User talk:Archinect

Hi Archinect, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Good luck, and have fun. --SefringleTalk 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Thanks for your edit to Architecture. I just reduced it in size by turning the detailed and locally-specific information about the US Govt legislation (or whatever) into an inline reference. If you go back to the article, you can see how it was done.

When editting, could you read the whole section,(under heading and subheadings) to get a feel for the amount and type of detailed information that is included in the particular article, and make your contribution blend with what is there as well as possible.

In fact, because sustainability is such a major matter, it already had a paragraph further up, but i think that what you have added, finishes off the section appropriately.

--Amandajm 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and re-edit what you have just done. The first sentence has a comma that disrupts the flow. The (I think it's the... ) third sentence has a verb which has no subject. Please don't make it verbose. keep it to the same concise style that everything else wis written in. You don't need to add additional ideas and qualifications when an article exists on the subject. Please make the link to the article work, and check everything you have done by using the "Show preview" option before you save. This will reveal if the link is not working. They are often case sensitive unless there is a redirect to get around this problem and accept several versions of the article's title.

--Amandajm 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced wikipedia editors are supposed to keep patient with new editors, but ...
  • I have removed the superfluous comma.
  • I have divided the non-sentence in order to make two grammatical sentences.
  • I have removed two of the four names because, as I pointed out, this is a brief summary. The matter is/should be dealt with fully elsewhere at a place where you can cite every single green architect you can think of. Not here!
  • Why? Because if, as I have suggested, you read the rest of the History section, you will find that very very very few names are mentioned and having four (4) listed as significant for just one aspect of architecture in the entire "history of the world in 100 lines" is blatant overkill.

If you would like to do something useful, get out a load of textbooks and go to Architectural history.

--Amandajm 06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your patience with this newbie is greatly appreciated (and thanks for the grammar check). I'll be playing with the green architecture/sustainable architecture pages shortly. Yes, those pages are a better place to start citing names. I hope that the following edits work better.

--Archinect 11:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amandajm, This account was set up for a group of people from Archinect (http://www.archinect.com), among the most visited architectural and design portals on the web, to edit some pages on wiki. Please refer to this discussion page: http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=60226_0_42_0_C

One of the members was posting without letting the rest of us know, but from now on we are going to be editing pages ONLY as a group. It would be very valuable to us to have your input as we continue to edit pages in the archinect discussion thread.

Thanks, Quilian Riano

--Archinect 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quilian! I have only just found your response here!
I have just reverted all the edits to the introduction of the article, because they had broken the flow, disconnected connected info, added unnecessary qualifications etc. The article is fairly concise, takes a consistent viewpoint and was initially written by someone who wrote very well.
I think that this article could probably use some more information regarding specifically the philosophy of architects in non-western cultures, if anyone knows or could research this topic. It seems like a hard ask to me. It is much easier to just write "Islamic architecture is found in Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and North Africa as well as other countries where there are Islamic people." Which is completely out of step with the article, and which I deleted, while wondering what to say instead.
Anyway, I'm not being personally protective about this one, because I didn't actually write it, I merely tidied it up, but I have seen some very concise and consistent articles completely ruined by piecemeal editting by well-meaning people who were not able to take a broad view. So I have this one on my watch list.
I have suggested the Architectural history might be a very worthwhile project, and for those who want a more direct approach, there is History of Architecture.
Now I am lugging my battered old Banister Fletcher back to Romanesque architectureand thanking God for his 1500 meticulous diagrams...

Seeya! :--Amandajm 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amandajm

The article on Architecture has acceptable writing at best, has many errors of fact, and in general only half-represents the reality of architectural history, theory, and professional practice. What we are doing is not piecemeal editing, we are a group of architectural professionals, writers, and professors that are methodically going through the article using the archinect forum. We are also planning to expand the entry to include the theoretical and global perspective you are suggesting.

We would love your comments and edits but you cannot just dismiss us. We both care deeply about this entry so let us work together.

Best, Quilian

--User:quilian 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is thank God and good luck! My suggestion is to work in user space and then get an admin to history merge the articles when you're happy with them. That way you spend less time reverting idiots telling the world about their friend's predilections for the same sex. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my twopenceworth (from a jobbing architect). You need to check out the requirements for Featured articles, particularly the Manual of style and the policy on Verification. You then need to consider WP:SIZE which limits the size of 'certain' articles to a manageable readable length. If I remember correctly, however the Length limitations are relaxed for 'top of the tree' articles that give overviews of the subject. This doesn't mean unlimited size, just that WP:Summary style must be used for all aspects of the subject to make it comprehensive. The only FA I can think of that actually did this is Law. But as ever with wikipedia, despite what anyone might say Be bold. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - if you're looking for architecture articles they're all either in Category:Architecture or the subcats listed there. A list of architecture FA's can be found on the arch portal WP:ARCH (please feel free to rewrite the portal intro - It's on my todo list.) --Mcginnly | Natter 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny Fisk

You need to assert notability, i.e. provide independent verifiable and reliable sources. DrKiernan 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Architecture

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

WikiProject Architecture Bulletin  

A new Historic houses task force has been created.

Please join if you are interested!

Announcements - please add your Project announcements  


Articles at Peer Review - edit list
Machu Picchu
Manor House, Sleaford
Endeavour House
Taliesin (studio)
New article announcements - add new architecture article to list
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Deleted articles| Last updated: 2026-06-05 19:07 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


DYK announcements - add new architecture article to list
New participants (add me)
Jpboudin, Mayarrow, Nwhysel, Cassianto, Jtmorgan
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.

Why?

I can accept that this was a mistake but this is starting to look like vandalism - deleting large chunks of other people's talk pages is frowned upon - would you explain, or can we help? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.