Commons talk:CommonsProject Architecture

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Building by architect[edit]

Should we create an own category "Buildings by architect" or sort the pictures of buildings just in the architect's category like it is done at the moment??? —TomAlt 14:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think after looking at your changes that it is better to have Category:Wells Coates than Category:Buildings by Wells Coates as you can then add other things (eg pictures of him, other things he designed etc). But we could have both... Part of the reason I did Wells Coates using inclusions (I was experimenting with how to do this too) was that you can include the building galleries in other places too, either together or separately, which is useful for collaborations, direct links to buildings from wikipedias etc. Justinc 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We should stick to one of the possibilities. As you said, the big advantage is that we could sort the categories "Buildings by Renzo Piano" under "Categorie:Buildings by architect" and "Category:Renzo Piano" (includes pictures of him, interviews or whatever) and better link it to the wikipedias. I think thats the better solution, even if it is more effort. Lets do it this way, or? —TomAlt 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need it? The title like "Renzo Piano", "Frank Gehry" etc. says everything and is spelled the same way in most of the Wikipedias (withous Russian, Japanese, Chinese and so). Titles like "Buildings of..." are typically English and don't help in any way. The biographies on the Wikipedias are entitled like "First-Name Surname" and there are rather no articles "Buildings of First-Name Surname". When using "Building by architect", the main categories of the architect become empty apart of such a sub-cathegory, and categories "buildings by architect" and "architects" are actually the same, apart of _few_ photos of those architects themselves. Keep it simple!. Shaqspeare 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right, I already changed the templates etc! TomAlt 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I disagree for several reasons.
  • Many architects have done other art related work, such as urbanisme, sculptoring, painting, ..., so a proper categorisation is indicated
  • If so many people made the effort to create and organise those buildings by architect category, it proves they have the need
  • In a buildng category, it is clearer to see something like "buildings from xyz" then just a name "xyz"
  • I hate to distroy the effort from the other wikipedians, just because one just don't feel the need of subcategories in the couple of examples you are looking at
  • The buildings by xyz category is only a subcategory and interferes in no way with the current architect organisation. Any way, it is a bad reflex to say, we have only a couple of images, we will group them in less categories. Within 3 years, commons will have 10 to 30 times more images, so a proper organisation is not a luxary.
--Foroa (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you see, I doubt(ed) myself. Of course the "Buildings by XY" cats are the "cleaner" way, especially in the long run. The problems I have with this are:
  • Most architects did only buildings. So in 90% of the architects Cats you would see one or two pictures of the person and the subcat "Buildings by XY". Is it not better to see everything at one glance? Especially because in the long runs most buildings will get their own Cat and this will become a subcat of the XY architect. So the cat stays relatively "clean" and easy to maintain.
  • Most users will categorize only the name, for example Category:Norman Foster, as each "Building by XY" cat will have the parent cat "XY". So there will be a lot of continous cleaning necessary to make this really work. Is this worth the effort?
  • Category:Vauban is a good example of further difficulties: Are "Forts" and "Citadelles" buildings? Or do we need to start to build up Treest like "Forts by architect"? Its just a matter of time till people start to build Cats like "Churches by architect", "Castles by architect" etc. So we get another parallel hierarchy fur buildings (it happened already for locations). To avoid this stuff the simpler version "Category:XY" is much better.
About your remarks of "destroying" work: "so many people" are at the moment 12 people. The categorisation of "Buildings by XY" is certainly based on the fact that there is no clear commons "policy" how to do it. My aim is to establish a clear way how to do it.
We can discuss which way is better, I don#t really mind, there are good arguments for both. (The argument, that 12 people did it this way, so we have to follow this in order not to "destroy" work is not feasible in my eyes.) BUT: we should make it clear for everybody, how to do it.
TomAlt (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't think that this concerns an "of" choice. I perfectly agree that for architects that are not very known, one don't have to expand with a "buildings of xyz" cat. On commons, I rarely take assumptions such as 90 % of the cases because this balance tend to change over time and very often, the remaining 10 % generate 90 % of the problems. What's important is that the system can grow whenever one of the dimensions of an architect expands:

  • if there are many images of the architects personal life, you don't want to hide his professional results in his personal images
  • if the person did some other activities than architecture, you don't want to clutter the buildings

Basically, I think that collapsing two types of images (personal and buildings) works in general in the short term but generates a lot of recategorisation work in the long term. As it is now, we have a short term and a long term system, which looks fine to me.

  • there are probably a lot of architects that have only personal photo's now, but within a couple of years will be expanded with many building pictures because of FOP/rights expiration (and law improvements because many author right laws are no longer adapted to the internet era).

Concerning Vauban, I would stick to (my) definition of building (The formal one is building for human occupancy, which creates problems with structures), being the word building itself: built by humans. So forts and citadelles should fit inside that. Personally, I would even integrate in that urbanism (city design) of new and low energy cities, but that is another discussion. Sorry if I reacted a bit violently, but I have often to intervene in category destruction/collapsing, mostly because people don't understand the (undocumented) rationale. --Foroa (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Landmarks[edit]

I think this doesn't belong in category:Architecture, because not all landmarks are architecture! Suggestion: remove from Cat Architecture —TomAlt 14:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Buildings by....[edit]

Should we name the categories "Building by (style, architect etc)" or "Structures by (..)" or "Building and structures by (..)" ? TomAlt 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Hi, I noticed your invitation on the en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. I have been adding to en:Category:Buildings and structures by architect, but I agree with Justinc that removing "Buildings by" is much better for many reasons (brevity, other articles & images can be in the category with buildings, less confusion about "buildings" vs. "structures", &tc.). The Commons category is an appropriate place for images, but I still think there's some use to images in en:categories - they are easy to tag and easy to access while surfing the en:category structure. Is there a better way?
OK, I remove the cats "Buildins by architect" You're right, its too complicatedTomAlt 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"What is the right way?"

