Talk:Landscape/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion from my talk

Copying the following from my talk for further discussion. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In the process of looking for the article Landscape painting, I stumbled upon the article on Landscape. I haven't read it yet, but I noticed something wrong at the very end of the article. It's at the end of the section Landscape#Etymology (huge section!). There appear some non-English characters. Also, just above that, in the middle of the paragraph that begins "The dictionary definition of aesthetic...", I see "15Aesthetics". I'm not sure what that is. CorinneSD (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've chopped some old vandalism and those old pre <ref></ref> reference numbers. Plus some minor tweaking.Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in, but etymology is an interest of mine so I decided to take a look. Wow, you weren't kidding! The article is almost entirely about the etymology and evolution of the word and its various meanings, but almost nothing about the subject itself. I'm not even sure which subject it is about, as it seems to concentrate on the various meanings that the word can have, but not on any specific thing.

My personal opinion is that etymology is usually unnecessary in an encyclopedia. Etymology is about words, which makes it more suited to a dictionary, but encyclopedias are about things. Therefore, they rarely need to cover etymology at all, unless it's particularly notable (the etymology of moose, for example). In this case, the entire article seems to be devoted to etymology without having a real thing (subject) to focus on.

Aside from that, it's written in 2d person academic style rather than 3rd person encyclopedic, and is filled with a lot of unattributed opinions (about the word, not the subject) which are difficult to distinguish between the opinions of the sources, of the author, or of the notable people it mentions. (And why it goes into the etymology of "aesthetic" is beyond me.)Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't mind at all — and quite agree, way too much etymology detail and quibbling. Seems most of that was added back in 2010 by a now inactive user and modified in 2013 by another. Due for some serious chopping, jump right in :) Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Zaereth and Vsmith, I agree completely. I'm sorry I didn't see this before I spent some time fixing punctuation, etc., as I read the article a few minutes ago. I thought it was horrible. Zaereth, you described it well. I think a lot should be removed from this article -- maybe 80 percent of it -- and replaced with some more down-to-earth, interesting material. If there is an article at all, how about something like having brief sections on:

• landscape in (or and) geography
• landscape in geology
• landscape in agriculture
• landscape in history
• landscape in military history
• landscape in painting
• landscape in photography
• landscape in architecture/landscape architecture
• landscape in literature.

Just an idea. CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll say this, someone put a lot of work into it, but you're right, most of the article is in pretty bad shape. The etymology of this word is really not much different from any other word. I found the info interesting, but mostly out of place and far too detailed. I think reducing that section down to a simple paragraph would be sufficient.

In its most general sense, a landscape is everything within a person's sphere of perception. This is all dependent on where that person is, but it could be a desert landscape (desertscape), city landscape (cityscape), tundra landscape, warehouse landscape, etc... It can even refer to non-terrestrial landscapes such as the landscape of the moon or the landscape of the galaxy. Not to mention mental landscapes. Of course, landscape also refers to paintings and photos (which often contain a skyline) or work performed to alter the landscape.

Your idea of expanding the article into small sections on the various types of landscapes is sort of inline with what I was thinking; basically turning the article into a "parent article." We could start out describing what a landscape is, and then add in various sections describing how it relates to other things like photos. Pretty much just like you said, Corinne. I don't have a lot of spare time at the moment. The very-mild winter here has been keeping my workload high, plus with the holidays and all, I probably won't be able to get back to this myself for a few weeks, but will support any change you want to make in the meantime. Perhaps posting this discussion on its talk page may show if there'll be any objection. Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We could use your ideas, mine, and anyone else's ideas. Vsmith, do you agree that this discussion should be copied to the article's talk page? If so, do you want to do that since this is your talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I took the first step and trimmed the etymology section down to its basics. That pretty much is the limit of my expertise on the subject, but it could use some more information like you described. Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

One idea for a place to start might be creating a section for items listed in the "see also" section, writing a short paragraph summarizing the article, and then adding a "main article" link at the top of each section; basically creating a parent article that summarizes and links to the sub-articles. Perhaps different sections on geographical landscapes, art landscapes, seascapes, starscapes, dreamscapes, etc... Just a thought. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape in literature

I'm surprised to see how little is said about this topic in the articles on Wuthering Heights, Thomas Hardy, Thomas Hardy's Wessex, or Wordsworth, but see John Cowper Powys. See also Outdoor literature, British regional literature, and Romanticism.

