Template talk:Revivals

• Visual clutter. Remember, a so-called "info-box" has no more actual information than a list. A list is easily rendered as a category, rather than taking up room on each page: a Category:Revivals would provide all the information clumsily rendered here. How would one distinguish "Directoire" architecture from "regency"? Neoclassicism is in a sense a "revival" In what sense is "Regency" a revival? The categories here show no familiarity with any of the literature on architectural history. Why not concentrate on adding content instead? --Wetman 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we need a navigation template to preclude articles on revivalist architectural styles (however useless they may be and however fanciful may their names appear) from being lost in 1,500,000 entries that we have. On the other hand, I tend to agree with Wetman that some entries (such as Nordic Classicism or Stripped Classicism) harldy qualify as revivals. We need a precise definition of what architectural revival is before we decide what the content of the template should be. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wetman has just taken the words right out of my mouth. So it's per Wetman.
  Giano 09:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Excuse me for butting in. If you're concerned about the "cluttered" nature of the template why not have one of these show/hide templates like this:- {{Modern architecture}} there's a bit of code somewhere that enables you to specify whether it's open or closed when people view the page (If you have more than one show/hide thingy it will default to 'hidden'). Also there's a useless stub called Fascist architecture relating to Italian neoclassicist inspired modernism under Mussolini, which you might want to think about for inclusion. I take it Tudorbethan is in Gothic revival because of it's arts and crafts relations? Whilst the gothic was playing itself out during tudor times, the elements of tudorbethan don't seem to me to be really inspired by the gothic buildings of the day, but more the vernacular and country house style of Tudor architecture. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - by coincidence someone arrived on the wikiproject the other day wanting to move

I think we should take a warning cue from the fatuous "categories" of rock music, one category to each album. What is encyclopedic about these revival styles is the approach to invention and decorum that they embody. Osbert Lancaster's visual architectural satire From Pillar to Post includes line drawing exemplifying "Pont Street Dutch", "Stockbrokers Tudor", "Pseudish", and "By-Pass Variegated". Nuanced distinctions in a historic framework are encyclopedic: they are made in paragraph form. A template is not a "navigation" tool: it's an arbitrary list with sublists. What's wrong with List of architectural revival style designations? It can be linked at See also in every relevant article without distracting clutter. --Wetman 11:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Giedion

, in Space, Time and Architecture (my edition is 1962) put his finger on what is the encyclopedic approach to the subject of architectural revivals, rather than the distraction of minute distinctions:

To turn backward to a past age is not just to inspect it, to find a pattern which will be the same for all comers. The backward look transforms its object; every spectator at every period— at every moment, indeed— inevitably transforms the past according to his own nature." (Wetman 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(Moved from Talk:Gothic Revival architecture. -- Petri Krohn 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What on earth is that? Apparently it deserves its own page judging from the red link in the revival architecture box, yet apart from the Chesme Palace church there are no gothic revival buildings in Russia. Could whoever has admin access to that box please edit it out? Twospoonfuls 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's the edit page. Still I'll go with the consensus view.Twospoonfuls 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an accepted term? if yes, there must be some reference to a particular taxonomy. Right now the link goes to Konstantine Thon, and it's a very far stretch to call him a revivalist. OK, he practiced renaissance revival in his civil buildings, but apparently the link meant something else. Digging deeper into Thon's legacy, he did set up two palace church interiors in Byzantine-esque style, but this still does not deserve a particular style. His "mainstream" church architecture did not borrow anything from Byzantine legacy; it would be fair to say that the true Russian-Byzantine revival actually emerged as a reaction against the monopoly of Thon's churches. But this is handled by the

• Mycenaean Revival architecture and Mayan Revival architecture belong here somewhere. Real civilizations; real buildings.Egyptomania (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]