Dogears 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Buildings categories (Category:cottages and Category:Huts)[edit]

Hi, I've been looking at Category:Cottages and Category:Huts, and wondering if we should change everything to Category:houses. The reason for this is cottage and hut are very subjective, particularly in the international context (and have negative connotations in Africa). Or hut could be used to mean only a temporary shelter, for a guard or outdoor worker, but not a home.

As you worked on one of these cats, do you have an opinion? JackyR 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I agree that the categories can be messy -- indeed, I confused myself working with them -- but I think they are a better option than losing all the files into the very large category:houses. The best solution, in my opinion, is to define the content of each category, and then put images in several categories when necessary. -- Ranveig 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the way to make the category smaller is to sort everything into Category:houses by country. I don't think it's a good idea to have "Huts by country" or "Cottages by country": it would be even more confusing and difficult to find a building.
I agree that houses should also have other categories. The "Buildings by..." list in Category:Buildings and structures is a good starting place. After houses have been sorted into those categories, if we still need other categories, what sort of definitions do you have in mind? Maybe we can start with the idea, and then find good names! Cheers, JackyR 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"By country" is a good way to sort houses, but the images will still be lost in the sense that someone looking for a cottage at a glance will be hard pressed to find it. There is a category:shelters; in my opinion there should also be a category for buildings in between shelters and proper houses. Looking at the definitions of hut, cottage and cabin in various English-speaking countries, I think "cabin" would be the best choice, as it covers generally the same thing in all of these. We could let the other categories redirect there. -- Ranveig 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I take your point. Not sure about "cabin", although I also thought of that. The problem is it has some idea of wooden or temporary structure. My w:OED gives: "a small wooden shelter or house in a wild or remote area". So it's not good for a mud house in a village. Dictionary.com gives "A small, roughly built house; a cottage."
Maybe we could think about what buildings these categories should contain, and then find a name for the cats? Btw, I've asked User:TomAlt, who has done so much on the "Buildings by..." cats, to give us his opinion too. JackyR 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi! My opinion: As far as I understand "Houses" are buildings defined by a function "living". So, when we classify buildings and follow the idea of Template:category-building-photo a building should be classified by (1) location, (2) function (3) style (4) architect. So a file has up to 4 Categories. When we beginn to split the point (2), the functions again in geographical categories, we double up the point (1) and as Ranveig wrote, this doesn't help if you search for for example cottages. So my suggestion is: We should split the Category:Houses as precisely as possible in subcaegories, that bundle a special type of building people live in (houses). But IMHO we should NOT split it geographically.
In the case of Category:Churches by country this already happened, and you can see this as an example of the alternative way, to split it internal (in the function "church") again geographically. Perhaps its the only way to keep those Categories smal, but IMHO some Categories can stay big..
So , I think: lets define the categories as precisely as possible and not split them again by location. TomAlt 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand. But, I'm still stuck at my original problem, which is that as soon as we start to split "houses", it becomes difficult to accommodate different countries' practices. To be honest, I don't like calling small African houses "huts": people there often find it insulting and dictionary definitions often include "roughly built", which is certainly not true for Image:Maison obus.jpg. The other difficulty I foresee is that, even with a good definition in each category, Image:Le Rat cottage Jersey.jpg is always going to be called a cottage in English, because of the style, although it is much bigger than Image:DSCN3043 gilmanhouses e 600.jpg. And what on earth do we do with Image:Old house in the solomon islands.jpg, Image:Old house by phuong.jpg and Image:Njem house in Cameroon.jpg?

Sorry to be full of problems, not solutions. Maybe you can ignore my concerns, as they arise from Commonwealth English and social constructions of words. But I want to make sure that whatever solutions we go for, they work internationally. I'm sure we'll get there! JackyR 23:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not a natural english speaker, so i often don't know the exact conotations of the Cats, for example of "hut". But i'm sure if we define the cats nobody will feel offended. It's certainly a case-to-case exercise, but to split huts in national categories wouldn#t help I think. So, lets start to sort that house stuff, we can discuss single problems than. I will try to set up some more specific Cats now. TomAlt 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ups, Jacky thats much more complicated than I thought. When you see the Template:Category-building-photo my idea was to categorize buildings by special criteria: Location, Funtion, Material etc. But there are already so many cats that mix criterias like for example Category:Houses in Ireland (Function + Location) Category:Stone houses (Material + Function]]. How do we handle that? Should we keep Cats "clean" seperated after each criteria or allow mixed criterias? When we allow it we end up with: category:Wooden detached huts in Andorra or stuff like that. Makes that sense? I'm not so sure... People, what is the right way: mix it all or not? TomAlt 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I could imagine that we allow the combination of location + function, because thats already established here. But perhaps we should not beginn to mix the other criterias, too!?! TomAlt 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Follow the middle path, as the Buddha says :-). use broad categories to begin with, filter into narrower ones as they grow big (i.e. more than 200 images). Also, you don't need all images of detached houses in cat:detached houses. -- Ranveig 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure about the "lets-see-what-happens"-policy. If we don't develop a clear concept everybody does what he wants and we end up with a total chaos, or? Once a chaotic system has established it is impossible (or at least an awful lot of work) to sort it. So, why not develop a clear scheme now that everbody can follow before it gets messy? TomAlt 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me be clearer: We start out with a clear structure, i.e. material, usage, location and so on. When a category such as "houses in Ireland" becomes crowded, we create a subcategory that fits into two of these, such as "stone houses in Ireland". But there's no need to make one if there's only one picture of such a house. An even more specific category like "detached stone houses in Ireland" would be used only in exceptional circumstances. I wouldn't call this chaotic. -- Ranveig 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right and thats the only way to go. Lets see what happens and discuss from case to case. TomAlt 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[deindent]Apologies for absence: I've been on holiday. On reflection, I think I agree with Ranveig all along! Yes, probably "huts" and "cottages" are OK –with good criteria (sorry for U-turn!). And I agree with the narrower cats rather than the purer ones, as long as each narrower cat belongs to all its parent cats. As R says, these cats will only be created when pressure of numbers demands. (I believe de.wiki prefers "clean" cats, which is very good for article names, but perhaps less good for images which take long to download.)

