Talk:History of architecture

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

I removed "planned urban townships existed 500000 years ago" from the Indian architecture section. This claim is unsourced and seems unlikely because modern humans had not fully evolved 500,000 years ago (see Human). (129.174.178.65 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've been working for a while on the article Modern architecture, and realized that some of the material here (under that section), e.g. tube structures, Googie, Futurism, etc. might fit better under that page (much of which is better covered here than there), the destination article of which which is essentially a page similar to this one, yet focused on the particular styles and movements specifically within Modern architecture (in its broader sense). This can be seen by how large the "Modern Architecture" navbox is. However, as a result of that specificity, I see this page as being more general to the broader over-arching movements rather than more obscure variants, and thus I propose to thin down this section here to keep it the broad scheme of world architectural history (pointing to more specific pages, akin to the History of Architecture Navbox), and so I was wondering if anyone would object to that?Morgan Riley (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action taken, as part of a major overhaul Morgan Riley (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to dis-satisfaction with this key umbrella page page marked "top-importance", over the past week or so I've begun a major overhaul of this page; any assistance or advice would be appreciated.

I felt that explaining the rationale for what might seem like otherwise arbitrary changes, as this isn't a one-man-show, and I've gone through multiple iterations while working it out mentally, so the reasonings might not be immediately apparent. Likewise, the ideals behind my changes can be largely found below (others than those based just in general policies and guidelines, to the best of my understanding of them)

Overall page concept:

to chronologically explain and contextualize the history of architecture around the globe, serving via summary style (

WP:Summary) to direct readers to the many major/overarching movements and traditions in architecture (which in turn will link to more specific styles or variations, as there are too many of those for one article). Likewise, a focus has been put on history of architecture around the world, rather than "world architecture", thus a focus on the ideas, trends, traditions, and movements, rather than on "architecture in Country X", "... in country Y", etc. Indeed, this is the main page to link all these scattered traditions and movements (though to note: others link better on lower-order pages, i.e. "Baroque in England" and "Baroque in Italy" fall rather well into the main page "Baroque", rather than being listed individually here, similarly, all the "revivals" of the 19th-20th century are covered under the hatnote to Revivalism (architecture)

).

Sorry for the voluminous text, but I felt it might be useful to help get others involved in the process. Please feel free to comment, advise, criticize, or jump in! Morgan Riley (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Wonderful! It's good to see that someone is working on this at last! It's certainly looking much bettter.

A couple of points re illustrations-

• It's a good idea to keep them as consistent as possible in a generic article ie. try to use all photots, if the building is still in existence, rather than some plan/section/drawing because it makes for better comparison.
• Santa Maria Novella in Florence is not a particularly good example, even though it's Brunelleschi. The lower parts are Gothic and the upper parts have all been informed by what was already there, and by buildings such as the Baptistry, so it doen't truly reflect what ought to be contained in the "picture worth a thousand words".
• Also, "sandwiching" of pictures is to be avoided, so alternating right/left in a short paragraph causes overcrowding. If you are using an old monitor which is deep and comparatively narrow, then this isn't apparent, but when viewed on a wide monitor, the text spreads across the screen and takes less depth. There is a technique of putting several pictures together, with the option to orientate right/left/centre as you choose. I'll drop one on this page.
• The other way to go is "thumbnails" in a gallery for the different eras. This is very good if you want a whole row of 4-6 pics, and can be viewed very well on a mobile. But every person who looks at the site, then drops in another pic which may or may not illustrate the topic. Aaaargh! You spend half your life deleting stuff and maintaining the article. Amandajm (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walls and buttresses

Genga, Italy, of undressed stone, has a typically fortress-like appearance with small windows.

Castle Rising, England, shows flat buttresses and reinforcing at the corners of the building typical in both castles and churches.

Abbaye Cerisy le Foret, Normandy, France, has a compact appearance with aisles rising through two storeys buttressing the vault.

St Albans Cathedral

England, demonstrates the typical alterations made to the fabric of many Romanesque buildings in different styles and materials

Note that in the first option, it's really important that the pics go together well, or the effect can be ghastly. Because gallery thumbnails all have a white border, it doesn't so matter much. I spend hours searching for the right pic for the right place, and crop them to the right format if necessary.

