Talk:Parametricism

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Note

I have edited this page numerous times for various requested changes. The text was fully revamped and only objective sections were retained, which are fully documented in the references. The point of view is neutral with respect to the subject matter, which is a documented and widely established movement within the architecture community. As a design movement, it is not proprietary, although the the individual to which you refer has coined the phrase "Parametricism". However, this is only the naming of a movement that has been going on for 25 years. Beyond that, the style is practiced and documented globally across numerous practices, schools and research facilities. Parametricism is not a proprietary concept, it is a style of architecture and design. Daniela Gh (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I think this article should be deleted ASAP, it's absolutely awful, has too few citations (and makes claims that need citations, such as the list of founders of parametricism), and sounds like a ten-year old with a dictionary wrote it. The section on projects is the only redeeming factor, but even that section makes many claims that are either un-referenced or entirely unsubstantiated by the given references. There are also copious amounts of speculation, opinion and entirely irrelevant discussion. Unless someone who actually understands the subject is willing to untangle this word-garbage, it does not belong on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.143.64 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (Please note that the author of the piece that is being quoted is one of the editors of this entry, and consents to his original text being used here.) --Daniela Gh (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (note that the section was revise extensively and no longer duplicates the content cited by the petition to delete this entry) --Daniela Gh (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (I removed the section titled "Agendas of Parametricism" which flagged the page for deletion.) --Daniela Gh (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings

Is this a purely theoretical concept or have any buildings actually been built in this style? It seems strange that an architecture article has no mention of any buildings, let alone images of them. Please provide some real-world examples, if any exist. PamD 07:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT purely a theoretical concept! There are literally hundreds of projects--buildings, interiors, urban planning projects, furniture design, industrial design and even fashion design -- that have been built and manufactured in this style! However, this article focuses on the most fundamental characteristics of Parametricism. All architecture and design is theory-driven, and for the sake of clarity, it is presented in its most theoretical from here. Daniela Gh (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Incredibly factually incorrect. Utter nonsensical pseudo intellectual rubbish, please delete this page as it is an embarrassment to the profession 09 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.178.159 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

This is a terrible article, confusing architectural students around the world. It's a complete embarrassment to those of us involved in computation and design. 86.28.109.131 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link

I think there's a mistake. The link "John Fraser" must be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frazer_(architect) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.66.170.73 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected --Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I echo the concern of the other editors on this talk page. This article is abysmal. Worse, the questionable content is being used to promote the movement on Facebook. Few of the existing references are easily accessible, though it is unlikely that they are accurately characterized. I'm inclined to cut everything that appears below the lede, with the exception of Schumaker's claim that Frei Otto was a proto-parametricist, as that does have a source. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The intro is pretentious and incomprehensible to the general reader. Ben Finn (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the opening doesn't make it clear what this is. Lots of buzzwords and quotes. Equinox ◑ 03:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's more understandable than when Schumacher explains it. I've tried to improve it but it still has a long way to go. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Architecture isn't remotely my subject, but I think the article might benefit from more pictures of parametric architecture early on, and the text explaining what visible elements of these buildings make them parametric. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Dongdaemun Design Plaza (Korea).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]