But Ranveig, what do you mean by "you don't need all images of detached houses in cat:detached houses"? Why not? Maybe I don't understand the purpose of cats? JackyR 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, it is helpful to have a representative selection of huts, detached houses or stone houses in a category called just that. This is based on my experience hunting for pictures to illustrate articles -- often I'm looking for a general illustration, and the specialised sub-categories make finding one more difficult. On the other hand, categorising all pictures in all categories they could possibly fit into may not be necessary. I'm not saying don't do it, though! -- Ranveig 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vitra corporate architecture[edit]

I've taken some photos from the architecture on the en:Vitra premises in Weil, Germany. How best to categorise them, apart from by architect? What do you think of a "Vitra corporate architecture" subcat of "Architecture of Germany"? TheBernFiles 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, avoid corporate in the name. We don't want to come across as corporate ad agents. I'd suggest something like Vitra campus or simply Vitra. Yea, just Vitra, that's my 2 pfennig. Do you have pictures of the furniture as well? Regards, DVD R W 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, Vitra sounds good. Sorry, I have only a few bad photos of the Prouvé chairs and none from the permanent exibition, because taking pictures of the furniture was not allowed... TheBernFiles 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC) – OK, done: Category:Vitra. TheBernFiles 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Too bad furniture pictures were verboten. I'd like to see the Prouvé chairs anyway if you're just being humble :-) DVD R W 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Parts of a building[edit]

Any idea how can I classify 'part of a building'? I am cleaning some city categories (puting pics into subcats) and I am not sure what to do with 'parts of building', like Image:Katowice - Herb.jpg or Image:Arms Katowice Dyrecyjna.jpg (I thought about adding them to Category:Architectural styles)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Architectural elements is your cat! TomAlt 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Architecture by era[edit]

hallo, sorry, I didn't know that project yet, I should have asked before. (maybe we'd like to make some template header and put them into all archicats)

I made this new, because there is no sense dubble-categorizing gothic stuff both to gothic and medieval, as Gothic Arch. is part of Medieval Arch. - please control the see also there

beside, I made Category:Architectural styles by country, could also be named Category:Architecture of countries by style, so maybe we make an redirect - or, we'll remove Category:Architecture of Italy by period, which is the only one - but, I think, it makes sense

--W!B: 08:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Portals vs Category:Gates[edit]

that's what I wanted to do: the should be merged or delimited. the problem is, WP:en lacks an article Portal (archidecture), as portals are not identical to gates (many other I18n's do..) --W!B: 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gothic vs Gothic revival[edit]

looking around Category:Gothic architecture it seems to me, some objects belonging to Category:Gothic revival are in there - we should have an eye on that, the layman will do hard to differentiate between them.. --W!B: 15:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Architecture vs Art[edit]

of course, not any Architecture is Art, but I think, all Arch. erlier to some date should be entitled art - so maybe we should define some border, for instance beginn of Industrialism - did any language-specific project something like that? --W!B: 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? This issue regards classification in Commons, and classification don't go together with vague or general meanings. Art is ambiguous, and I prefer keep architecture apart. That you suggest would not help to find pictures, nor to browse in the database. --Juiced lemon 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
of course, if you're looking for (that what I did) gothic sculpturs, a lot of them are part of a building, not self-contained pieces of art, I think it would be too labour-intensive to handle that by see alsos or double-categorizing images or even minor cats - en:Art#Forms, genres, mediums, and styles gives architecture as part of, same does de:Kunst and fr:Art, I thought that for undoubted, its more that modern architecture is ambiguous --W!B: 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Buildings by country[edit]

Seems the best place for buildings in a particular area/place are the categories delineating the countries and associated subdivisions, ie Category:Countries ---> Category:Countries of North America ---> Category:United States ---> Category:States of the United States -->Category:California ---> Category:Los Angeles County, California ---> Category:Los Angeles, California. Place the image in the deepest existing category you are able to. It seems natural to me, and is the categorization method I've always used when browsing Wikipedia itself.

Category:Buildings by country double categorizes and makes things more difficult. Probably, this category and related ones like Category:Buildings by city should be emptied into the first structure. Mrrxx 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about a general problem. The software does not allow to use combined searches like "buildings +cologne" at the moment. So you have to use combined categories like Category:Buildings in Cologne, otherwise you would not find anything. See for example the Category:Cologne. There are lots of different objects on the pictures, like maps, coats of arms, people and buildings. If you categorize a picture of a building like this: Category:Buildings and structures and Category:Cologne both cats get very quick messed up.
At the moment combined cats are the only way. You are right, this results in parallel structures. When you follow the Category:Buildings in Cologne to the top, you#ll see how it works. A system like in flickr, where you "tag" pictures and you can run combined searched avoids this problem and a certainly a cleaner and less work-intensive solution. But this is unfortunately not how it works here.
So, please: help to keep the Cats tidy and don#t sort any pictures in (for example) the main-categories Category:Buildings and structures and Category:Cologne. Thank you! TomAlt 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes: If a town is very small and there are only a few files anyway you don't have to make this subdivision. TomAlt 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I see now - I was being too literal. Category:Buildings in Cologne is simply a sub category of Category:Cologne. Category Category:Category:Municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia is still the proper cat for Category:Cologne. If the only thing known about a building is that is in Germany, it belongs in Category:Buildings in Germany, and the category itself belongs also in Category:Germany.
And of course, it all depends on sufficient number of media to justify a category. Is there any magic number for that ? Many thanks! Mrrxx 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
One. However, a category would not be created when that doesn't help to find the media file. --Juiced lemon 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You got it, the two hierachies are interlinked on each level. The magical number does not exist, as cats intend to grow generally ;-). I think you see the way it works now and you can decide if it makes sense to start a new cat from case to case. And, one thing: if you have several photos of one building (lets say 3) then please give the building an own subcat. TomAlt 13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buildings[edit]