The section on 'Landscape and literature' needs further examples from Europe, as well as other English-speaking countries. The examples from France are also somewhat weak. Are major French writers more focussed on the urban than the British? Rwood128 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The outdoors

I've added a link to Wilderness, and the term is also important in relation to National parks, as well as the development of hiking --Wordsworth is again important. When I can find time I'll try and work on this article.Rwood128 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just tossing some ideas against the wall to see what sticks. The one thing all landscapes seem to have in common is that it describes an expanse of some sort, so perhaps that would be the best place to begin. The obvious place to begin would seem to be geography, where a landscape typically describes an expanse that is mostly similar in terms of topography, plant life, animal life, etc... These landscapes are often referred to with names like "desert landscape," "mountain landscape," "jungle," "coastal," "tropical," and so on. In my area of the world, the landscape is mostly "tundra" and "taiga."

That all sort of leads to what I think would be best for the second section, which is landscapes in art. This usually describes a painting or photograph of a large expanse of scenery. These usually have a "skyline," and include things like cityscapes and seascapes as well as the usual, backwoods scenery. Quite often they were painted (or photographed) with the canvass rotated horizontally, covering a wider field of depth. This, of course was opposed to the typical vertical canvass used for portraits, and eventually led to those terms being used for copiers and printers.

Those are the two main types of landscapes. Other types of landscapes are mostly derivatives of these two, so, in my opinion, other types of landscapes would be best placed after them; things like geology, paleontology, astronomy, and so on. Possible a little on landscapes in history. I'm not sure if we'd even want to touch on landscapes in psychology. However, perhaps it would be ok to have a short section on landscaping, which is where the word originally came from. Anyhow, just thought I'd toss that out there. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen We need your ideas here. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Gosh. I have to finish a major project in two days. Hafspajen (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Take your time. I'm in no hurry. I'm just kind of thinking out loud here, so don't mind me too much. Any help you can give is appreciated, whenever it's convenient for you. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I realized now why I never edit articles that are the same as my profession. It makes me stressed. I just want to point out one thing. We landscape architects think about all the outer space as landscape, spatial urban systems are also land use. Everything that is outdoors can be named as a landscape. As you can noticed the WikiProject Urban studies and planing has tagged this article as theirs. Thought, Ladscape of ice cream - that would be to go too far. Or Geography of ice cream. Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea of '"an expanse of some sort" is good, and also a landscape is not a field, tree, or even an average sized farm, though they are part of a landscape. A landscape can be farmland, a landscaped park, or wilderness, but not a city, so maybe not "everything outdoors". What about seascape?

Re outer space: landscape is of course important in Science fiction see, for example. Kim Stanley Robinson's concern with terraforming in his Mars Trilogy, and 2312 (novel).

I'll try and check when and how the word was first used. Rwood128 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC) See for example the Book of Common Prayer from the 17th-century [1] (from Google Ngram viewer). The full Oxford Dictionary has a very detailed entry.Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have read the "Etymology" section! but the above is still of interest in terms of its early use in the UK.Rwood128 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Another idea: A view: "A sight or prospect of some landscape or extended scene; an extent or area covered by the eye from one point " (OED). Setting in literature also includes landscape.Rwood128 (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hafspajen that the concept of landscape needs to include the urban landscape where there may be few if any trees or grassy areas. Regarding "seascape", I think by definition the term "landscape" must include land, and by definition, the term "seascape" must be either entirely or mostly a view of the sea and can only be considered a landscape if it includes some land. If it is a view exclusively of water, I don't think it should be considered a landscape (except possibly in the limited definition of painting, where "seascape" would be included in the larger category of landscape painting, but Hafspajen would be the best person to help with this).

