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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism 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.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
Why is this subject not notable? I don't understand, as I used several sources from actual scientific articles and such, and it is a very interesting theme that can be easily expanded.
Also, I don't understand why this is not considered wikified. It has an introduction, a brief history section and several examples, and I wrote it to be as neutral as possible. @SSR07, if you could explain to me, I would appreciate, as I can make the article better. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, adding the tags was a little brash. I only did a cursory look at the article and it seemed iffy in some areas, but you're right: it's an interesting topic that can be improved. Sometimes I rush my assessments a little, which leads to mistakes. Thanks for calling it out! I'll adjust the tags. Some thoughts:
- The scope of the article is a little unclear. The topic is inherently fuzzy and I think a little clarification would go a long way. Some of the architects mentioned, for example, are anarchists but there isn't a direct line drawn between those beliefs and their architecture in their individual articles. Maybe it would be worth starting there and then plugging that into this article?
- Consider changing the title to "anarchist architecture" instead of the portmanteau
- The latter part of the lead has the un-encyclopedic tone, which is why I flagged the article (seems a little preachy imo). The rest of the piece looks fine, though.
I've gone through and done some copy editing and cleanup. Let me know if you have any questions about what I've deleted/rewritten. The "examples" heading could benefit from some further cleanup...it jumps from one thing to another and would be improved by examples more tightly packaged into themes. SSR07 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through it, tried to describe in a bit more neutral way, summarized content and removed, added and expanded on some examples. I agree that it could be expanded on with ideas and buildings from anarchist architects, I added something from John Turner on informal settlements which I thought was interesting Tijelu (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the title "anarchist architecture" is better than the portmanteau since it's used more in academic literature and the latter seems to refer to a specific art movement Tijelu (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I read, "anarchist architecture" was used extensively in scientific papers, but the architects linked with it wouldn't call themselves as part of the "anarchist architecture" movement. A different thing happens with the term "anarchitecture", where architects and artists would actively declare being part of the movement. That's why I opted for the second term.
That said, that's only my impressions and I have no problem in using the academic term. I still have a lot to read about the subject, but I think your argument is a valid one :) Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is a difference between the art movement, architects who describe themselves as anarchist and make anarchist archictecture, and architecture that can be described as arnarchist (such as favelas and squats). I think the article would benefit from making a clear distinction between these and explaining them. Anyway, I found this article randomly and the topic has captured my interest! I made some more additions around the art group just now Tijelu (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions! I've gathered a series of books about the subject, but I still didn't have the chance of reading them. I think as long as we keep writing, our doubts will be clarified. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
