User talk:Quilian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Quilian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mcginnly | Natter 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] WikiProject Architecture

Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture Bulletin   v • d • e 
Announcements - please add your Project announcements   v • d • e 
  1. One Bayfront Plaza promoted to GA on 3 October 2007. Rai-me 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. List of tallest buildings in San Francisco promoted to FL on 11 October 2007. Rai-me 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Buildings and architecture of Bristol promoted to FA on 23 October 2007. — Rod talk 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. List of tallest buildings in Dallas promoted to FL on 8 November 2007. Rai-me 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. List of tallest buildings in Detroit promoted to FL on 8 December 2007. Rai-me 07:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. List of tallest buildings in Dubai promoted to FL on 21 December 2007. Cheers. Trance addict 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. List of tallest buildings in Cleveland promoted to FL on 7 January 2007. Rai-me 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. List of tallest buildings in Tulsa promoted to FL on 7 January 2007. Rai-me 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. 5th Avenue Theatre promoted to GA on 20 January 2008.--Skotywa (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester promoted to FL on 19 February 2008. Cheers. Trance addict 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
New article announcements - add new architecture article to list



Archives

This month's collaboration is Johannes Itten.

Johannes Itten, this month's collaboration
Featured article and Featured list candidates
Feature picture candidates
Articles at Peer Review
Pettit Memorial Chapel - Dean Castle - Smederevo fortress - Somerset Towers - Bath Stone - Leo J. Ryan Federal Building - Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938 - Cannons (house)
New participants (add me)
Mattisse, Nonza, Merbabu
This template will be updated monthly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.

[edit] Architecture

Re examples- those examples, Tower of Lodon etc are meant to indicate precisely how a nnation or city is "recognised " by its architectural works. It is about the works as "icons". (Is it essential to use that word to make the meaning clear?) They are the "Symbols" of the cities or nations, as the Statue of Liberty represents New York and Uluru (Ayres Rock) represent Australia. I think that is clear in the context.

And yes, through the ages, the design and placement of details/decoration has been ppart of what the architect has done. Style is often recognised at the most basic level by its decorative forms, eg the Corinthian capital.

The problem with what is happening is that I perceive no system in what your group are doing. I see only piecemeal and largely inappropriate edits which seem to be done by students who haven't actually read the whole article.

Since you are working as a group the best approach is for you to discuss and consolidate the changes that you wish to make, write it all in a different program, then do it. That leaves a functional article in the meantime.

There is a discussion page on which you can correspond about the changes that are planned. What I have seen so far has not been indicative of any sort of a consensus. You obviously have a consensus the something should be done. Now you need to see it through the planning stage and make it a reality. Have you decided who is in charge of the project?

I want to make it clear that I have no object to a complete demolition, redesign and construction. But shoving the furniture around and knocking holes in the wall simply makes it unlivable. Unless its completely derelict, you need the plans drafted before you start. In the meantime, if innacurate statements can simply be corrected or removed, get a literate person to do it, in such a way that it doesn't disrupt the meaning.