Category:Buildings was re-created after deleting. Can someone help to sort the contents to Category:Buildings and structures and the sub-cats? --GeorgHH 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved a bunch, then noticed user Juiced lemon working in this area noting a category named Category:Structures. It's as if there's some thought to break up Category:Buildings and structures. Mrrxx 05:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Commons:Naming categories, Category:FOO by CRITERION is categorized in Category:FOO, and not in Category:FOO and company. Therefore, Category:Buildings by country is categorized in Category:Buildings.
Category:Buildings by country is currently a category for all types of buildings, structures included. Therefore, that's also the case for Category:Buildings.
If you don't like this organization (I don't use the term “structure” for clarity), we can remove all structures (like bridges) from buildings categories and categorize them in Category:Structures (and subcategories). I have created Category:Abstract structures, and Category:Structures is now for the Architecture project. Propose new category names as you want. --Juiced lemon 08:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
However - every building is actually a structure. So you end up with Category:Places ---> Category:Structures ----> Category:Buildings. Or on a more detailed level, Category:Los Angeles, California ---> Category:Structures in Los Angeles, California ---> Category:Buildings in Los Angeles, California. And when I follow this to the end, we also need to remove the high-level cat Category:Buildings and structures. This organization also solves the problem of What is a Structure ? What's a building?
The problem I'm having - I doubt such an organization helps people find things better. Maybe that's less important than following the style guide Commons:Naming categories. After thrashing it to death, I could go either way with this personally. Mrrxx 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Naming categories is just a draft, a concept to discuss about, not a guide.. its more about an professional definition of the terms - An architectural structure is a free-standing, immobile outdoor construction. The structure may be permanent. Typical examples include buildings and nonbuilding structures such as bridges, dams, electricity pylons, and radio masts (en:Architectural structure) thus "building" is a special sort of structure, and the tree "buildings" is subtree to the tree "structures" --W!B: 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Names and organization[edit]

I assert:

  • A = the subject of Architectural structure (all structures)
  • B = the subject of Building (man-made structures used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use of continuous occupancy: I assume that or is a mistake)
  • C = the subject of Nonbuilding structure (structures not designed for continuous human occupancy)

1) Current classification in Commons:

A
  1. A by country
  2. C
    1. C by country

A is named “Buildings”, C is named “Structures” (and that's not my fault!)

2) The classification I propose:

A
  1. B
    1. B by country
  2. C
    1. C by country

You choose the right names for A, B and C (however, Buildings for B would be nice, in my opinion) --Juiced lemon 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that the wikipedia architecture Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture folks are only after interesting buildings (see Scope). I also note the Nonbuilding structure article had quite a bit of relevant discussion among the scope article; it's not crystal clear what a nonbuilding structure is. It doesn't help that some things like Office Buildings aren't mentioned, and the exceptions all deal with fire & life safety. I doubt we want pictures of vehicles under nonbuilding structure.
Given the point about style not being definitive, I don't support this split. I would, however, like to hear the reason for splitting buildings and nonbuilding structures. What usefulness does this bring to the category?
I would propose this instead - Category:Buildings and structures directly under Category:Places. Other categories named buildings for simplicity, IE Category:Buildings by country ---> Category:Buildings in Germany ---> Category:Buildings in Berlin et cetera. If needed, Category:Structures in Berlin to be placed within category Category:Buildings in Berlin. The set of all nonbuilding structures should be much less than the set of all buildings, thus the subcategory instead of a parent category. -- Mrrxx 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If you name a category Category:Buildings and structures, it suggests that this category gather different subjects, which are Buildings and Structures. You cannot guess that the top category Buildings and stuctures is about the same subject than the one of Buildings in COUNTRY categories: it's very disturbing. That's why I wrote the Universality principle in Commons:Naming categories#Principles.
The split is not essential. However, some users hesitate to categorize Cemeteries, parks, ports... in a “building” category. --Juiced lemon 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right about it being disturbing. But the alternative is too wordy - Buildings and structures in Germany. It's just too long. Maybe the method to work that out, then, is to note on individual category pages what is being requested to be placed in this category. You could probably write it better than I could, but something like "All man-made structures, from bridges and dams, to office buildings and homes, to be placed in this category".
In fact, if this was done, that would also enable us to use the top category as Category:Buildings, with a sub cat for Category:Structures and needed explanatory text. Does this solve the issue for anyone ?
By noting parks and cemeteries, you make me think a discussion is needed on the Commons to ask "What is a building" and "What is a structure". I don't see parks or cemeteries as buildings, but things that may contain buildings. Regardless, its pretty subjective and probably should be hashed out. -- Mrrxx 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In the german Wikipedia it is like this:
(Level0):Kategorie:Bauwerk (="Structure")
-- (Level1) Structure by place: by continent, by state, by town, ..
---- (Level2) Structure by state: Strucuture in Germany
------ (Level3) Structure in Germany: Strucuture in Berlin
-- (Level1) Structure by function: Building, Mill, Parc, Urban square, ..
---- (Level2) Buildings: Train station, Office building, Hotel
------ (Level3) Hotel by place: TS in Berlin, in Cologne...
--------- (Level4) Hotel in Berlin: Hilton (Berlin)
-- (Level1) Structure by material: Timberstructure, Stonestructure, ..
-- (Level1) Structure by style: Roman, Gothic, Art deco, ..
-- (Level1) ...
That makes a lot of sense in my opinion. "Building" is one possible function of a structure (to house something), so it has to be a subcat to it. The Category:Structures is the highest of the hierarchy and fits into Category:Places. The creation of Category:Abstract structures was a very good idea. IMHO is now clear: Category:Structures contains all kind of built structures, including buildings and stuff like masts and graveyards.
The connection "Cat-criteria" + "place" exists on every level, for structures and buildings.
The Category:Architectural structures makes only sense in the way discribed there: meaning statical structure types
Category:Buildings and structures should be removed and all contents moved to Category:Structures. Except of the buildings, they should be moved to Category:Buildings
I would recommend to follow this logik here, too as it works very well in the german Wikipedia.. TomAlt 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the translation of “bauwerk” is “building”, not “structure”. Bauwerk is linked to Architectural structure.