I would also like to suggest that some mention be given to landscapes in dreams, where different aspects of land can represent different things. See Dream.

Now, just thinking out loud: since it seems the term "landscape" has several different definitions, it might be a good idea to start with the most common ones. Those could be the organizing principle of the article, something like:

(a) Physical landscape: Geology, geography, cartography.

(i) Influence of landscape on human society: Methods of food gathering and production, types of houses built, affect on development of languages (isolation, borrowing, etc.), exploration.

(ii) Human modification of physical landscape: Architecture, landscape architecture, gardening, urban planning, technological achievements, mining.

(b) Human conceptions and representations of landscape: Art, literature, music, religion, philosophy, psychology (dream interpretation). CorinneSD (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the term has uses in many different fields, and each has its own interpretation of what a landscape is. Although landscape is often used one way in geography, it is used another in astronomy. Although it is often used to describe the outdoors, I have heard it frequently to describe the layout of a large, open space, such as the landscape of a warehouse. While all of these fields have different uses of the term, they are all linked by a common facet, and that is that it describes a (relatively) large expanse. In some, like architecture and art, it is everything within a person's field of view. In others, like geography, it may go beyond my field of view and describe type of terrain in the entire state. In astronomy, it may describe an entire galaxy or group of galaxies, while in psychology it can describe the limitless expanses of the mind.

I doubt this article would do too well to focus too much on any one of those facets, which is why I suggested the parent-article approach. In other words, I would suggest starting out describing the common factors, and then adding short, little sections that both summarize and link to the related articles. As an example of a parent article, see the article basic fighter maneuvers. It doesn't go into too much detail about each individual maneuver, but describes the common factors and then summarizes and links to the sub-articles on the maneuvers themselves.

Beyond the etymology, I don't know too much about this particular subject, so I'm really just offering advice on layout and structure. (The landscape of the article, if you will.) I'll leave it up to you all to choose how to proceed. Zaereth (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(I may add, however, that "seascape" doesn't necessarily refer to the view above the water. I believe the first time I heard it was on Jacques Cousteau.) Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Music and landscape

I wonder if there is not a danger of trying to include too many things? I writing started a section on music, but feel that even with a composer like Jan Sibelius it is more appropriate to discuss how he is influenced by nature rather than by landscape. See article: "Sibelius loved nature, and the Finnish landscape often served as material for his music. He once said of his Sixth Symphony, '[It] always reminds me of the scent of the first snow.' The forests surrounding Ainola are often said to have inspired his composition of Tapiola". A work like Richard Strauss's Alpine Symphony is about mountain climbing rather than an Alpine landscape.

How is the word used in philosophy and religion?

"In astronomy, it may describe an entire galaxy or group of galaxies"???

Rwood128 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link to the "Nature" section of the Sibelius article: Jean Sibelius#Nature. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape in astronomy

' looks like you are doing just fine. Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. See NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day. They're always showing picturesque landscapes of "island universes" or gaseous star-forming regions. (Not to mention the landscapes of other planets, moons, asteroids, and now comets too.) I always feel there is a danger of too much info bombarding the reader, which is why I like the idea of broadly defining the subject, and then neatly filing the details away in the sub-articles. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the moon have a "moonscape"? There's a need for a definition section that mentions, amongst other things, the use of the word by astronomers. But is there a need for a sub-article/section on "landscape in astronomy"? An overview of how the term is used in different fields would be a helpful beginning -- that is definition section.

I'm inclined to dispute the (mis) use of the word landscape in the following: "of picturesque landscapes of 'island universes' or gaseous star-forming regions". See above: "by definition the term 'landscape' must include land". See also my earlier comment above under "Music".

