Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page for category discussion and sorting

Contents

[edit] Buildings and structures by year?

  • Is there a reason we aren't categorizing buildings and structures by year (year completed, I would think)? This would seem to be a natural fit for Category:Works by year which already includes books, films, paintings, plays and songs. --Dystopos 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would support this suggestion. Currently we have the Timeline of architecture in list form - a category system would at least provide us with a category summary from which we could compile the list. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I too noticed that architecture articles oddly don't have actualy "By year" categories. The lists are nice, of course, but categories are usually a good idea too on top of lists.
    • Since mass-categorization has become a hobby of mine, I'll see about setting up a category scheme for architecture by year which will mimic the Works by year format. Initial year of completion is the obvious choice (as opposed to years that additions were put on or the project expanded). But those sorts of details can be sorted out by your community. I'll just try and get the basic structure down for you and initially populate the new schema. Dugwiki 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, looking good! I created all the templates necessary and made a chunk of categories by year as a skeleton for the articles. I'll work on populating them tomorrow. To see the set up, go to Category:21st century architecture. Dugwiki 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Dugwiki, I'm elated by your efforts and you're well on your way to earning a well-designed barnstar. I would like to suggest using the phrase "Works of architecture" in lieu of the "architecture" in the headings (e.g. "Architecture completed in 2005". --Dystopos 00:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks, glad you like it! :) I made the above recommend text change in the templates.Dugwiki 15:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm mighty impressed too. Is there anyway of automatically populating the category?--Mcginnly | Natter 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure about programming a bot, but I'm making some nice headway manually. Right now I'm recategorizing all the "Year in architecture" articles under their corresponding by-year category. For example, 2006 in architecture is now categorized at the first page in Category:2006 architecture. By the end of this process, I'll have a category for every by-year list. So don't panic if you look at Category:Years in architecture and see no articles. The articles are still out there, just moved to their new subcategories. Dugwiki 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Ok, got the lists recategorized for everything after the 1st century AD. On Monday I'll finish up with the BC lists, then start categorizing individual articles. Have a good weekend! Dugwiki 22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reading and writing

i have a question- in what ways do you as architects use critical reading writing and thinking on the job?? is it important? i'm doing a project and was wondering?? thanks!! 66.32.59.54 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)sarah

[edit] Sustainable architecture?

I was thinking there's a need for Category:Sustainable architecture... I then discovered Category:Low-energy building, but that's a bit specific... Currently Sustainable architecture is in Category:Low-energy building, but I think it would make more sense the other way around, i.e. for Low-energy building to be in Category:Sustainable architecture.

At the moment, articles related to this sustainable building or architecture are put in Category:Sustainable technologies, Category:Low-energy building, or even straight into Category:Sustainability. I think Category:Sustainable architecture or something similar, to replace Category:Low-energy building, would improve things.

Also, Category:Sustainability is currently a subcat of Category:Architecture, which doesn't fit, and we could rectify with this new category.

Agree/disagree? Other ideas? --Singkong2005 talk 04:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed - It might be helpful, for everyones benefit, if you could construct an example tree as to how it might work. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, good idea... here goes...
Most of the category structure would stay the same... except that the category would be renamed from Low-energy building to Sustainable architecture.
How's that sound? --Singkong2005 talk 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Category:Low-energy building would disappear, being replaced by Category:Sustainable architecture. One subcat might be Category:Solar design, can't think of others. --Singkong2005 talk 05:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human habitats & Living arrangements categories

This isn't directly related to the Architecture category, but this seems like a good place to bring it up:

Category:Human habitats overlaps a lot with Category:Living arrangements, but they occupy completely different places in the category structure. I'm inclined to think Category:Living arrangements should be merged into Category:Human habitats. --Singkong2005 talk 05:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural glossary

discussion moved from Category talk:Architectural glossary#Why does this category exist? jnestorius(talk) 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • Hmm, I'm afraid I still don't really understand. Could you give specific examples of articles or subcategories currently in Category:Architectural glossary that would not belong in Category:Architecture? I'm not sure why you mention stubs: Category:Architecture stubs exists separately. If there are to-do lists etc relating to helping the editors in the Wikiproject to allocate and prioritise work efficiently on improving articles, that should be done in the Wikiproject: pages rather than in the Category: pages. jnestorius(talk) 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Joe, I'm neither defending or supporting the glossary category here but if we were to follow you logic above then anything in any subcategory of architecture should also be in architecture if you see what I mean eg Category:Walter Gropius buildings - they're all buildings so they all belong in Category:Architecture. It would make the root directory of the category structure far to unwieldy to have them all there. I think it's use might be a navigational tool for a casual reader - much like the Architectural glossary article that dogears mentions, except it has the advantage of being dynamically updated. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course an excessively large category should be split up, provided the subcategories are meaningful. Simply splitting 1000 articles into 10 subcategories by picking 100 at random for each would obviously be worse not better. Walter Gropius buildings all have something in common, so that's a meaningful category. What do Caryatid, Mashrabiya, Category:Units of measure, Polycentrism and Churrigueresque have in common? Why is Category:Doors there but not Category:Windows?

There are a few types of things there:

  • Things already in one of the other subcats of Architecture:
    • Churrigueresque: Baroque architecture | Architectural styles | Architectural history | Spanish architecture
    • Caryatid: Ancient Greek architecture | Architectural elements
    • Mashrabiya: Windows | Islamic architecture
    • Form follows function: Architectural theory
  • Things that should be in one of the other subcats of Architecture:
    • Ball flower: should be in Ornament
    • Brise soleil: should be in Architectural elements
    • University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart: should be in Architecture schools
    • Architect's scale: should be in Drawing (actually, Technical drawing)
  • Things relating to building or design:

Things in another subcategory don't need to be in the glossary subcategory as well. Things elating to building or design but not connected to architecture per se don't need to be categorised under architecture at all. Not all wikilinks need to be bidirectional. jnestorius(talk) 07:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agree that the Arch. glossary category can be eliminated. New content can be created to express the interrelationship with the other engineering, design and construction disciplines found in this category, similar to the shopping list in the intro of the architecture article and Portal:Architecture. Some of the subcategories are not directly related to architecture, and should not be retagged to Category:Architecture. Many articles already have other categories to fall back on when Arch. glossary is removed, as per the above examples by jnestorius. The tree structure of the Category:Architectural glossary is a misleading hierarchy. —dogears (talk • contribs) 23:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For those not yet aware: this cat has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_15#Category:Architectural_glossary jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definition of skyscraper modified without reasons

Someone has changed the definition of skyscraper: [1] He changed the lower height limit from 500 ft (152m) to 100m without references, only giving his point of view. I think that we must revert his editions. [2]

Sorry if my comment is difficult to read, but I think that is important if someone changes a value without reasons.--212.183.251.207 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Category Needed: Reconstructed Building or Replica Building

This interesting case touching the spheres of architecture, politics, mass psychology and ethics has not yet been taken account of sufficiently. I have tried to set a starting point - see Reconstruction (architecture). A fully developed category could easily list about 100 relevant items. Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 86.32.215.9 (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC) P.S.: The present category Destroyed Landmarks is NOT identical with the project proposed here 86.32.215.9 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)