3) Classification proposed by User:TomAlt:

A
  1. A by country
  2. B
    1. B by country

(same notation as above) --Juiced lemon 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Who, do you think, linked it there? ;-) No, the counterparts are like this:

So, I propose th following steps:

  1. Removal / Splitting of Category:Buildings and structures, all contents moved to Category:Structures, buildings to Category:Buildings
  2. Definition of Category:Structures as highest of the hierarchy, subcat to Category:Places - "All kind of built structures, including buildings and stuff like masts and graveyards."
  3. Definition of Category:Buildings - "a structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy"
  4. Move of Category:Architectural structures to Category:Bearing structure??? - (statical structure types), deleting of Category:Architectural structures for clarity

TomAlt 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Konstruktion (Technik) doesn't match Structure, but Architectural structure. The management of the links between the Wiki projects is inane, so we cannot reliably deduce something from an existing link.
“Structure” is an alternative term for Nonbuilding structure: Nonbuilding structures, also referred to simply as structures, are those not designed for continuous human occupancy.
Therefore, Category:Structures doesn't suit as the top-category for all kind of architectural structures. I suggest to use rather Category:Architectural structures, or Category:Architecture. --Juiced lemon 22:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
More rigorously: Permanent architectural structures. --Juiced lemon 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Konstruktion (Technik) doesn't match Architectural structure either, but nevermind.
All right, en is not my mothertongue, so if you say "structure" refers generally to nonbuilding, OK. To be clear lets do it this way: Category:Structures contains our topcat Category:Architectural structures. This again contains Category:Buildings and Category:Nonbuilding Structures. The current contents and Definition in Category:Architectural structures are moved to Category:Bearing structure (? suggestions please!) Permanent architectural structures is definitively too long! TomAlt 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I recapitulate your proposal:
Category:Structures: any structures, including non-architectural structures
  1. Category:Architectural structures
    1. Category:Buildings
    2. Category:Nonbuilding structures
I agree with this proposal, though I don't like the term “nonbuilding structures”. I'd prefer to divide “nonbuilding structures” in more understanding subjects, in particular for the “by location” classification. --Juiced lemon 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Architectural elements[edit]

what about
as an triple set of toplevel cats (of course, some categories (Colums and Capitals, Architravs, Portals and Porches, Atlantes, Canopies), or some concepts as Rib vaults, Masswerk will belong to two or even three of them: Balconies, Bays, ..) - its not about classifing technologies, but images of structures - so, to an non-prof it would be quite intuitive, without beeing incorrect Category:Architectural elements will reduce to an infrastructural cat (by country, be style, by topic), and subcats will be well-filled, but not chaotic.. --W!B: 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I see this critical, too. The overlappings of the subcats are too big and I see no need or advantage in this subcats. For me its not intuitive but makes it complicated. For Category:Decorative elements: there is already Category:Building ornaments. And that is already under Category:Architectural elements. TomAlt 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Structural systems is fine, is that the same what TomAlt wanted to name Category:Bearing structure? of course everything sorted into is an "Architectural elements", arn't they? --W!B: 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is what I had in mind. TomAlt 15:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
so my suggest wasn't for nothing.. --W!B: 05:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Art Deco[edit]

Art Deco regards both architecture and art. I think we should separate art subjects from architecture subjects:

--Juiced lemon 08:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry, we had that before, don't You think architecture beeing part of the arts - Art Deco buildings are Art Deco art, as Roman buildings are Roman art: buildings should be a subcategory, as paintings, sculptures and so on? --W!B: 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A seperation makes sense. I renamed the Cat to Category:Art Deco architecture as suggested by Juiced. And, as W!B: wanted I put it as subcat to Category:Art Deco, too. TomAlt 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roofs[edit]

I would like to create a subcat containing "Overall views of many roofs". In german there is the expression Dachlandschaft, but I don't know how to call it in english. Any ideas? TomAlt 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Skylines. --Juiced lemon 13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm, OK, but thats not really what I meant. A skyline is a "view of a silhouette of a city's tall buildings and structures consisting of many skyscrapers in front of the sky in the background.", so its an elevation. Im looking for an expression for views from above like this. TomAlt 10:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Roofscapes. Man vyi 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Roofscapes TomAlt (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Modern architecture[edit]

This Category was already deleted in 2005. The reasons for this was - and still is - that the word "modern" is no clear definition:

I made the Template:Modern architecture to make this problem clear and will place it in the Categories named "Modern Architecture of/in XY" TomAlt 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A little update on that. Category:Modern architecture and Category:Contemporary architecture both have the same problem: they are not clearly definab;e and are often misunderstood. As a stylistic classification is often difficult for contemporary architecture we should instead use the correct rerction / finishing date of the building. The naming (Category:Built in 2000 or Category:21st century architecture is to be discussed, see further down. TomAlt (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "Modern architecture" is not clear. It sould be "Modernist architecture" (like Category:Modernist writers under Category:Modernism), or Category:Modern movement which is synonymous. Jack ma (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Modern churches[edit]