Well, now we're getting into semantics here. A moonscape is simply the landscape of the moon. It has become a well-known term, but Marsscape? Saturnscape? Europascape? Cometscape, perhaps? Unfortunately, those terms haven't been formally introduced yet.

Land is a necessity only in the geophysical sense. In the sense, "that which can be seen by an observer," in can be the appearance or layout of anything within view, whether close-by or through a telescope, real or imagined.

This article is little more than a stub, and, personally, I wouldn't be in a rush to add a bunch of sections on topics for which there are no sub-articles. It is one thing if I had sources to write such an article, because then I would have enough information to write a decent section. A section on the "landscape of music" would be a good one, if a source for it can be found, but piece-mealing a section that lists people influenced by the landscape would be a bit off-topic, except as a popular-culture section maybe. Without sources, I could foresee this article as becoming a very long, jumbled mess. With sources, probably very difficult to bring it to a suitable length.

I'm trying not to write a whole wall-of-text, but think I need to start over from the beginning, for the sake of clarity:

I think the lede is fairly well-written, and gives a basic summary of the subject. The etymology, on the other hand, is a bit of a distraction at this point, because there is no further information about the subject itself. In writing an article, my next task at this time would be to write an introduction section, which defines the subject in the broadest terms possible, and then divides it into its different aspects. This section may only be a couple of paragraphs, but could easily cover both the particular and general definitions, and pretty much everything we've discussed here.

Further sections would be more difficult, in my view (but then again, I'm no expert on the subject). For these, I personally would look for article that we already have, which are related, and add a single paragraph, summarizing the article, with a "main article" link at the top of the section. We apparently have an article on landscaping, so that is easy enough to summarize. I don't know if there is an article on landscapes in geography, or military, or whatever else. (I think I saw one on art in there.) Without a main article to summarize, such sections would need some type of source.

Of course, I'm just tossing in ideas about structure, as I really have no sources about this, other than dictionaries and etymological studies. For more information, there is a link on my user page to some writing tips, or Tony1 has some good advice on his pages. My main goal is to help bring this article into better shape than it was before and perhaps provide a foundation upon which others can build, but not necessarily a long, finished product. (That's the beauty of Wikipedia.) Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape and agriculture, etc

Also why is there a need for sections on "landscape in agriculture", "history" [OK I now see Landscape archaeology, but it should be a sub-section of one of the article's main sections, and not a separate main section] and "military history"? Yes, farm land can be landscape, but a whole section discussing this? It would be better to just mention it briefly elsewhere, say under landscaping architecture. After a "definition" section, landscape architecture would be the another good place to start adding to this article, followed by landscape painting, or vice versa.Rwood128 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Zaereth when s/he said: "I suggested the parent-article approach. In other words, I would suggest starting out describing the common factors, and then adding short, little sections that both summarize and link to the related articles." Rwood128, can I just say that when I listed those topics, I was just throwing out ideas as Zaereth and you have been doing? Zaereth, when you suggested an Introduction section, would that be the lede or would that be a separate section after the lede? I like Zaereth's idea of a general introduction, defining landscape broadly, then providing several more specific meanings, followed by short sections linked to appropriate WP articles or, if there is no article, newly written sections with sources. My concern about all those sections is that they should be organized upon some principle. I suppose we could select the best organization after we see what we have, or we could select an organizing principle or structure and then add sections and links to the various parts. No one responded to my suggestion of an organizing structure (above), so I guess you didn't find it useful. I was just thinking of two very broad uses of the word "landscape" -- 1) to describe the physical landscape (both natural and modified by humans), and 2) to describe human representation or interpretation of the physical landscape. I thought everything we've been discussing could fit into one of those two categories. I think we have come to the point where we could start adding either section headings or actual sections to the article. CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD you didn't seem to realise that I had done some edits? Does my new "Definitions" section correspond to what you call "introduction section"? (The lede also reads like an introduction.) Your organizing structure is fine and I have made some comments -- see, for example, under the sub-heading "Landscape and agriculture", just above. I've also commented on the idea of a section on "landscape and music" above. I also added a section on the English landscape garden to try and get out of the talk mode -- not that all the above discussion isn't of value. Zaereth also suggests adding something from the article landscaping. Rwood128 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen your latest group of edits. I just read them, and they're fine. I made a few more to improve clarity and sentence flow (and reduce just slightly the opaque-sounding text that was there previously). (I thought your questions, "Why is there a need for...?" and "...but a whole section discussing this?" were strong criticism of items in my first list earlier in this discussion. I am sorry if I misinterpreted them.) I guess we are now beginning to add to the article. I'd still like to hear your and Zaereth's ideas regarding an overarching organizational principle for all the [mini-]sections after "Definition" and "Etymology", somehow paralleling an organization suggested in the lede. Regarding your three-pointed definition, I guess I don't understand the second one. In both Definitions 1 and 2, there is no mention of the urban landscape, and nowhere is there mention of a mental landscape/landscape of the mind/abstract landscape. CorinneSD (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD re the three point definition, mental landscape, etc, perhaps you need to add to the definition section. By the way "Etymology" is part of the "Definition" section.

