is "we"? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but return to one of my earlier examples

* about 9,370 for "Ivan IV of Russia"

* about 556,000 for "Ivan the terrible"

Do you think this means we should have our article on that man at Ivan the Terrible? I don't. Other Wikipedians don't. Britannica doesn't. The misleading usage of the common people is outweighed by the usage of scholars. Similarly, for Façade, I think the usage of the common people should be outweighed by the usage of dictionaries. ^L_Wizard @ 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline specifically about the naming of European nobility and monarchs. The example you give does not persuade me. The use of facade by not just "common people" (by which I will assume you mean none reliable sources), but verifiable reliable sources like the BBC and the New York Times does. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google search: facade-15.7 million hits

Google search: façade-17.6 million hits

Therefore façade is common usage.Cameron Nedland 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google is (now days) often smart enough to include both when seaching, one has to exclude the other option, exclude Wikipedia (so it is not a self referencing search), and to set the search to English only pages. Both google.com and google.co.uk return:

• about 1,270,000 English pages for façade -facade -wikiepdia
• about 1,560,000 English pages for -façade facade -wikiepdia

Which is an increase in façade from when I last did the search (See above April 2005) --Philip Baird Shearer 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Google is a good indicator of the usage of diacritics. Diacritics are less-used on the internet than in print sources (and print sources are usually more reliable). For instance, consider José Canseco. Google reveals

* about 20,500 for "José canseco" -"jose canseco"

* about 491,000 for -"José canseco" "jose canseco"

even though his name is always properly written with an accent. It's no surprise that people writing for the internet don't use diacritics much: it's hard to use them. This includes not just lazy bloggers, but lazy reporters, too. If we want a representative sample, we should consider not just Google but also books, magazines, and newspapers. I would not be surprised if print versions of newspaper articles sometimes have diacritics that their online versions lack. ^L_Wizard @ 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have NEVER seen facade in a book, newspaper, etc.Cameron Nedland 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So do we now have consensus for the move? If I don't hear more objection soon I'll assume so. ^L_Wizard @ 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. A move would go against the WP:NC POLICY. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part of that policy? Are you still arguing common usage? ^L_Wizard @ 09:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I think you are the only one here who likes the present title. That seems like a consensus.Cameron Nedland 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not consensus for a move. In this section only five people have expressed an opinion which is not a very big sample on which to argue that there is consensus for a page move, particularly as two of the five do not think it desirable, and, as the evidence available suggests, such a move would go against Wikipedia policy. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC (an official policy):

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is far different, Philip, than saying that we should consult Google everytime there's such a doubt. The paragraph says "what the majority of English speakers would most easily RECOGNIZE"; does it mean that a little tail under the c makes the word façade incomprehensible? Since façade is always used in printed books, I can't believe people can't recognize it, on the other hand it helps English speakers suggesting its correct pronunciation (even if I know that there's no rule in English, I don't think that pronouncing ca [sa] is intuitive for anyone), and it's quite obvious that facade is easier to spell with an English keyboard (moreover Google treats c and ç equally). Résumé:

Arguments pro-façade:

• Only few dictionaries mention the spelling facade, while façade is universaly recognized.
• Printed texts and, more important, technical books use the spelling façade.
• The ç is helpful to suggest the right pronunciation.
• Other articles, like cliché, do use the diacritics, even if variants, like cliche, do exist (I do know that what happens in other articles shouldn't be influent, but since you quoted Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia should be consistent with itself).
• Your results in Google can be easily attributed to the absence of ç in English keyboards.

Is the only point against façade a simple Google research? Lupo Azzurro 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglosization: Général, Hôtels. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare façade with général and hôtel. In modern English you can hardly find those words written with diacritics, while façade is still the (or a) standard version. And with this kind of words, Wikipedia commonly keeps the diacritics (just look at the café, résumé, naïve art, soupçons, animé, führer articles). Lupo Azzurro 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Naïve is usually spelt without the diaeresis as naive both generally and on en.wikipedia.org. Fuerer is not a borrowed word (There aren't many politicians claiming they are the fuhrer of their party). Café is usually spelt that way. Résumé is a funny Americanism which presumably keeps it foreign squiggles because it looks as if the person writing it can speak French, or is at least aware it comes from French, even if they can not write Latin (CV) but as the article points out the French résumé is also spelt other ways (presumably by those who do not get the job).

