Talk:Futuro

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Futuro article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Tom Spring (March 30, 2009). "Strangest Sights in Google Street Views". PC World.

Untitled

Hi I'm trying to find any information on the Licensing to build Futuro houses or if there is anyone doing it anywhere in the world. I'm from New Zealand and we have one of the largest surviving number of Futuros (approx 12 )I'm sure that now is the ime for a revival. many thanks Mike van Blommestein email: mikeandhelenvanb@xtra.co.nz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.39.32 (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Futuro House Playboy February 1970.jpg

Image:Futuro House Playboy February 1970.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont post pointless information.

I removed some random babble about a resort in Taiwan making a resort out of these houses, no citation, no capitalization, no good grammar, and no spellcheck used.

Also, congrats to the editors on getting this cited by a media source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.34.185 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Description?

Should the article maybe have photos, a floorplan, or at least a description of the interior of the house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.140.36 (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links in the article (http://www.futurohouse.com/) has a floorplan, but the site requires javascript to navigate. There is a floorplan and some pictures at http://langborgsullevidal.blogspot.com/2010/02/futuro-underhallsfritt-och-trendigt.html apparently scanned from the original brochure. There are some pictures of the interior at http://svenska.yle.fi/matochfritid/specialartikel.php?id=1268 from a short documentary in Finish Television YLE. They link to http://www.arcspace.com/books/tomorrows_house/ that have pictures and a floorplan. The living room chairs in that plan are convertible to guest beds. David A se (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venturo

FYI: Matti Suuronen also designed the Venturo house in 1971, another futuristic plastic house. There is currently no article in english wp for Matti Suuronen or Venturo. If this info is considered notable, create an article or maybe add to this article. See swedish wp http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturo or http://www.tuovinen.net/venturo/english.html both of which wave links to a brochure. David A se (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now in the English Wikipedia! J S Ayer (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Futuro WeeGee Espoo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking?

Any thoughts about this? (removed twice now by Mj)

Material about the Futuro house

In 2010, Finnish conservator Anna-Maija Kuitunen made a damage assessment plan for the first Futuro ever made (serial number 001). This was done as her final thesis for the Metropolia University of Applied Sciences in Finland ("Futuro no. 001 – documentation and evaluation of preservation need"). The thesis is openly available via the Finnish Theses database and contains a large number of indoor detail photographs and drawings of the Futuro House.^[1]

Yes, it's a student thesis. I'm not desperately wedded to mentioning the thesis here, although the conservation aspect is interesting. What's most useful though is the level of constructional detail it covers.^[2] Certainly way past WP:EL standard. We have nothing else comparable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question has been around since at least 2015. But WP:CONTENTAGE doesn't trump WP:Consensus can change. One basci question is whether the thesis qualifies as a reliable source. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Seems to me M (talk · contribs) has started to edit war. The text was there for such a long time that in my view the bold edit was M's section blanking. Andy reverted. If M were following BRD instead of edit warring, M would not be content to merely condemn any and all student theses (see M's edit summary). Instead M would explain why this thesis fails to complyt with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But since M has chosen this other path, if Andy wants to restore it, then maybe Andy can explain why the thesis does qualify as an RS, under the criteria in that guideline? Then if M doesn't adequately rebut the weight sources and reasoning would seem to support keeping the text. My two cents anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work, haven't read through these comments, but will state that this silly section is like putting in the Grand Central Terminal article:

Student thesis

A student wrote a thesis on the terminal and how it relates to a train station in Tokyo, done to complete a requirement for a UPenn program on historic preservation. The thesis has lots of photos in it. You can view it via this URL.

Do you know of any single GA or FA that randomly talks about any one source and its merits within the body of the article???

ɱ

(talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

$0.02 - (a) Agreed this should be removed. Unpublished theses can be used for some things, but we shouldn't have a big block of text, let alone an awkwardly titled section, based only on an unpublished thesis unless it's covered in secondary sources, too. I.e. there's not much WP:WEIGHT established here. (b) Ɱ should've worked it out on the talk page before removing it again as per standard procedure. A small trout for that.

Maybe a compromise would be to provide a simple link to it either in EL or Further Reading? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we KNOW it was never published in professional journals? Do we know what degree it was for, since PhD carries more clout than MA/MS, or whatever the Finnish equivalents are. I really don't care, just trying to help with the conflict. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing by Anna-Maija Kuitunen in EBSCO, nothing on Gale Academic OneFile, nothing in JStor. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... @Andy Dingley:?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do they all have in common? They have content written by a nobody person, with no available proof of an academic background in the field or similar credentials. They all seem to only have been posted online. They also all lack any editors or a review process. Take a look at WP:RSSELF. Thank you.

However, if you are still really adamant about using that source (is there a lack of heavily reliable sources for this niche topic?), then for God's sake use it like anyone else would - use it to cite new content in the article, don't keep a whole paragraph about the thesis itself.

ɱ

(talk) 05:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of windows

The number of circumferential windows seems to vary from four to fifteen; does anyone have anything enlightening to say about this? J S Ayer (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the first one

What was the date of the first Futuro? J S Ayer (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New futuro houses

Hi, why is there no mention of the brand new Futuro Houses? 162.155.213.10 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Anna-Maija Kuitunen: Futuro no. 001 – documentation and evaluation of preservation need. 2010, Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland. .

[2] "Direct PDF link" (PDF).

[1]

[2]