Hi all, I would like to ask your opinion on Modern churches as a category. TomAlt moved this to Category:Built in 2000s, which is wrong, regarding the images and subcategories contained. However, as TomAlt pointed out above, a category that has the term modern in its name can be quite problematic. On the other hand, I disagree with TomAlt when he insists on creating subcategories according to the finishing time of the building, instead of having style-related categories. In my point of view it is very valuable to have a category that provides an overview of modern church architecture. Please see the discussion on his talk page. What to do? - Till (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Moved to here from my User disc TomAlt (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Hi, TomAlt! I just noticed that you moved the category "Modern churches" to "Built in 2000s". While I perfectly understand that the term "modern church" can be problematic, essentially renaming it to "built in 2000s" seems very wrong to me. Just have a look at the pictures sorted in this category, and you will see what I mean. "Modern churches" are mostly post-war buildings to me (post-WWII, that is). Of course there are also some churches built in the early 20th century that have to be called "modern" because they don't try to repeat any historistic pattern. I do see your point: "Modern" can be many things. But I'd rather prefer a broad category and later on differentiate it instead of moving a large collection of files to a category that is too narrow. In most cases other categories that you mention in your template don't fit: "Contemporary architecture" and "Modern movement" are much too strict for the present collection of modern churches. In my point of view, it's something very common in Commons to have a broad category that may not fit in a strict scientific sense. Sooner or later this gets corrected by users who introduce the right sub-categories. In this case I think you moved the whole tree to a wrong position instead of sorting the files to sub-categories that make a better match. Greetings from Till (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The earlier we avoid blurry category names, the less messed up the system gets. So rather than creating a category that contains all kinds of stuff and later somebody has to clean it up again we should use precise cats in the first place. Another problem is that "bad" names spread, that means if some user sees "Modern Churches" he might feel this is a good name and create new cats like "modern Houses" etc, and soon we have a full cattree we never get rid off again. So, I suggest if those examples you speak of are not build in the 2000s we put them in the right date cats NOW and clean up the "modern" cats asap. If required we can continue or discussion here. TomAlt (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you insist that each and every image of a post-war church be classified according to the finishing year (like you proposed here) prior to sorting it to a category that's style-related, I give up. I don't think that's practical — of most small neighborhood churches, only a few people, if any, would by able to supply this information. And, mind you, even if the year of inauguration was known, that doesn't say a lot more about the style than the present term "modern". What do you suggest to "clean up" the cats while preserving the original intent, i.e. enabling an overview of modern church architecture? Till (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is much more practical: "Styles" are quite difficult to define in postwar churches: for many contemporary buildings there is simply no clear "style" definition or a "drawer" you can put it in - because it takes time and only in review architecture history can define groups of buildings that "define" a certain style. And if there is a definition - like for example Churches in the style of "Brutalism" - only a few people would by able to supply this information. To make it short: I rather have no style cat on a picture or category than a wrong one. If the "style" of a building is not clearly definable rather leave this information out than putting the blurry label "modern" on it. TomAlt (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to change category names, then at least ensure that the items inside the new category agree with the new name or tidy them up yourself. This edit is wrong; as most of the category members were built in the 20th century. You are confusing "Modern" as a time period with "Modern" as an architectural style, in line with "Gothic", "Romanesque", "Baroque" etc. These are two different concepts and as such have two different category hierachies. -- Mattinbgn/talk 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that this edit was not 100% correct and yes - it was a provocation to let people think about the use of the term modern for categories. As I explained before, I am not confusing it, but I think many users are confusing it and it has the potential to become very messy. The term "modern" as architectural style is not so cleary definable like "Gothic": Art and Architecture historians date "the Modern movement" in the early 20th century. But for most "laymen" it is everything after Historism, for some postwar architecture, for some everything that somehow "looks modern", for some contemporary architecture. We tried it before and if you call an architecture category here "modern" it starts to fill up with all kinds of buildings that fit these diverse definitions. You see this also in the subcats of Category:Modern_churches_by_country. IMHO the only way to avoid this is to avoid "modern style categories" and instead supply the information every user can figure out easily: the year of completion. TomAlt (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Buildings that look like xy[edit]

Guys, in Category:Architectural styles appear some buildings that look like a teapot, a chicken or whatever. Is there any expression for this "style"? I would like to throw all that crap together in one cat, but I cant think of any reasonable name. Perhaps "Gimmick buildings"? Or " look-alike" buildings? TomAlt 19:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

see Category:Novelty architecture TomAlt (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Modellpanorama[edit]

And again a question "how-to-call-a-category-in-english". This time its "Modellpanorama" in german, that means pictures in Category:Architectural models, that show a historical szene (see here. These Models have the focus on illustration of an historical situation, not so much the architecture. Loads of little figures stand around and everything is shown to the last detail. You see these kind of models in many museums. How are they called? TomAlt 09:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Category-architecture[edit]

Template:Category-architecture mentions "how to license" being covered by this project page, but I cant see it here. John Vandenberg 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Church and Cathedral[edit]

Should cathedrals be subordinated to churches or not? Please see Category talk:Cathedrals in Hungary. Fransvannes 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Duos[edit]

(I don't know if this page is widely used, but anyway): I consider opening a cat Architect duos, such as Brinkman & Van der Vlugt, Komor & Jakab, Bielenberg & Moser, for architects who made their major works together. There is one precedent (Category:Büro Fellner & Helmer, but I would skip the Büro or office). Before I make a dozen of such cats, I would first know if "architect duos" is the best term. Or if there are objections (users may want to put buildings in two separate cats, one for each architect involved). Fransvannes 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need this cat? Would it not make sense to keep Architects, Partnerships, Practices, Offices and all that in the one Category:Architect? Even if its a duo, group or whatever? Up to now that was the procedure in the commons, see for example Category:Foster and Partners. So the right cat for Category:Büro Fellner & Helmer would be Category:Architects from Austria. I think this works pretty well. TomAlt 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It may work, until 1) the members of the duo are from different countries and/or 2) the architects involved deserve separate cats as well (e.g. Ödön Lechner, who built together with Pártos first, and alone later), which will lead to the confusing situation that "architect" 1 is a subcat of "architect" 2. An architect who is a subcat of a duo seems more logical to me. Anyway, I will make my duo's "architects" for now. Fransvannes 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures[edit]

