Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Architecture page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Architecture This page is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles

WikiProject Architecture was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 27 September 2010.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I have recently nominated the article Listed buildings in Sleaford for consideration as a Featured List candidate. Any comments at the nomination page would be gratefully received. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

And a very impressive list it is. I would urge interested editors to take a look. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm Ivy, an employee at KieranTimberlake, and I've posted a new draft of the History section to the article's Talk page in an attempt to improve the page with better sourcing. I've disclosed my COI on my user page for full transparency: user:IvyKieranTimberlake.

The article has had a flag for quite some time now, and there exists tons of notable coverage that is not represented in the article as it exists now. If any editors are interested in evaluating this request, please check it out here: Talk:KieranTimberlake#History. Thank you! IvyKieranTimberlake (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After many revisions and improvements, looking for the final blessing on my biographical article about California architect Peter J. Weber... thank you all for what you do!

Draft:Peter J. Weber Davestolte (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created a draft article for the architect Raphael de la Fontaine and submitted it for review. I would greatly appreciate it if someone from this project could take a look and provide feedback or expedite the review process. The draft can be found here: Draft:Raphael de la Fontaine. Thank you for your time and assistance. Rafidlf (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Palace of Queluz for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buro Happold has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have two categories, Category:Mock castles in England and Category:Folly castles in England. I am struggling to make any distinction between the two. Aren't all Folly castles Mock castles, and vice versa? The question was prompted by my uncertainty as to whether to categorise Bollitree Castle as a Mock castle, or a Folly castle. I'd be grateful for any thoughts. I appreciate it is likely to be far from the only instance of such seeming categorisation overlap. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are probably confused, but, according to the category pages, the mock castles should be houses (which look like castles), while Folly castles are buildings constructed primarily for decoration (which look like castles). TSventon (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon - that’s very helpful, as was the tweak, and accords with the advice User:Alansplodge gave on the Milhist page. So broadly, if they are a country house masquerading as a castle, e.g. Penrhyn Castle, they are a mock castle, but if they are really just a piece of decoration/frippery masquerading as a castle, they are a folly. So I shall call Bollitree Castle a mock castle. But, as you say, the content of the current categories suggests this distinction may not be widely understood! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Actually, going through the two cats, a case could be made for most of them remaining where they are, so maybe the confusion was mine! But what about something like Castle Barn at Badminton. This served a clear purpose, albeit agricultural rather than residential, so should it be a Mock castle, rather than a folly? KJP1 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say so. A folly might double as a banqueting house say, but any serious utility takes it out of the folly class imo, though I expect there are edge cases. Folly castles are usually built as ruins, no? Apart perhaps from a tower like Severndroog Castle or the crenellated "Gothic Tower" at Folly Central, Painshill (not in either category). I think towers can be accepted as both practical and follies. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think that works. Broadly, and accepting there will be exceptions, if it serves a practical purpose beyond the merely decorative, then it’s Mock, if not it’s Folly. Now, what about a sham castle? KJP1 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles. On how to recognise the recent adoption of Welsh names in English for castles in Wales. DankJae 19:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Machu Picchu article is currently in GA nomination process. I’m seeking feedback and support from the community to help advance the nomination and eventually reach FA standards. Any review or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --JustEMV (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks so much for undertaking this big task! I am Peruvian myself and got the chance to visit MP for the first time this year. Such a treasure! I've gone through the article and made several edits, but here are some larger suggestions:

1. Move the "Dispute over cultural artifacts" into its own, full heading. It should not be a subheading, and definitely not a second subheading
2. Focus on the "Layout" section. It's a bit of a mess. Few citations, lots of one-sentence paragraphs, little cohesion. There's also a lot of different separations to keep track of. Urban/rural, uptown/downtown, not to mention the tourism zones that the Peruvian govt has recently put in place. Additionally, in the "Construction" section, the words "Hurin" and "Hanan" are used unintroduced. Speaking of the tourism zones, there is no mention of them. The quotas for visitors are also significantly out of date.
3. Look out for tense and chronology issues. The Incas are obviously not in MP anymore, and the article should reflect that clearly in every instance. I found (and corrected those that I did) several issues in this domain.
4. I've added lots of "citation needed" tags throughout the article. They need to be addressed
5. I'm not really sure how this stuff works on Wikipedia, but there's some kind of template for metric/imperial conversions. I don't know how it's employed, but there are some numbers lacking conversions. See last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Transportation" section.
6. The last paragraph of the "Transportation" section makes little sense to me. Elaboration/clarification needed there

I'm not interested in the actual reviewing process, but I'm happy to give the article a second pass whenever you'd like. Please reach out with any questions if any of my edits or suggestions don't make sense/look wrong.Thank you again! SSR07 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SSR07!

Thank you for your thorough feedback and edits! I’ll make sure to address all of your suggestions (I've already fixed the citation needed tags). For the "Dispute over cultural artifacts" section, I think it’s best to keep it as a subheading due to its specific focus and the presence of a related Wikipedia article. I’ll also update the remainining conversions and clarify the Transportation section. I’ll reach out if I have any questions about your suggestions.

Thanks again for your help! JustEMV (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taliesin (studio) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Denmark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a spirited debate ongoing at Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing" about the appearance of the term imposing here [1]. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to post here before now. Come one, come all! EEng 17:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]