Talk:Architecture of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

London Centric

This page is too London Centric, particularly by its photographs. I shall work to remedy this Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I am just starting this page with a few progressive links. It needs to be hugely developed and have a commentary. The headings I have put are just ideas and do not have to be kept. If any one wants to do a collaboration or just dive in that would be brilliant. Giano 20:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above is still relevant! Giano 22:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also section

Is now vastly expanded - I wonder how much it's contributing to this article though and think it might be better served in List of historic buildings in the United Kingdom in a similar vein as List of historic buildings in Sweden. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval architecture

I have redefined the way this section is split; as I understand it both defensive and religious architecture were built in the norman and gothic styles, so I have removed this dichotomy to replace it with sections based on type of architecture.Finereach (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Industrial Architecture

You would expect me to say this. Without the fireproof mills, and the use of cast iron as demonstrated at North Mill, Belper. Norman Foster would still be a carpenter. A lot of this lost history can be seen at Chatham Dockyard and the covered slips, the precursors of the great railway terminals eg Gare Saint-Lazareor London King's Cross railway station. OK, it may seem to be riding a hobby horse, but what Foster did was to build to function and structure, art historians write about Architecture using the paradigms and language of George Gilbert Scott where it is all about visual detail- rather than say Barlow who designed the St Pancras railway station train shed. It is the paradigm shift that is the most important factor in classifying architectural periods- and cotton again was more important than the name of the monarch.

Chapter Two. There were times when regional difference was of little importance but generally one must distinguish between north and south, the borders and the heartland, Grit/Sandstone and Limestone- chalk and clay. More Brunskill than Pevsner! Discuss.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Architecture

A few of the example in this section seem to be from English Architects working abroad, is this right or am I being Pedantic?Fat rupert (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Victorian Architecture

I am removing the Paragraph in this Section about Alexander Thompson, as it doesn't seem to fit in to the Page Topic.1) refers to architecture in Canada without linking back to English architecture 2) the link goes to Alexander Thompson a Scottish Architect who only(to my knowledge) built in Scotland. Rupertjames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Introduction

I have rewritten the introduction, in a format similar to the Architecture of Portugal article Rupertjames (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Prehistoric section

I am reinstating, with some modifications, my edit to the 'Prehistoric architecture' section. For the sake of a quiet life I am willing to withhold the caveat regarding what is and is not architecture. However, other elements of the reverted text remain flawed. The quotation is both superfluous and out of date, having been superseded by more recent discoveries (see Gobekli Tepe). The reference to the UNESCO site is disproportionate in the context of the article as a whole - there are I think currently eight other buildings or groups of buildings which constitute UNESCO sites mentioned in the article, besides a few others that easily could be. It is inequitable to specify this fact with regard to one case and not the others, whereas if it is mentioned in all cases the article is going to turn into a list of UNESCO sites. Finally, this status does not actually tell us anything about architecture in any case. The minutiae about Ordnance Survey maps, burial practices, speculations over the functions of stone circles and the like also seem excessive in an article on architecture. Zburh (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And I am reverting. Please read WP:BRD and stop edit warring. The text I have reinstated was properly referenced by reliable sources. The text I reverted contains no refernces at all (see WP:OR). Two short, referenced paragraphs on prehistory is not excessive in the context of the article as a whole. That Stonehenge is a UNESCO site is notable. The text could, of course, be improved, and I am happy to discuss those improvements. However, please dispense with unnecessay, patronising statements such as being willing to withhold the caveat regarding what is and is not architecture for the sake of a quiet life. It is referenced, and until a reference is produced to dispute it, it stays. Daicaregos (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)