Talk:Royal Institute of British Architects

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

Notable past presidents[edit]

Qexigator proposes that lengthy lists such as PPRIBA should be separated and placed in another article, under a brief explanatory paragraph, and reference to the main RIBA article, as in the case of the Royal Gold Medal. The new section with a short list of 4 for 19c. and 4 for 20c. is a step in that direction. Should these be reduced to not more than 3 each? Those Qexigator has listed are thought to be among those more widely known for their work as architects, as well as in their profession.

Qexigator is too much of a Wikipedia novice to attempt completing the operation by creating a new article for the full list.Qexigator (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without references, I can see this sort of arbitrary listing causing problems. What is wrong with the full list as it, and clearly any notable architects are easily identifies by having a wikipedia article? Warren (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this response. Several points in reply:
  • 1_'Without references...'. Not sure what that means, but perhaps immaterial.
  • 2_'...causing problems'. A lengthy list of this kind in a more general article is usually an encumbrance, and needs to be separated and then linked by reference. A long list may use up a page or more of a PDF or book and if unwanted may even deter use of the article in that way. If separated, a user who wishes to have it as well with the article can do; but also a user who is collecting lists (such as office-holders of various instititions -- architects, engineers, etc.) would also be free to do so. The purpose of a generally informative article is not to force feed users with unneeded lists.
  • 3_'...this sort of arbitrary listing...'. Not in fact arbitrary, or partisan or favouritist, either as to number or names. As mentioned:
1) 'Should the number be reduced to not more than 3 each?' That is an open question, but implies that there should not be less than 3, and perhaps not more than 5 at most, for each century, given the purpose of retaining a few for the purpose of the general reader while putting the entire list in a separate article for the purpose of those readers who would find that useful.
2) 'Those Qexigator has listed are [deceased and] thought to be among the more widely known [in their day and ours] for their work as architects, as well as in their profession.' This expects some considered editorial judgment according to the proposed criteria, but other criteria could be proposed.
It would be good to know if, as a knowledgeable editor, you would regard any one or more of the 4 and 4 as not meeting the criteria 'more widely known for their work as architects, as well as in their profession', or if there are others who would meet the criteria better (or equally). While it may be said that any PPRIBA is Wikipedia "notable" ex officio, and so a fit subject for an article (as many of them already are), not all PPRIBA are equally notable in the sense 'more widely known [today] for their work as architects, as well as in their profession'. This, surely, is not especially contentious? They are not being singled out here for merit but according to whose work as an architect is better known outside the profession.
  • 4_'What is wrong with the full list as it is'? If there is anything wrong with the list as such it would be because it is incomplete (is it?) or contains error (does it?). Qexigator (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I tend to agree with Warren, when I first read Qexigator's suggestion, I did wonder how consensus might be reached about the handful of architects to be highlighted each century (IMHO, the proposed selection includes some lesser names, and omits worthy others). Keep the full list as it, I humbly suggest. Paul W (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Paul W for joining in the the discussion. Now may I ask you (like Warren) to consider points 2_ and 3_ above: the proposed criteria for the short list are unambigous and there cannot be many others of those in the full list who would be generally considered as widely known outside the profession. If you feel able to express an opinion on that point please advise who you would you propose instead?

NB: _"They are not being singled out here for merit but according to whose work as an architect is better known outside the profession." _This is not a proposal to eliminate the full list: "...lengthy lists such as PPRIBA should be separated and placed in another article...": "The purpose of a generally informative article is not to force feed users with unneeded lists."; "If there is anything wrong with the list as such it would be because it is incomplete (is it?) or contains error (does it?). "Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with other lists[edit]

Civil engineers, UK[edit]

Bridges and other civil engineering works can be like public buildings in that their designers can be as widely known among a wider public as some architects may be.

The articles for ICE and ICE Presidents are a near model for what Qexigator is proposing for a separate article listing PPRIBA. But while the article for Presidents ICE appears handsomely on screen, its format may be less friendly for a user who wishes to make a PDF copy or include it in a book: just as general articles should not force feed users with unneeded lists, so articles for lists should not force feed users with unneeded images.

Qexigator's proposal for a separate article for PPRIBA is simply to use the list as in the present RIBA article (subject to checking for completeness and accuracy) and not to include images, but to allow for a further article which would be available as a gallery of images . This gallery article could be begun as a stub should there be a contributor willing to make a start, and later added to as images became available.

Structural engineering[edit]

The information on this topic (for a further comparison) seems to be conveniently distributed in the articles mentioned below, taking account of the way in which users may wish to combine the contents of any of them (for PDF or books) with articles about civil engineering, architecture, or built environment etc.

Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery sections in other types of articles[edit]

Articles about painters, sculptors and architects can also appear handsomely on screen with a gallery of images . In these cases the images are the main part of the narrative which makes the subject 'notable'. Some examples:

But in some other articles the Gallery section has so many images that it could be more convenient (for PDF or books as mentioned above) to make the Gallery a separate article. Some examples:

Banister Fletcher PRIBA[edit]

About Banister Fletcher see Tree of Architecture at Talk:Sir Banister Fletcher. This architect is chiefly notable for the book A history of architecture on the comparative method --Qexigator (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Time to remove outdated tag?

--Qexigator (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ Taggged 18:15, 28 March 2011[1] by User:Southend sofa blocked as socker on 14 April 2012 at 21:10. --Qexigator (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Qexigator (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthoods for presidents[edit]

I have been told that there is (or was) a tradition that past presidents received a knighthood at the end of their term. Is this accurate? If someone can find a reliable reference then we should mention it - it would indicate that the RIBA is well-regarded by the establishment. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those that were knighted, such as Basil Spence - Robert Matthew - Peter Shepheard - Banister Fletcher - Reginald Blomfield - Aston Webb - Gilbert Scott, were usually considered to have been notable for something more than PPRIBA. In the case of William Holford, he was made a life peer in the time of Harold Wilson. Other architects have been knighted and some created peers. Qexigator (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put "Architectural education"?[edit]

Is this section more suited to "History", where it now is, or to the later section "Education"? Qexigator (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past presidents with two terms[edit]

I transferred the following comment from the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of RIBA Past Presidents lists correctly after Sir Percy Thomas 1943-46 "Second Term".
Two other Past Presidents should have the same comment after their second terms as President - William Tite - 1861-63 and 1867-70 and Owen Luder 1981-83 and 1995-97. (85.210.46.133, 7 April 2015)
Now fixed. Paul W (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Institute of British Architects. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Governance[edit]

Coming fresh to this page, I'm amazed that a whole lengthy section is devoted to a sordid story of allegations and recriminations during Alan Jones's term as president. The whole thing is covered in exactly the same detail under Alan Jones (architect) and that is where it belongs. This article is a place for general information about the RIBA - I actually came here looking for information about the design of the RIBA crest - and the Governance section is out of place in the context. That whole section should be replaced by a brief mention of controversy, as was previously the case. ProfDEH (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the section to summarise the main elements of the controversy, particularly as they relate to RIBA transparency, with a template link to the Jones article. If and when the QC's report of the internal investigations is reported, this section might need to be updated. Paul W (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Institute_of_British_Architects&oldid=1204103183"