--Amandajm 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quilian! I'm going to remove this article from my watch list for a week or so, and see what your team come up with! all the best! --Amandajm 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quilian!
You, or someone who knows about these things, needs to place the Architecture page on their watchlist, by checking the option in the page's menu. Then you religiously check every single edit and revert vandalism.
  • I took a look to see how your project is going. Another longish paragraph has been added. What it says appear to me to be of significance, and, were I managing the page, I would greatly reduce the size of it (because its longer and more detailed than everything else), make the right links if possible, and put it under the ecological considerations in the "History" section rather than under "concepts" where it is now. That is what I would do.
  • I dropped a note on the page of the person suggesting that they consider better placement, and brevity. But the person is unnamed and if it is a public computer they may never get the message.
  • You guys need to consolidate your approach ASAP and maintain that article. Otherwise you will get that type of piecemeal and inconsistent editting, and the article will be a jumble of facts that no-one can sort out. That happens to wiki articles all the time, if they are not watched.
  • Typical examples- 1. There were several paragraphs about the organs in a particualr cathedral... in between two descriptive paragraphs someone dumped the times of recitals. 2. Description of another cathedral,....into the middle someone drops a biography of the choirmaster. Not the founder, not the archbishop, not the architect, not the saint... but the choirmaster!.... and was offended when he was removed to his own biography page. 3.In the case of History of painting, a well meaning person put up 30 (yes 30!) paintings by a 20th century Indian painter. So we had one Leonardo, one Rembrandt, one Titian ....and 30 by an Indian painter (who appeared to me to be second rate at the least, but might be highly valued in India, I couldn't presume to say!) 4. Stained glass (which attempts to cover the entire history of the subject) suddenly got five William Morris windows. (six ancient, four Renaissance, one C&B, one Tiffany, one Hardman... five William Morris). These are the typical patterns of editting by people who have enthusiasm for a particular thing or who have just learnt about something very important.
  • All these edits are related to the subject. But they really don't improve the article. What I'm saying is that if someone puts Frank Lloyd Wright's entire biography on the Architecture page, someone has to see it and deal with it. If a student adds a vital episode and does it badly, someone has to see it and deal with it. If you don't touch the article for a few days, then you have to check every single edit for vandalism, spelling grammar and suitability.
If you are going to take it on, then you need to do it properly. Good articles are not easy to create, but can turn into absolute crap almost overnight if they are a popular subject that everyone thinks they know something about.

--Amandajm 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another small thing- if there are numerous editors, agree on whether the article is written in English or US spelling, and maintain it, otherwise you get stupid edit wars. You can write at the top "left arrow"!---This article uses US spelling---"right arrow" (where "right arrow" represents >). The comment remains hidden, except to editors.

--Amandajm 02:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] just a bit vague...

I've just found a message that you left on my page, I don't know when (but I suppose it's dated actually), with a proposed plan for rewrite of Architecture.... so any minor edits that happen in the meantime don't really count... Leave me a message when it all happens and I'll take a look!

So you can probably completely ignore my last message.... apart from the bit about agreeing about your spelling conventions. Also, if you use a multi-purpose word like "program" in a very specific sense like "the building's program" your average reader aint gunna unnerstand it, so terminology like that is better with a brief explanation than having to follow a link to find out, and spoil the flow of the reading. A lot of our users appear to be high-school students --Amandajm 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's probably a good case for a Brief (architecture) article in the same vein as Brief (law) - as this is probably how most people understand it - programme can then redirect to that article and the subtleties be explained there. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea.
I suppose this sounds a dumb question, but have you checked out Architect, History of Architecture and Architectural history to see what they do/dont cover. I've read the draft proposal, which indicates the "what" but not the "how" in terms of scope of material.
The present article is fairly concise. I can see a good case for leaving it concise and greatly expanding elsewhere.
I'm curious as to what your team is intending to cover, under the section "History" and whether it is planned to go from what is now a summary of the role of architecture and the architect in society to a full "History of Architecture" which already has it's own page an desparately needs some work.
Can I suggest that we leave the present page intact (with any corrections that you, as the expert, deem absolutely essential) and take up McGinnly's suggestion and move it to Brief (Architecture).
As for Architectural history, someone needs to do something with it. It ain't me. If the someone doesn't like my suggestions, please just delete them.
--Amandajm 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Quilian to be chatting away on your talk page here but involving you in some of the discussions about the 'top of tree' articles seems like a good idea (love your website BTW - I bought The Closing of the American Mind last week after reading a little reference to it there). Amanda, I think the direction is correct in principle with architectural history - an article about the discipline of archictural history - with the (probably doomed to failure) "Architectural history of the universe" article being a repository for every nation's favourite buildings. Not sure if you saw them - I made some notes on the talk page. Unfortunately I'm not enough of a historian to do the page justice either - we need an arch.history lecturer really - I wonder if the urbane, wise and erudite user:wetman might be persuaded? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh God, how could anybody be that stupid?

of course he didn't mean a brief article, he meant a brief.... You can dine out on this one! I've had too many late nights!--Amandajm 11:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a stab at stubbing the Brief (architecture) article. Perhaps someone might have a look and expand it? Generally in the UK most people use 'Brief', but I've heard the term used in universities quite a bit - usually by oversea's lecturer but increasingly by the natives as well. It seems to be in pretty wide usage everywhere else.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)