To be honest I think that we should be slowly adding sections now and expanding the Introductory/Definition section -- and let what has been said here serve a guidance re organization. My criticism was just questioning and asking for clarification.

By the way Zaereth i now think that astronomers, when they say things like "picturesque landscapes of 'island universes' or gaseous star-forming regions" are making an analogy with a photo of a landscape, rather than saying that the picture is of a landscape, which is my original reading of it. Or maybe it's a metaphor: '"like a picturesque landscape".Rwood128 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a metaphor (astronomers waxing poetic), but how about this image? Does the word "landscape" apply only to Earth?

Photo of sand dunes with white frozen carbon dioxide at North pole of Mars. April 2008. NASA.

CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Interesting image. See my earlier comment re Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Rwood128 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am not an expert on this subject and I have only come to this discussion from another talk page, however, having briefly scanned over the above comments, I wonder if some of the difficulty in structuring this page and tackling the subject matter may relate to the fact that, although landscapes are (usually) composed of real physical entities, the concept of a landscape as a particular spatial entity is really a human one. "A landscape" doesn't exist in nature outside of a human construct. A tree is a tree whether or not humans exist to define it. Likewise a baboon is a baboon and, to a certain extent, a river is a river. But the definition of a landscape depends on human parameters - hence our ability to use the term for non-physical concepts (e.g. "the mental landscape"). Some of the discussion above seems to mix different approaches. From one perspective, an agricultural landscape and a lunar landscape could be described as different entities, but from another view - a more conceptual one - they are both just different examples of being a landscape. I wonder if separating the descriptive and conceptual views - and maybe giving the latter an overarching position - may make it easier to structure the article? Examples of section headings within a more conceptual approach could include: the perception of landscape (e.g. between different cultures), the deliberate creation of landscapes (e.g. landscape architecture), the evolution of landscapes (e.g. from natural to man-made), the use of landscapes (e.g. to install national pride), the changing relationships between people and landscapes (e.g. the romanticisation of wilderness), the representation of landscapes (e.g. in art), and, of course, different forms or expressions of landscape (agricultural, industrial, lunar, mental etc)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you, PaleCloudedWhite. Good food for thought. The only heading I don't quite understand is "the evolution of landscapes" (e.g. from natural to man-made). Do you mean the process by which a given area of untouched land is sculpted by human activity (agricultural, engineering, house-building, etc.) over a period of time? If so, is that really different from the previous category, "the deliberate creation of landscapes"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Evolution of landscapes" could cover the topic of landscapes changing over time, whether that be long timescales such as over geological time, or shorter ones such as ecological succession. The 'natural to man-made' example is one example I thought of while writing, and you are correct in your analysis of it. I believe it is different from "the deliberate creation of landscapes" because that would refer specifically to the intentional act of creating a landscape for its own sake (e.g. Capability Brown etc.), which in my view is different conceptually from landscapes that result incidentally from other human activity. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes thank you PaleCloudedWhite this is very useful. PaleCloudedWhite's ideas should be incorporated into the "Definitions" section. It might also help if a section on landscape architecture is added now, and landscape painting. "Romanticism and landscape" is another central topic, Also re the evolution of landscape, this is covered, in part, by landscape archaeology and this could be high on the sections to add, or perhaps the main section could be "The evolution of landscape, followed by sub-headings for the geological and human aspects of this topic. I had forgotten the book The Making of the English Landscape, for which a link in "See also" was recently added. This looks like a useful resource for this topic, though possibly somewhat dated. Rwood128 (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite suggested above that the article be organized by "separating the descriptive and conceptual views - and maybe giving the latter an overarching position", in other words, focusing on the conceptual views of landscape. Just above, s/he added to that idea by suggesting divisions based on the time span over which landscapes have been changed and the degree of deliberateness by which humans created landscapes. While these distinctions can, of course, be made, I think they are both too abstract and too fine on which to base the organization of this article. I still think an organization based on objective definitions and descriptions of landscape on the one hand and human modification and perception of landscape on the other is better. I will repeat my outline from above:

