This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Oppose merge. It seems that Helmut Pottmann's 2007 book was the first to use the term as a title, but Scholar records multiple usages since then, so the term is well-established. The stub was created in 2008 by a near-SPA and has barely been touched since then. At this end, most of the "Mathematics and architecture" article already concerns the use of geometry in architecture. Woolly phrasing like "strongly challenges contemporary practice, the so-called architectural practice of the digital age" has no place in any Wikipedia article, and I see it's cited to a whole book without page number: indeed, none of the three references goes so far as to identify a page of anything. There is surely much worth saying in the list of papers in the Scholar link above, but the current "Architectural geometry" text is basically worthless. The list of "External links" on the other hand is useful and well-organised, demonstrating by the way that the topic is certainly notable. What should now happen is for these links to be worked into the text to create an informative article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"bite", not too promising for a rational disillusion, nor too well founded. Of course there is no suggestion of that meaning, but they obviously use a variety of other arts, as "as with" correctly implies. But this is a pointless thread, as you have rightly indicated with your prelude. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I read you right, then, a clearer wording would be since architects use mathematics, among other arts, for several reasons. —Tamfang (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]