If you want any help, yell! Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise and that trick! With respect to some of your comments: 1 & 2.) That's the trick with the Renaissance (or at least Florentine), isn't it? At first I thought the Duomo di Firenze, but that, too, is half Gothic, half Gothic Revival (the facade). Others are half-Gothic or are so crammed in a narrow alley that you can't see really see them in the shadows. What are your thoughts on the Palazzo Farnese in Rome to replace it (the lead image on that page)? As for the Villa Rotondo, the photos are sub-par for illustrating the concept desired, but one can be made to do if it gets kept as all (per space reasons) 3.) I "zoomed out" and see what you mean by the sandwiching on smaller resolution : / 4.) As for gallery, I know what you mean (i.e. everyone wanting Hall X on their alma mater to be listed as an example of a style found on every university campus in the UK and North America, and then having to debate that it belongs, if at all, on Style Page Y instead!) - I think that'll come down to what the overall purpose for the article page is - if it's meant as a "what style is this" guide then yes, if more as simple primer/umbrella that is based on text relies on the images to quickly suggest an evolutionary pattern or "thumbnail" the ideas and let the lower-order pages do the work, then perhaps no. Thoughts? Thanks for the advice and encouragement! Morgan Riley (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Farnese Palace is possibly the best photo available on Wiki Commons. Some of the best interiors (San Lorenzo, Santo Spirito), never got facades. It would have been nice to know what Brunelleschi intended. Sant'Andrea, Mantua, has such a wonderful facade, but it's crowded, as you say, and it's so hard to get a decent pic. The one that I have used in the Renaissance architecture article has had an awning and a powerline editted out. So many of the great architectural works of Renaissance Florence are interiors rather than exteriors. How about the facade of either San Giorgio's or il Redentore in Venice? Amandajm (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the article. The two sets of pics are good. Both cover a lot of ground.

I really like the picture in the introduction. It's a good choice.

Also, when you are working on the article, it can take a while to find pics, and you don't want other people editting, if you leave something undone, because you'll be back soon. So put a banner at the top of the page using two sqiggly brackets { then the word "inuse" and close the double bracket. If you are leaving the work unfinished you can put up the tag "under construction" in the same way.

Delete this banner. Amandajm (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"inuse" banner deleted and noted. Thanks again for the advice! Morgan Riley (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let everyone know that I fixed a major error concerning the metallurgical capabilities of Precolumbian Cultures from basically denying that anyone except for the Great Lakes Peoples had copper (and only a minor industry at that, basically), to citing and pointing out that parts of Mesoamerica, the Isthmo-Columbian area and the Precolumbian Andes had at least a chalcolithic level of metallurgical technology or - in the case of Late Postclassic Mesoamerica and the Andes since at least the Early Intermediate Period (with the Moche), had a Bronze Age level of metallurgical technology. Also, I'd like to point out the obvious: That there's quite a big difference between a neolithic culture in Neolithic Europe or Neolithic New Guinea, in both cases quite simple societies, and the Classic Maya (for example), who had state-level societies with writing and books, advanced maths using the zero, amazing astronomy, paved roads, pressurized aqueducts, water filters, flush toilets and so on and so forth, so - while the Maya were indeed technically a Neolithic Culture, it's kind of not good historical work to group them with illiterate chiefdoms or tribes, at least in my humble opinion. Jamutaq (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in a few sections to help fill up the article a bit, hope it helps! Zamorakphat (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928124326/http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2631/pdf/i12.pdf to http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2631/pdf/i12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20071014131553/http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/NAS/ to http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/NAS/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310024053/http://www.essentialhumanities.net/s_art_arch_time.php to http://www.essentialhumanities.net/s_art_arch_time.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There's a lot of awkward language throughout the page that's super redundant. I'll have to dig through my architectural history textbooks to confirm some of the phrasing and facts, but I'll be looking into updating this page with the eye of an architectural history student. If there are any facts that you know are incorrect but need sources, I have access to a library just for architecture texts so feel free to reach out to me. Please correct me if anything is incorrect as my knowledge is still being developed. Firegirl306 (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dariush Borbor, North-East View, House Arjomand, Kerman, Iran, 1961.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very odd that the only Andean architecture brought up in this article is that of the Inca. It's completely skipping over almost 4,000 years of architecture. Very odd. I would hope that someone would be able to fix this. GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned by these changes, which I suspect may be copyvio. Frankly, User:Neoclassicism Enthusiast's English, though functional, isn't this good. Usually he sticks to editing the pictures. Does anyone have the book? @User: Diannaa. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get access to the book. Spot checks reveal nothing.— Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - if anyone does have the book.... Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed India from the "Asia" section and renamed "Asia" as "East Asia". The Sinosphere/East Asian sphere needs its own space and so does India. Just how the European section needs sub-sections since it's not a monolith, so does India. Based on Johnbod's advice, I have minimised wordage since the article is already heavy. I am open to discussing further changes.