(a) Physical landscape - objective descriptions (from geology, geography, cartography)

(i) Influence of landscape on human society (from anthropology, history, historical linguistics/language development -- not necessarily all of these fields, just whatever we can find or link)

(ii) Human modification of physical landscape (from anthropology, architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, gardening, agriculture)

(b) Human conceptions and representations of landscape (from art, music, literature, photography, religion, psychology)

I think we've got to keep the overall organization simple and comprehensible. If the organizational principles are too abstract, many readers will find it difficult to read and to follow, and it will end up sounding like that huge "etymology" section that Zaereth deleted. CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think my suggestions have been misinterpreted a little. I was suggesting using a more conceptual approach as a way of structuring the article, which is not quite the same as focusing on the conceptual views of landscape. Before coming to this discussion, while looking for sources for a different article, I found this, which I found very interesting. If you read the text starting from "Gender complicated Woolf's response to Shakespeare.." on page 123, through to "underlying tensions and self-divisions" on page 124, it can be seen that the concept of "landscape" can be quite complicated. Here we have a writer from the English literary canon (Virginia Woolf) confessing that she delighted in a real "Shakespearean" landscape, despite her revulsion at the use in real life of imagined "Shakespearean" landscapes to encourage men to enlist to fight in war. It was my wondering how such relationships could be incorporated into an article on "Landscape", that led to my comment above. I personally am not entirely convinced that the section headings that I suggested are too abstract - not when one begins to delve into what "landscape" means. (PS There are some great quotes about Shakespeare and landscape in that link - "As the national poet, Shakespeare was also the poet of the English landscape", and "Shakespeare 'carries, as it were, armfuls of violets and scatters roses and golden wheat across his pages, which are simply fields written with human life'", and men being encouraged to fight in war "to save an England which consisted almost entirely of Shakespeare's plays".) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape ecology

I thought that landscape ecology might be a useful source, but unfortunately the style makes for heavy going: "Landscapes are spatially heterogeneous geographic areas characterized by diverse interacting patches or ecosystems". The attempts by landscape ecologists to define the word landscape are, however, interesting. I'm beginning to feel like I've signed up for a course. Rwood128 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added something on geomorphology even though this still requires more in the way of citations (which are absent on the original page).Rwood128 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

French formal garden

Re Johnbod's recent removal of the image of the French formal garden, it is not totally clear why this was done, as it would seem that this type of garden is landscaped just as much as the other gardens, and was included to illustrate the change in style in France -- originally there was an image of a French landscape garden, but it was too similar to the image for the English garden. It looks like that Johnbod may have had a problem with the use of the word formal? Rwood128 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Orangery in the ground of the Palace of Versailles, outside Paris. An example of a formal French garden.

