Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Architecture and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

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 when more than 3 sections are present.

Good article reassessment for Chester Rows

Chester Rows 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) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England

Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England 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) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranea

I've made a list of the sites from https://www.subbrit.org.uk/categories/places-to-visit/ at User:The Anome/Sub-brit sites. It's clear that we have poor coverage in this area. In some cases, only redirects need to be created, in others the subject is dealt with in a section of another article, but for most Wikipedia has no entry at all.

Would anyone be interested in reviewing the list to see if we have some of these listed under other article titles, or in other languages? — The Anome (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images for never-built skyscrapers

Could someone from this take a look at the images newly added to the infoboxes of Houston Tower and Dubai Towers Istanbul? In addition to there being issues due to each file lacking any source or copyright information, there also may encyclopedic issues as well since it's not clear where the images are "official" renditions of some type or just the uploader's opinion on what each building would've looked like if completed. I'm sure they were added in good faith, they just don't seem very encyclopedic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images should be removed. As you say, they appear to be someone's unofficial "drawing". Rublamb (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Louvre

Louvre 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) 02:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Forbes Field

Forbes Field 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) 03:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Architect, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

Good article reassessment for British Library

British Library 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) 22:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 350 North Orleans

350 North Orleans 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) 22:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Court of the Lions has an RfC

Court of the Lions has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article potential

Greetings, and hopefully happy holidays. I just read Chennakeshava Temple, Somanathapura. I was impressed at the content, including layout, and stunning images. I have not gotten much into project rating. I was adamant in my disdain and displeasure of bots like BetacommandBot zipping around equalizing the ratings of all projects on an article. Being automated meant it would assess all involved project ratings "up" to that of the highest, even if say one B-class rating was severely premature and not deserved.

Anyway, the 2004 article has yet to receive a rating of importance from this project. The other projects show "low importance". From an architectural point of view as a layman, the intricate and ornate artwork and being "declared a World Heritage Site", would seem be a consideration. I suppose I should look into project importance scales some.

It doesn't seem to me this article would need much work to be considered for promotion. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 - I’d agree it looks an article of high quality. A superficial skim suggests GA would be achievable fairly easily. I’d need to look at it more closely for a view on FA. As to Importance, I’ve set this as High. I think you could argue for Top, based on its World Heritage status, but I don’t think you could reasonably argue for lower than High. KJP1 (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks close to GA; not top imp for here I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Johnbod I agree with you, especially considering the World Heritage status, and the reason for my "first that I can recall" comments on the article. At the present I have ongoing health issues and already involved in other areas of Wikipedia. At some point I intend to look into editing articles that would benefit from editing and a goal of reaching FA. I would be supportive if someone can look at, and maybe edit, toward such a goal. Thanks very much for your reply, -- Otr500 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Sycamore Historic District

Sycamore Historic District 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) 18:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Roderick O'Donnell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roderick O'Donnell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick O'Donnell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearian (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:St. Francis Square#Requested move 13 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:St. Francis Square#Requested move 13 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herzog & de Meuron, Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron

To extend and upgrade the material available for these articles on Herzog & de Meuron and Jacques Herzog and in order to create a new article on Pierre de Meuron (still missing) I have created these drafts Herzog & de Meuron (draft), Jacques Herzog (draft) and Pierre de Meuron (draft). Some of the evident updates I have made already for Herzog & de Meuron. But I am not quite sure if and how to delete the later section of the article containing mainly lists of work, exhibition and publication that are far too long and not update. Anyone available to help me integrating the material? Many thanks for your help. Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Historic Michigan Boulevard District

Historic Michigan Boulevard District 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) 05:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Canada Permanent Trust Building#Requested move 14 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Canada Permanent Trust Building#Requested move 14 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]