Talk:Architectural technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dhaifalotaibi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge with "Architectural Technologist"[edit]

There was an attempt to redirect the Article "architectural technologist" to this page. There was no Wiki-Article created for "Architectural Technology"; I have now created a short introduction with references and links. This introduction obviously needs to be extended. Wikipedia has an article for "Architecture" and another another for "Architect", an article for "engineer" and another for "engineering". Now Wikipedia has an article for "Architectural technologist" and also an article for "Architectural technology"--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural technology[edit]

Hello Christophe, I'm not going to start an edit war, as that is not how I work here on WP. Instead, I'm writing as a fellow architect to advise you on why I do not agree with the fundamental premises you promote in your edits.

  • AT is not a "new" profession so much as it is an ancient discipline. Quite frankly, one could argue it isn't a profession at all (in the sense that one does not "practice" AT, but I won't go there). As a profession (career), the relevant article is Architectural technologist.
  • I gather your experience is limited to Ireland, where perhaps things are slightly different. Speaking globally, AT is not a separate nor is it a new profession. Architectural technologists (also known as Building technologists in much of the world), offer services in support of the professions of architecture and engineering, and the construction industry in general, and have been in existence for many years (often under different titles and roles). Independently, they are capable of doing many things- from architecture (albiet restricted) to surveying to building science and much more- but they do not practice "architectural technology". Here[1] is an example from Canada.
  • the article reads as a promotional piece. That is not the intent of an encyclopedia.
  • Architectural technology is as essential to the practice of architecture as is design. One could specialise in Building Science, but I dare you to explain how one "specialises" in AT? What does that even mean? I think the article needs to state and explain that it's a sub-discipline of architecture and building engineering before it delves into the narrow view it currently expounds for a separate profession.

Now that I've explained the intent of my edits, I welcome you to consider these points. Cheers, Homo architectus (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is never stated that it is a "new profession", but a "new discipline". All the information that I have accessed on this subject confirmed that it is a new discipline. Do you have any reference to confirm your claim about Architectural Technology being an ancient discipline?
  • My experience is limited to Ireland, England, Wales, France and Nova Scotia (Canada). I agree that the discipline is viewed differently from one state / country to the other. The present article on Architectural Technology already gives information on this issue, but it needs additional information, I will insert a tag for improvements. The link that you provided about architectural technologists confirms the information provided on the article Architectural technologist and I will use it as a reference for this article.
  • I do not agree that the article read as a promotional piece. Please give more details to support your claim. If your claim is related to the definitions provided by Irish and English university, then you or anyone are welcome to provide other references. However, I think that these references are reliable and I have not found anything more appropriate at this stage. Are universities only businesses or are they reliable sources that we can trust and use on Wikipedia?
  • I agree that one cannot only practice architectural technology on its own, but the article never made such a claim... I agree that AT, like the artistic content of a design cannot be considered independently in a building. Architectural technologists practice architecture, not only architectural technology. However, for large projects, in the UK and other countries, architects delegate the technical design to Architectural Technologists and engineers. In Germany they delegate the technical design to engineers and other specialists... If you read the agreement between CIAT and the RIBA to differentiate the 2 professions; you will find that Architects have a more philosophical approach of the profession while Technologists have a more scientific approach. Many universities offer courses and degrees in architectural technology; I hope this answer your question on how someone may specialise in AT--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architectural technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]