I think we need a more explicit discussion on how to organize some of the subsections/subtopics on this page. I understand there's been a lot of good work done recently, but some potential problems remain and stand out to me if we're looking for a natural organization of the topic that readers would find easy to navigate and understand. For example, "Pre-Colombian" is placed in Antiquity despite the fact that it covers a period up to the 1400s-1500s, while East Asia is (quite reasonably) placed in its own section even though it covers ancient periods too. I've just moved Islamic architecture back into its own section for now, for similar reasons (whether it should be before or after "Medieval" doesn't make much difference in my opinion). If we're looking to enforce a more chronological/periodic organization, then maybe these topics should be split across more than one section (though it doesn't help that "Medieval" and "Antiquity" are not relevant concepts to every region). Keeping a more geographic division overall seems easier to justify, however, and also avoids the potential for the article to get longer again (by reducing the urge to expand on different periods for every region).
I know less about the South (and Central) Asian traditions, but I'm concerned that they too are not well-served by being scattered across different sections instead of being grouped under a "South Asia" section (or something to that effect). So maybe it would be good to hear in particular from editors who are versed in the South Asian architecture topics (maybe Arjunullas?), if the current layout is fine or if there should be a dedicated South Asia section again? Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Neoclassicism Enthusiast had brought up an important point of this page ideally serving a human chronological advancement of architecture, which I do agree with in general. I also agree with you in the sense that Antiquity generally serves a Mediterranean and West Asian time while Medieval has traditionally been a European period idea. In that sense, yes, South Asia should have its own section. The only issue I see here is the fact that South Asia has Harappan (super ancient), Buddhist (closer to Antiquity), Hindu (somewhere between Antiquity and progressing through Antiquity onto Medieval) would be very different from the "medieval"/"middle age" period in South Asian history where it had numerous influences.

Here is my suggestion: 1) Neolithic general intro + (1.1 West Asia 1.2 South Asia/Harappan 1.3 Others) 2) Antiquity (move the South Asian ones to the next group) 3) South Asia general intro continuing from the earlier mentioned Harappan + (chronologically 3.1 Buddhist 3.2 Hindu 3.3 Dravidian 3.4 Kalinga 3.5 Maru Gurjara 3.6 Himalayan) 4) Pre-Columbian America (I'll introduce images of older structures perhaps that of the Olmecs and Toltecs as well) 5) East Asia (maintain as is) 6) Sub-Saharan Africa 7) Oceania 8) Islamic 9) Medieval (South Asian ones moved away) 10) 11) and so on maintained as the same. If we are to do this, we should ensure that the article size doesn't exceed the current state by much. Arjunullas (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Personally, I think that would work well and would make the article more internally consistent. Readers looking at the table of contents would find what they want more easily and naturally. Having Neolithic and ancient styles in their own sections makes sense since the range of topics there is more limited, but after that there's simply too much variety to avoid more geographical groupings. No content needs to be added per se, it's just a matter of moving things around.

For what it's worth, it's not that a more strictly chronological division is a bad idea, it's just that I think Wikipedia's topic structure doesn't lend itself well to that. The topic of this article is too big to cover everything in detail in one page, so much of what this article does is summarize and redirect readers to those relevant articles (not that there isn't room for wider connections too). And Wikipedia article topics are each crafted independently and tend to reflect stylistic and regional classifications rather than a Wikipedia-wide division of eras/periods, so it's economical to accommodate that. R Prazeres (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I agree. While early human architectural ideas would be about what's available geographically, anything after that involved stylistic and ideological shifts. Well, that is, until globalisation hit. Then we do see blends like Indo-Saracenic from the British era and Neoclassicism Enthusiast had mentioned it in the Worldwide section of Orientalism I think. So yes, anything between Neolithic and Worldwide, we can assign geographic terms. Antiquity and Medieval still persists though. Perhaps we could make it clearer by renaming Medieval to Medieval European? Antiquity is quite obvious as to existing mostly around Mediterranean/West Asia. South Asia meanwhile has a considerable shift from Ancient to Middle Ages, which can be shown as subsections within that. If you and Neoclassicism Enthusiast are comfortable with this plan, I can initiate the changes. Arjunullas (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that too. And even without adding "European" to the "Medieval" title it would probably still be clear enough for now, if ever there's an objection that adding it would be too restrictive (e.g. Byzantine architecture can be found outside Europe). Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it’s a good idea.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Arjunullas (talk) 14:23, 01 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Masjid Raya Sumbar 2018 taman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you evaluating? (History of construction#Academic discipline)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Back home, my father is a construction contractor, so it only made sense for me to evaluate this article. Looking a little bit into the history of construction was a way for me to better understand the history as well as tying It into how it has evolved with the advancement of our society. My first impression of the wikipedia page was pretty impressed with the overall layout of the page and with the information that is placed into position into the entire page.

