Talk:Oculus (architecture)

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Glass

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Does this have anything to do with this article http://www.00112358.net/ ?

On 1 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Oculus to Oculus (architecture). The result of the discussion was moved.

Other meanings

The Oculus is a powerful orb in Diablo II. /Tense (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to edit that into Diablo II, if you feel it explains something to the reader about that subject. It isn't a help to the reader here, really, is it?--Wetman (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed that you've found a change in this page so quick, Wetman. I thought this talk page was going to be one like all the others I leave comment on and never get any reply to :).

You're probably right. It's very Diablo II specific and lacks notability anywhere else. The only reason for adding it here, I think, is that it is funny to know (and that's not a valid reason to add something into a wikipedia). Adding it to the D2-article would be pointless as The Oculus is just one of many many items in the game, other than being a great orb it has no importance or special value. /Tense (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical sentence?

"Pliny in his Natural history call counters also oculus, oculi."

I wanted to fix this, but I'm not quite certain what it's trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon Shiva (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this certainly needs re-wording.Fconaway (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it until someone wants to restore something sensical. While I was at it, I took out the absurd claim that the incredibly rare summer rain in Rome (<20mm in June and July) was a significant source of cooling the Pantheon.--Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The air flow no doubt is cooling, but we hardly need to say that here. "incredibly rare summer rain in Rome " - no, but whatever. The building is rather impressive in a thunderstorm, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stick with calling 19mm of rain in July "incredibly rare", but let's agree to disagree. :-) --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oculus → Oculus (architecture) – Other uses (the gaming system and the New York landmark) are much more likely to be searched for than the architectural term. Their names are not even derived from the architectural term, but rather from the fact that oculus means simply eye. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The gaming system is not likely to be around in a few years and the building in NYC is fairly new. Let's see what happens there. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 2013 film? Its article alone had 6x more views than the architectural term, despite the latter occupying the base title.

There is simply no chance that the architectural term achieves WP:PTOPIC’s requirement of highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't seem anything meets the second criteria topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term—blindlynx 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not the case for the architectural term (which gave rise to the NYC building name, BTW). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, move Oculus (disambiguation)→Oculus, no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support no clear primary topic, by usage the film has 22,456 views and the brand has 3,368 compared with only 3,567[[1]] for the architecture meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Dome of Pantheon (Rome).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Oeil-de-boeuf as a separate section on Oculus (architecture), where the two closely-related topics can be better discussed in context; short text. Klbrain (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving the content of Oeil-de-boeuf to this article as both are essentially two different terms for the same subject (object ..).

KaiKemmann (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not exactly the same - Oeil-de-boeuf is not used for holes in domes or ceilings, only walls. I'm old-fashioned enough to think it should only be used for ovals. Neither article is very well-written or referenced. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification.

How about turning Oeil-de-boeuf (puh, I can never spell this correctly from memory ..) into a paragraph of this article then as it could be regarded as a subform of an oculus?

The redundancy seems to be large enough to justify merging the articles and both are unlikely to be expanded very much in the future, I guess.

KaiKemmann (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the thing to do. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]