This is apparently meant to be split into Category:Buildings and Category:Structures. But I am not convinced that this is sensible, or even possible, as a distinction, and the combined category is still heavily populated. Is it not possible to follow the example of the English Wikipedia and recombine the two? TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the idea is to split architectural structures between:
I think the splitting makes sense and keeps the cats clean. What we can discuss about is the hierarchy. In the german Wikipedia Buildings are a subcat of Structures, because each building is a structure, but not each structure a building. So in my opinion Category:Buildings should be a subcat of Category:Structures. TomAlt (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across this category while cleaning up Category:Non-empty category redirects. I removed the redirect for a moment so that my bot didnt start transfering before i could read this discussion. At the moment this category is one big mess. I agree with TwoMightyGods that it might be better to combine the two like at wikipedia (de, en & nl). This makes the structure much cleaner. Multichill (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I would like to explain again: in the german Wikipedia Category:Buildings (Gebäude") is a subcat of Category:Structures ("Bauwerk"), as you see here. Thats a clear and logical division, and it works well since a while now. TomAlt (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned the subcats of Category:Buildings and structures and I hope it becames clearer for you, what the concept is. I will try to categorize the files properly. TomAlt (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I started to recat the files, its quite an effort, because most of the stuff is just dumped here. Anyway, this shows what a nonsense this cat is. Could we please put the "Category redirect|Buildings" in again, so that at least not more people dump their stuff there? Otherwise this is a fight against windmills... TomAlt (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It keeps refilling, so I put the "relocation" tag back now to keep people from doing that. TomAlt (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned the cat completely now. Most of the files were over-categorized and it was really easy to improve their cats. Thats just shows how unprezise and redundant this cat is. Should be deleted. TomAlt (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Especially as this type of category attracts all sort of bots and overcategorisaton. --Foroa (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Architecture firms[edit]

Should we start to distinguish between "Architects" and "Architecture firms"? The EN and DE Wikipedia for example do it... TomAlt (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I recently extracted Category:Architecture firms of the Netherlands from Category:Architects from the Netherlands for obvious reasons. So yes, go for it... Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you agree ;-). Before it kicks off: "Architecture firms OF Germany" or "Architecture firms FROM Germany"? In the Category:Architects FROM is the standard.. I s there any general policy on the commons? TomAlt (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I consulted an english-speaking friend of mine, and according to him the best way to say it is not of or from but Architecture firms in Germany or simply German architecture firms. So perhaps Architecture firms in should be designated as the standard here? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we should stick to Commons standards, if there are any. Many similar Cats use "OF", see Category:Companies_by_country, Category:Economy by country, Category:Architecture by country, Category:Culture_by_country. We should have a look around if there was any general discussion about this somewhere. TomAlt (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you'll find what you need on Commons:By location category scheme. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, after this scheme we should use OF, because Architectural firms are "things" and we want to specify the "National origin". TomAlt (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Move request Category:Architects of modern movement[edit]

A move request in Category:Architects of modern movement. Comments ? --Foroa (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The suggested Category:Modernist architects is in my opinion not so clear and there is always the danger that people throw "modern" stuff in (meaning contemporary). The current name is IMHO better. If you rename it you would have to rename the Category:Modern movement and all the subcats into Category:Modernist Movement for consistency, or? I see no need for a change... TomAlt (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Another aspect is that in "Modernist architects" modern is an adjective, or? In language terms as far as I see sub-optimal (but englisch is not my mothert tongue): the architect is not modern or modernistic but he might belong to the modernist movement and his designes are in a modern style. So the "of" phrase is better, isn't it? TomAlt (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Category names better have a clean structure with a minimum of adjectives. Moreover, there is also category:Modernisme and along with category:contemporary architecture and category:Modern architecture, chances for total confusion are quite big. Anyway, if we have no clear naming scheme for styles, era's and related category names, it makes no sense to change names. --Foroa (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Category:Modernisme is a style from Catalan like "Art noveau" or "Jugendstil", so even if the name is similar - its something different. category:Modern architecture is pretty dangerous, thats why I set the warning some time ago. But I agree, we should set up a clear scheme or guideline for this. TomAlt (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Move request Category:Arts and crafts architects[edit]

should we do an separta cat for architects? what else will be there? Cat:A&C designers? how many architects did not design (eg. interiors) - how many A&C artists where no architects? --W!B: (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts was an aesthetic movement influenced, amongst many things, architecture. I am under the impression that Arts and Crafts architecture is only a small subset of the Arts and Crafts artists, so we would avoid difficulties by naming it as on the en:wiki Arts and Crafts artists and categorize them under architects as well. --Foroa (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Expert help requested for historical, conserved and registered buildings[edit]

Hallo, anyone interested to look in the old problematic cfd in Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/01/Category:Historical buildings in the United States ? --Foroa (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Buildings by...[edit]

Is there any guideline about cats like Category:Buildings by Fritz Höger and Category:Buildings by Walter Gropius , where buildings are placed in an intermediate buildings by... cat instead of the architect's cat. In most cases such intermediate cats don't exist: portraits and statues of the architect and buildings by the architects can be found in the same cat. There is an old discussion above (on Commons_talk:CommonsProject_Architecture#Building_by_architect) and there is the conclusion on Category_talk:Buildings_by_architect, but the intermediate cats still exist. What to do? Accept the given situation and add more of them? Or would it be about time to remove the intermediate cats? Fransvannes (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy yet. We had the discussions you linked, where we not really came to a conclusion. The two options:
  1. Buildings by ..: This option is cleaner and has more logic to it. See for example Category:Alvar Aalto, he made Buildings, furniture and on some point we might get a picture of the guy himself. To separate this makes sense. A parralel hierarchie allows to have Category:Buildings by architect, Category:Furniture by designer etc... It fits clean into Buildings | by material | by structure | by shape | by style | by architect | by owner.. The big disatvantage is: massive miscategorisation, because people will always use the easier option and add Category:Alvar Aalto. So its a lot of work, even in the long run. I dont know if its worth it.
  2. Architects name: easier to use, but the Architects cats get messy.

Move request for "Wooden" Categories.[edit]

suggestion:

Reasons:

  • "Timber" is the word for wood that is used in construction. en
  • A tree named "Architecture" does not make sense in this case, as all things shown are buildings.