Evaluate the article (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section As time has passed, the world has evolved and changed, and with this change so has the entire industry and making of construction in ways that leave the public in awe. The article shows the different time periods in which construction has been changed and adjusted due to the different time periods that have passed. Each time period throughout history has made its own unique impact to the construction industry using the best materials and technology of its unique time period. The most important factors throughout time have been the technology and materials used, and once technology started advancing, so did the materials basically contributing to each other to form infinite capabilities.

Content The content is this article is relevant, giving us important specific times and dates that give us details about the different materials and tools used in each time period. They also include the way in which the overall advancement in that time influences the advancement of those tools and materials that later help encourage the change of construction. Some articles have much more information than others which can make it unbalanced. The article does seem to be a little out of date, the last update that was made to this article was about 5-6 years ago. I did not really see information that did not belong. Most of the information seems to be relevant to the topic, although there are some points that could be taken out. The article does mention the Stone Age, which could be considered underrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance The article in some sections seems to mention one side more than the other, for example in two of the sub-articles, it tends to talk more towards the materials and tools rather than expanding on the overall architecture and structure of the building types in that era. There does not seem to be a claim or topic that seems to be appointed towards one particular position that the author decides to pick. I feel that in some of the sub-headings there tends to be a more overrepresentation of some of the topics rather than having all the topics all neutrally stand out. There does not seem to be a certain point where the author is trying to convince or persuade the reader towards one particular position.

Sources and References The majority of sources in this article seem to be coming from a perspective that are in the primary source of the cited article, not like how wikipedia wants you to have it through the secondary source. The cited sources backup and are relevant to the information that is used in the article which helps backup the information used in that article, but some of the sources seem to be outdated with some passing the 5 year reference limit. Even though some of the cited sources have good relevant information, there are some websites that I was able to find that I feel can be used in order to better suit the article and back it up with its information, but for the most part I did not find a lot of peer reviewed links.

Organization and Writing Quality The writing in this article was readable and was able to let the reader know the information needed in order to clearly process the information. I would not say that this article was professionally written but the article was clear enough to make a point, and let the reader learn interesting information towards the topic. The sections were spaced across the entire page well but some articles were much longer than others, some containing information that was not necessarily useful.

Images and Media Across the entire page there are pictures that correspond with the section that it is placed next to, while the grammar in those captions can be enhanced to help detail what is going on in the exact photo. Most of the photos used in the article are publicly placed photos that do not need a citation, while the photos that are not publicly owned have their corresponding photo. For the most part, the majority of the photos are placed on the right side of the page, which is not really a big deal, but they can be placed better.

Talk page discussion In the talk page link of the article a lot of the discussions are focused on the overall cleanup of the article. Some referencing how the article should clean up the grammar in order to make a clear and concise reading for the reader. One other comment was how the article is not balanced well enough and some sections are overrepresented when compared to the rest of the reading. I did not see that the article was connected to any Wiki projects, and wikipedia states the details that need to be altered in the overall entire reading.

Overall impressions The overall status of the page stands at a level 5 vital article in history or better described as a C-Class. Some of the articles strengths include the architecture section of the entire article, it has good information that helps the reader understand and learn. Some ways that the article can be improved are by clearing up some of the sentences and overall grammar of the article. A couple of other suggestions would be to balance the information across the entire page, evening out some of sections so that the reader can have a balanced set of information and one portion won't be overrepresented over others. The last suggestion that I would give would be to organize the sections in hierarchical order because of its historic events, you must organize them by date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estebantav34 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is timing out on mobile versions of Wikipedia. Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images ..

MOS:ACCIM.Moxy- 13:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

I counted and I see around 250 images. The best way to fix this is by limiting the number of images per sub section. I counted 34 sub sections (some don't have sub sections so I counted the main). Since there are 34, that would allow for 3 images per sub section. Therefore, I welcome recommendations to reduce from sub sections. Since I manage South Asia mostly, I'll do my part to remove from there Arjunullas (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed several sections being removed. It would be ideal to plan it out before that's done. I understand that the page is heavy. But an overhaul should be even and well planned. The priority for removal should always be given to the sections that are far heavier in text and images. Arjunullas (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRO WHERE ARE YOUR CITATIONS!! AusCyberman (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Saint Augustin Church Paris.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]