Category talk:Industry buildings
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Industry v. Industrial[edit]
It's a small thing but "Industrial buildings" is the standard English usage. "Industry Buildings" just sounds wrong. Would anyone object to a move/rename? -Arb. (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I would. An "industrial building" seems to me to refer more to the style, or feel of the building. An "industry building" is a building used BY the industry. Ingolfson (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Industry building" seems awkward. "Industrial building", IMHO, is how one would refer to the use. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Having said that, I just noticed this is a fairly old discussion. If the category name seems to be working, without any comments other than the ones here, then don't mess with something that appears to be working. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I also have misgivings about Industry buildings, which seems to me a mangling of the English language. The usual term is Industrial buildings, which are, by definition, buildings used by Industry. Industrial architecture is a totally different thing, defining a style of architecture, not the uses of architecture. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. Any other thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- To put in my two cents, I concur with Skinsmoke; I was just having a painful time trying to find the right category, and went looking for the discussion page to see why it was so awkward (suspecting a British-American English divide, like the infamous "Transport in" categories). Apparently it is more substantive yet nonetheless problematic : /. Moreover, looking at the images, there doesn't even appear to be a clear distinction. "Industrial buildings" is filled with buildings used by industry. Indeed, looking on Wikipedia and in my architectural history books, I can't find anything mentioning "industrial architecture" used in a stylistic sense removed from actual buildings of industry (indeed, many industrial buildings were used. Perhaps there is a confusion with w:en:High-tech architecture? Architectural history deals with both form and function, so the ones most likely to use the other category, the architectural historian or the industrial archaeologist, would not be well served by the existing dichotomy. Thus I Support the merging of the categories under the term "Industrial buildings", which itself could be perhaps then be under "industrial architecture" (just as the normal category "buildings" is found under "architecture"). Morgan Riley (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Morgan's proposed solution. I do think that there is a distinction between "industrial buildings" and "industrial architecture", as I understand the latter to refer to an architectural style for buildings that are not necessarily being used by industry. Most often, it's the instances of adaptive reuse, such as the example old industrial complexes converted into arts districts. But you also have the phenomenom of "faux-lofts", new residential condominium buildings constructed to resemble factories or warehouses, but which never served any such industrial use. Industrial architecture is also a broader concept which arguably captures industrial structures that wouldn't necessarily be considered buildings. But I think that discussion is irrelevant, because Morgan's solution works well whether or not one thinks there is a meaningful distinction between industrial buildings and industrial architecture. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- A few more ideas to help with those other categories you rightly mentioned: the existing category:Former industrial buildings (which presently redirects to category:Former industry buildings) should easily solve the abandoned/adaptive reuse examples. As for the faux-industrial style, right now there aren't many examples in the category, but there has to be a reasonable term for it to be distinguished by for the time being: category:Industrial-style architecture?(much like one uses "Belgian-style" to describe those beers in the belgian brewing tradition, but not actually from Belgium) Then there are more architectural history sounding terms, which I am reluctant to suggest as neologisms: Neo-Industrial architecture/Industrial revival architecture/Faux-Industrial architecture? Nevertheless, both of which would fit under the broader more abstract "Industrial architecture", which, as you mentioned, would also hold "category:Industrial buildings", "category:Industrial structures", industrial landscapes, etc. Cheers! Morgan Riley (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Morgan's proposed solution. I do think that there is a distinction between "industrial buildings" and "industrial architecture", as I understand the latter to refer to an architectural style for buildings that are not necessarily being used by industry. Most often, it's the instances of adaptive reuse, such as the example old industrial complexes converted into arts districts. But you also have the phenomenom of "faux-lofts", new residential condominium buildings constructed to resemble factories or warehouses, but which never served any such industrial use. Industrial architecture is also a broader concept which arguably captures industrial structures that wouldn't necessarily be considered buildings. But I think that discussion is irrelevant, because Morgan's solution works well whether or not one thinks there is a meaningful distinction between industrial buildings and industrial architecture. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I also have misgivings about Industry buildings, which seems to me a mangling of the English language. The usual term is Industrial buildings, which are, by definition, buildings used by Industry. Industrial architecture is a totally different thing, defining a style of architecture, not the uses of architecture. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to fix this yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)