TomAlt (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Before moving, we should be sure about naming conventions such as Half timber houses, en:Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, the differences between (half) en:Timber framing and complete wooden houses, en:Framing (construction) or stick framing ... and category:Timber framing --Foroa (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tom, you know that if we have no participation in one week, then there is little chance to have more feedback before the moves are executed. So far, we got no reaction.
I have a problem with timber (and lumber: the basic construction material) that they are used when they are highly visible as timber planks or girders. I think that the more the construction progresses, the less the timber remains visible and the less the word timber is used and the word wooden reappears. You can see that in the categories: the deeper one goes, the less timber makes sense. So the problem is that you can start with timber but you have to switch to wooden at some point in time. For me, the wooden/timber stairs was such a point (wooden stairs seems to be 6 times more used than timber stairs (I guess the latter for outdoor stairs).
Personally, I think that for some wood based architectures and constructions, the word timber is (almost) never used.
Because the move request list is growing too quickly (250 requests), I have to decide/cut quicker, otherwise we will end up with a move service time of many months as it was half a year ago. And don't forget, sometimes, one move request might force tens of other moves (subcats) for consistency. --Foroa (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Arquitectura negra[edit]

Some ideas about Category talk:Arquitectura negra and Black architecture ? --Foroa (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Architectural plans[edit]

Please discuss under Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/09/Category:Architectural plans. Thanks. TomAlt (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Roof constructions[edit]

should be moved to Category:Roof structures ("how they are constructed"), thus Category:Roof construction (which is redir by now) will be "as they are constructed" - is that correct? --W!B: (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Category:Roof structures should only contain finished roof structures, while Category:Roof constructions should contain pics of the process of building roofs. TomAlt (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
by {{move}}, or by hand? nutzen wir unsere letzthine zimmermannsaffaire aus, und klassifizieren nach de:Dachkonstruktion - wir müssten halt den englischen fachwortschatz heraussuchen (en:roof ist nicht berühmt): so im überblick brauchen wir eigentlich vorerst einmal nur by material: Holz, Stahl, Stahlbeton, sonstiges, und by construction: klassische Sparren/Pfettenkonstruktionen, Halle (Spreng-, Hänge- und andere Fachwerke und Träger) und sonstiges --W!B: (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
as there are not many files I would not create any subcats at the moment. TomAlt (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Architecture by date and subcats[edit]

Guys, is this not redundant to the tree Category:Buildings by year of completion? I don't really see the difference between the two and suggest we should find a compromise here instead of building up to cattrees with identical target! TomAlt (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! In fact architecture by date is quite vague, undefined category. Buildings have usually (at least) three important dates, that are usually not the same, or sometimes one is unknown while the others not. These are:
1-Date of the project.
2-Date of tbe beginning of construction
3-Date of Completion
(This is sometimes more complicated, with dates of restoration(s), modification(s), extension(s) or demolition, when applied). If we are trying to classify properly we should beguin to separate the thre main dates, athough it is a great effort that would need the work of several editors. Unfortunately, I cannot be an active memeber until after the summer, and I won´t be able help substantialy with the work if started.
Cheers!

--Balbo (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle you are right, but I think this would be a bit too much. I think the year of cempletion is best known and the most relevant information. So lets start to clean this up with putting the files into the tree Category:Buildings by year of completion. I put in some redirects into the topcats to stirr up more users to comment on this issue. TomAlt (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently using "buildings by year of completion" to categorise images of buildings in the UK (see for example Category:Built in England in 1976). Each year is then added to a "architecture by decade" parent cat. This seems to overcome placing a specific date on a vague design period, but I'm not too happy about mixing the language of "Built in 1976" with "1970s architecture" and vice versa while for example; using "1976 architecture in England" would signify both the year of completion of an architectural design project, and completion of construction. In other words - both the design and construction must necessarily end at the same time for each concept to have sense. oneblackline (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the design is never finished ;-) No, you see what I mean: the "Architecture by date" tree does not make sense as it is seldom definable. A design that wins a competition (the "architecture") might take years to completion, so what date do you put on the architecture? when the design won the competetion? when it got planning? when the last drawing was issued? all that is nonsense, the factual information is the finishing date of the building process, everything else confuses matters. TomAlt (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"Building" can be substituted for "Architecture" without a loss of sense for a completed object. I think it's common-sense to understand "1976 architecture" as meaning the date of a building's completion - the realisation of an architectural design, and the climax of an act as a purposeful enterprise (I'd assume designing a building is for a purpose other than awards, otherwise... I could consider the banana on my desktop as the most perfect candidate). The alternative meaning of "1976 architecture" is of a category for images of people in offices doing architecture, issuing drawings, and entering competitions in 1976. Perhaps this is an important subject, but could be covered by the "Architects" and "Architectual plans" categories without causing confusion. oneblackline (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern movement, Modernist architecture, and Modernisme[edit]

Hello. I (now) agree that "Modenist architecture" is synonymous of Category:Modern movement, category under Category:Modernism like Category:Modernist writers etc. (I also agree that categories like "Modern architecture in ..." should not exist and should be replaced by "Modern movement in ...". In this logic, Category:Modern movement architecture should be deleted and all articles moved to Category:Modern movement - word "architecture" being redundant). (There is also Category:Modernisme which is justified and had nothing to do with Category:Modern movement). Jack ma (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

New Category Question[edit]

I found several uncategorized diagrams of the possible relationships between architectural/engineering firms and the owner and contractors: File:ContractorLedDesignBuildArchEmployee.jpg, File:Aldb_4.jpg, File:Aldb_5.jpg, File:Aldb_6.jpg File:Cldb_1.jpg, File:Cldb_3.jpg. See also en:Wikipedia:File:CLDB_3models.jpg and en:Wikipedia:File:ALDB_3models.jpg. They all should go in an architecture related category, but there aren't any categories that fit, and I'm not even sure what to name a new category to put them in.

The same holds true for these diagrams of the design-build and design-bid-build processes: File:Aldbtimeline.jpg, File:Dbbtimeline.jpg, File:ALDBtime_border.jpg, File:TradDBB_border.jpg, File:ALDBtime.jpg, File:TradDBB.jpg. --Kramer Associates (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Explaining Categories?[edit]

When browsing through the categories, it seems that many people don't understand the difference between Structures and Buildings, between Buildings and Houses… The difference is explained on the top level pages like Category:Buildings, but people looking at a more specific category (like Category:Buildings in Germany) don't see this. What would you think about creating a template which can be used in all geography-specific subcategories like Category:Buildings in Austria, Category:Buildings in Vorarlberg, Category:Buildings in Lustenau etc.? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just found that this concept is used in other areas, and templates like that are collected in Template:Category definition --Reinhard Müller (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)