Any style of garden may be described as "landscaped" in modern terminology - big cities are full of "landscape gardeners" who spend their time doing small urban or suburban plots. This is very different from a "landscape garden", which is the only type of garden this article should cover. A formal garden is the antithesis of this, so does not rate an image. If you think images at 220 px are too big: a) You are wrong, for most readers on most devices, b) you could insert galleries (a good idea), c) use fewer images. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't that 220px, as a standard, is too big, but that using that standard for this one image makes it out of scale in relation to the other images. By the way I did enlarge the image of Central Park (and edited the caption) which was clearly too small -- but you reverted this also. Re the French formal garden, the image was there to illustrate the two different styles. Furthermore I don't really understand the logic behind your argument, as the other gardens included here are formal, as is Central Park, and most gardens by definition. Anyhow further debate is clearly needed. Rwood128 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of Central Park is not formal, though I think pockets are. The removed photo illustrated very well what is meant by a formal garden, and few gardens or parks look like that, except in small areas. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I had never heard the phrase "landscape garden" before I read this newly updated article. Here is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the section Landscape#Landscape gardens:

• The English landscape garden, also called English landscape park or simply the 'English garden', is a style of "landscape" garden which emerged in England in the early 18th century, and spread across Europe, replacing the more formal, symmetrical jardin à la française of the 17th century as the principal gardening style of Europe.

I wonder:

(a) Why, in the phrase "is a style of 'landscape' garden", the word "landscape" is in quotation marks. This suggests that it is not really a landscape, that it just looks or seems like a landscape. Just the fact that English gardens were designed by landscape architects/gardeners means that they were not true natural landscapes. So I'm not sure the quotation marks around "landscape" are needed. In fact, in the first paragraph, you've got "The Chinese garden is a landscape garden style", with no quotation marks around "landscape".

(b) Does the more natural-looking English garden deserve the name "landscape garden" because it was more natural looking than the French formal garden, so that the French formal garden does not deserve to be called a landscape garden? (I see at the end of the next paragraph that the English garden was "designed to recreate an idyllic pastoral landscape".) If so, perhaps that could be explicitly explained. I believe User:Rwood128 feels that, even if this were the case, there is no reason why the type of garden that the English garden replaced cannot be illustrated here just to show the contrast. On the other hand, do I understand User:Johnbod's position correctly? -- If the French formal garden really cannot be called a landscape garden, then a photo of one does not belong in this article. Readers can see images in the article on the French formal garden. I don't feel strongly either way. I'm just trying to understand the issues.

I also just want to point out that the last sentence of the third paragraph seems to repeat the first sentence of the second paragraph. CorinneSD (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

a) Quotes now gone. b) Yes. I've added a bit, I hope clarifying this. Yes, "formal" and "landscape" gardens are opposites, though very many large gardens have a formal bit (often near the house or central building), then are landscape gardens over the rest. This is the article on "Landscape", and, given the pressure on space, only things that properly can be called landscape gardens belong here. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a danger here of editors themselves declaring what they believe constitutes a landscape, whereas such matters should be directed by sources. See this source for example - it discusses several parks and gardens that it considers constitute designed landscapes, and the sites chosen for inclusion seem to be quite varied. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick scan of the English Heritage document reveals the phrase "formal landscape", which seems to contradict the distinction, made by Johnbod above, between a formal garden and a landscape garden: "As noted, the fashion for formal landscapes, much influenced by Italian Renaissance and French Baroque gardens, gathered pace after the Restoration in 1660". At the very least the issue seems controversial and therefore should be discussed in the article. The image of Central Park needs to be changed, if Johnbod's criteria is accepted -- and is the image of the cornfield too formal? (This is a genuine question not simply sarcasm).

