User talk:Konstructicon

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Architecture, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Konstructicon. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Konstructicon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Hello Konstruction! Welcome to Wiki! Here's a few basic rules for editting:

Before you add written content:

Overview... to see the general construction and drift of the article. The Table of content should help. However, not all articles are well constructed. Overview includes looking at the overall balance and weight of an article.

For example, the article on Lincoln Cathedral includes a whole paragraph of very generalised material on the construction of a timber-frame roof, before getting to the fact that, above the vaults is a timber frame roof. The highly significant Gothic vaulting is summarised in about one line. Not a good balance. (I'm planning some work on it.) The very general material might go in the Timber frame article, not Lincoln Cathedral

Read to see if the info that you are adding is already there in another section, and to make sure that what you add does not interrupt the flow, or seriously divide linked content. (which can turn information into nonsense!)
Preview before saving.

Before adding pictures:

Overview the selection of pics and whether they have been very carefully chosen and arranged, or if they are rather a mish mash.
Read so that it goes in the right section. This may mean putting the pic higher than the actual relevant text, so that it extends down the page next to the text.
Be selective when replacing. Higher resolution is not necessarily better for the purpose. A low res pic might be at a better angle.

Re Overview: In the article Architecture, the info that you added was all valuable info about contemporary, and environmentally sustainable architecture. However, within the content of a very generalised article in which the whole of Ancient architecture, Medieval architecture, Asian architecture etc are summed up in three or four lines each, then extended paragraphs on contemporary architecture creates a serious over-balance. (This area already has considerably more weight than any other, and is extended by students all the time, because it is uppermost in what they are studying.) There are a number of other articles that benefit from detailed descriptions of all the various features you have mentioned. Can I suggest that you check out Contemporary architecture, Sustainable architecture, and other such articles. If you go back to the Architecture page, you will find links, both in line and in the section See also that will take you to pages where the info might be useful, or might already have been dealt with. It just takes a bit more looking to find the best place for the contribution.

One of the reasons why the Architecture article is fairly brief and does not describe style at all, is that there is a parallel article History of architecture that looks at the various periods and styles regionally and chronologically in much more depth. The Architecture page is a brief overview of an extremely diverse topic dealt with in a great many articles, both generic and highly specific.

If you go to the page that shows the History of the architecture article, you can retrieve your entire edit, and cut and paste it elsewhere. It hasn't been lost. Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO NEILN, COULDN'T FIGURE OUT ANY OTHER WAY TO CONTACT YOU. THE SITE IS NOT CLEAR ON THIS, AS I DIDNT SPEND MUCH TIME LOOKING. I SEE THAT YOU REVERTED ARCHITECTURE BACK TO ITS OLD DEFINITION. I ALSO REVERTED IT BACK. I find "flow" as a reason to revert the content back as a poor argument. If you would like I could easily shorten my entry but it is merely a few sentences longer than the previous one. More importantly my entry clarifies a fundamental issue regarding contemporary architecture today, especially in the US, that is liability. Building has become easier than ever with the use of modeling programs that identify issues of construction early on. It is misleading to say otherwise as is stated in the entry you support. My entry brings into account important abuses including enhancing our knowledge of "green washing", describing a practice that abuses the "sustainable" buzz word, which has become politically charged, used by many non-experts in order to set favor of one party or another. It is important this is defined as it is a contemporary issue that further obfuscates the role of sustainable practice in our lives. Since the article mentioned LEED etc., it must also mention associated misunderstandings in order not to leave the reader misinformed and confused.

Hi Konstructicon, if you read the above statement you'll see your changes were reverted by Amandajm, not me. I last edited the article in March 2008. Also, please be careful of writing such things as "NeilN's support of false content on wiki" as they go against our guideline of assuming good faith. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Konstruction! Yes I reverted the edits, before I realised it was you you had made them. It's all much to much for that article, as I indicated previously. it's not the place to get into stuff like "liabilities" and so on. Find the article that is specific to that subject and leave the existent paragraph as a brief overview. It is all to much. The article already has far more on twentieth century architecture than anything else.

Have you read the first sentence of the section?

Part of the architectural profession, and also some non-architects, responded to Modernism and Postmodernism by going to what they considered the root of the problem. They felt that architecture was not a personal philosophical or aesthetic pursuit by individualists; rather it had to consider everyday needs of people and use technology to give a livable environment.

That is the sentence into which you drop the name Christopher Alexander (and any other that you consider equally important.) rather than creating a new sentence, that repeats the same ideas.

If you have an absolutely brilliant and short quote from Alexander, as an important theorist of the 20th century, then add it to the section Historic treatises, but look at the space given to Le Corbusier etc, and don't overdo it.

Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have worked Christopher Alexander in, and mentioned liability under the role of "project architect". Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies NeilN and Amandajm as I am new to the editing process and have overstepped my boundaries in regards to the title of a post and was uncertain how to respond and deleted it on NeilN's page. I hope to continue to be a contributing member to wikipedia moving forward. Regarding further issue with the article: "A large structure can no longer be the design of one person but must be the work of many." This is a completely false and empty statement. It is like saying "support our troops." Why is it that you have no desire to correct this statement as I have previously mentioned reasons why. "Modernism and Postmodernism, have been criticized ..." Another architect, Rem Koolhass has been critical of the post/modern discussion as meaningless to the profession as it ignores basic issues of construction and does not consider that architecture is a "tool for modernization" described in his book S,M,L,XL. "Environmental sustainability has become a mainstream issue, with profound affect on the architectural profession. Within the past several decades, architects have realized that buildings must take into account their effect upon the environment."--- This statement is completely false. "Environmental sustainability" has had a profound affect on the 'business' of development. Architecture and development are different things. One is about the business of financing buildings, the other is about designing/constructing them. Sustainable practice has long been part of the Architect's education and training for over a millenia. To say that it is only in the last decade architect's have started to consider their buildings' impact on the environment is completely false, and to go even further as to say the education has also profoundly changed is even further from the truth. It is only in the last decade that many developers, those who support the financing of buildings, have become educated to encourage more sustainable approaches whereas these were discouraged by those same developers in the past because of reason I've previously mentioned. User:KONSTRUCTICON

Apology accepted and no hard feelings. By the way, you shouldn't delete content from talk pages, except your own where you are free to delete what you want (I know, more rules...). I understand why you did it and haven't restored the content, but other editors might get upset if you remove their responses to your posts. Now, if you want to talk about Architecture, I suggest you copy the above to Talk:Architecture where editors interested in the article will see it. Article talk pages are there so that content changes can be discussed and agreed to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]