But I put it to you that just because some names are not under their common English spellings and so breach Wikipedia policy, that is not reason to add more breaches to the list. For example do you really think that Lech Wałęsa should be spelt that way even though that is not the common English spelling? Does "ç" tell anyone any more about how to pronounce a word than "ł" does (is every English reader meant to know the effects of every funny foreign squiggle in every language that uses the Latin alphabet)? As to aiding pronunciation how would you for example pronounce Worcestershire? Surly not the way it is spelt? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some nouns are written with diacritic marks and "are not under their common English spellings" simply because those forms are felt as more formally right, and appropriate for a site which claim to be an encyclopedia. You claim that Führer is not a borrowed work, so I can't understand how you can cite the name Lech Wałęsa. And yes, if not universally known, "ç" do tell more about the pronunciation, French is one of the most known languages in USA and even a lot of people who don't speak it know something about it, because of its prestige. No offense, but the same can't be said about Polish (I won't even talk about Worcestershire, since I can't see what it has to do with our conversation, it has no diacritic mark). Anyway, surely more helpful than a simple "c" followed by an "a". Lupo Azzurro 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So what's the conclusion?

Will it be changed to façade, or still be facade? Everybody prefers façade in this talk page.

Somebody says there's no "ç" key in the American/British keyboard, but it doesn't matter. It's a retarded reason because "cliche" and "Mobius strip" are redirect pages to "cliché" and "Möbius strip" respectively. --에멜무지로 21:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how, after reading the earlier sections, you can write "everybody prefers façade in this talk page" I for one do not. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But when we type "facade" in word processor, it is automatically changed to "façade." Plus, their pronunciations are different. "Facade" is [fəˈkɑd], but "façade" is exactly [fəˈsɑd]. --User:에멜무지로/Sig 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And if we use "facade" instead of "façade," we should use "naive" instead of "naïve." --User:에멜무지로/Sig 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

also "resume" and "deja vu" instead of "resumé" and "déjà vu". and 95% of americans write/say "trevino" for the spanish last name "Treviño". 4.230.153.169 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is absolutely hilarious. ONE person doesn't want to move this, and everyone else does. And yet, it's still here. Gud Speling guyz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.71.131 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then. I will move this page without using "move" tab. I should break edit history. 72.159.71.131, you are absolute right! Nominated! Thank you for telling the truth. --User:에멜무지로/Sig 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

72.159.71.131 is not right. The Naming conventions are used to decide on the name of an article and the Naming conventions say "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See 4.230.153.169's comment above. --User:에멜무지로/Sig 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut and past moves are a depreciated because it destroys the history of an article which may be needed to prove copyright. see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. If you wish to ask an admin to make this contriversial move the put in a request at WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone prefers "façade," but not Philip Baird Shearer. That means "façade" won. We must move this page to "façade." --User:에멜무지로/Sig 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil. Reasons are more important than numbers. --Kjoonlee 20:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Fine. I will move these pages

• Cliché
• Coup d'état
• Déjà vu
• Détente
• Éclair
• Entrée
• Émigré
• Möbius strip
• Naïve
• Résumé
• Séance
• Vis-à-vis

to here respectively.

• Cliche
• Coup d'etat
• Deja vu
• Detente
• Eclair
• Entree
• Emigre
• Mobius strip
• Naive
• Resume
• Seance
• Vis-a-vis

--User:에멜무지로/Sig 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And end up in even more hot water? --Kjoonlee 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! Façade! --User:에멜무지로/Sig 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, didn't I say just above that numbers are meaningless compared to reasons? --Kjoonlee 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I can't see any contribution from you in this discussion. Anyway, there are reasons both against and pro façace, so I think it's time we find a way to choose, don't you? Lupo Azzurro 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not implying that newcomers don't have a say. Personally, I don't mind whichever is chosen. --Kjoonlee 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything like that. But I've seen a lot of "reasons" so far (none from you, that was my critique), and still there's no agreement. What's the next step? Lupo Azzurro 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

None from me? That still doesn't mean I don't have a say, does it? If there's no consensus, then the articles stay. --Kjoonlee 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming all the reasons to "keep" or "move" are good. If any of the reasons are bad, we consider the good ones. --Kjoonlee 07:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move