The document provided by PaleCloudedWhite is also very valuable for the 'Landscape archaeology' section.

Re the 220px question. Does the size of an image differ on some screens? I printed the page that has the 'Jichang Garden image' on it and it is more than twice the size of that for 'Stourhead Garden image', which seems disproportionate to my eye. But this is a minor matter. Rwood128 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Plan of the park of Versailles

If it meant what you suggest, it would also contradict all the text here, and in the articles on landscape gardens and French formal gardens. I suppose a very large formal garden, like Versailles, might be called a "formal landscape", but it is not an accepted term like "landscape garden", & I don't think you will find it in dictionaries, or with anything like as many google hits. Nor has anyone found it necessary to create a Wikipedia article on it. It is a distraction here, frankly, one of many confusing linguistic aspects of the topic, with too many concepts trying to use the same words. Any "controversy" would need to be evidenced; I don't believe there is one. Nor any "contradiction". No the Central Park photo does not bring out the landscape garden quality of the site very well, but it is a lovely photo. Ones that do bring out the landscape garden quality of the site tend, in the nature of things, to look like anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-expert, my impression is that formal (landscape) gardens and landscape gardens are closely related, and one developed out of the other through various influences, including the pastoral tradition and Romanticism. I mentioned farmland because that can constitute a landscape just as much as the Alps (much of which is in fact summer farmland!). Surely your deletion of the Palace of Versailles image but acceptance of the Central Park image is inconsistent? I must admit that i find the different linguistic aspects interesting, because I see them as interrelated. Rwood128 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that, if we keep the article simple and don't let it get out of hand, the discussion of the various meanings of the word "landscape" make the article an interesting one. Second, regarding the sizes of the images in the section Landscape#Landscape gardens, I think the image of Jichang Garden in Wuxi could be made slightly smaller and the image of Stourhead garden in Wiltshire could be made slightly larger. Third, in the first paragraph in this section, the Chinese garden is described:

• A typical Chinese garden is enclosed by walls and includes one or more ponds, scholar's rocks, trees and flowers, and an assortment of halls and pavilions within the garden, connected by winding paths and zig-zag galleries. By moving from structure to structure, visitors can view a series of carefully composed scenes, unrolling like a scroll of landscape paintings.

This sounds like an artfully designed garden, similar to New York's Central Park. I lean toward seeing all kinds of gardens as sculpting the landscape, so formal gardens would be just a little further down the continuum. I don't know if a sharp distinction can be made. If, however, landscape architects or writers of dictionaries have a specific kind of garden in mind when they say "a landscape garden", then not only should it be clearly defined, the images should also be appropriate for that definition. As yet, I don't see a definition that would include the Chinese garden and Central Park but exclude the French formal gardens such as those at Versailles. Have I missed it? CorinneSD (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gathering points above, of course real farmland is a landscape, but it is not a landscape garden. Doesn't "a style of parkland garden intended to look as though it might be a natural landscape, although it may be very extensively re-arranged" cover both Euro-landscape gardens and Chinese gardens, but not formal ones? Central Park, from my recollection, is a large space using various styles in places, and probably not the best example. Mostly landscape rather than formal though.Johnbod (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Now I see it, and I guess you're right about the formal garden not being a representative of a landscape garden. CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I understand that the placing of the image of a formal French garden in the 'Landscape gardening' section might cause confusion.

There probably should be a main section 'Landscaping', with sub-headings 'History of landscaping'; 'Landscape gardens'; 'Landscape architecture'. Certainly landscaping began long before the 'Landscape garden'. Rwood128 (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, and landscaping is one of the meanings that comes most readily to mind for many people. CorinneSD (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.randomhouse.com/highschool/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781590176788&view=print. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. PamD 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted addition also included text lifted from Mahabharata without attribution (the unliked reference numbers were a clue), and possibly other sources. PamD 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonnyboy3000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)