Commons:Deletion requests/File:House construction options.jpg
This is another of KVDP's vastly oversimplified flights of fancy. Even within the United States, not all of the three options shown would be possible in every locality (rules for building vary by state and city). Taken globally, there is even more variability. Also, there are many other options possible, again varying from state to state and country to country. In some places, owners can simply build, without any review, architect involvement, or certification. This also ignores the possibility of an owner using a "canned" set of drawings with a contractor, or, perhaps the most common combination in the USA, of the contractor building on spec from a set of drawings from an in-house architect. It over-emphasizes the role of pre-fab construction, at least in the USA. And, it exhibits a bias against pre-fab construction which may, indeed, be lower quality as it says, but which may often be higher quality, which it does not say. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, the text in the image description wasn't completely clear on that these aren't all possible options for constructing a house. I modified the text accordingly. It was never the intent to make it appear like this, or state anything in such regard however. The main thing to show was simply that the use of an architect isn't always required. Again for the pre-fab construction, the intent isn't to put down a projection of the building options in (the USA) incorporating how much they are practiced. Instead, it is simply intented as a general schematic on what options are available, without wanting to be complete. Finally, the other issue was the OTRS; this wasn't filed aldough I did sent a message to Douglas Cutler Architects (permission was granted in a return mail). Forwarded it now to permissions-commons. KVDP (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- You still don't get it. Any generalization you make about the rules for house construction will be wrong. Even if you limit the scope to the USA, you cannot say, "the use of an architect isn't always required." There are jurisdictions where an architect is always required. And, this is a piece written by an architect, with his own agenda -- its assertion that prefab construction may be lower quality is a half truth -- many people here believe that factory construction is higher quality. We should not be advancing such an agenda. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see the image as out of scope, not useful in any Wikipedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- As the image in referral is currently being considered for deletion, we'll await the final decision on the matter before going ahead with a license. In the meantime, I've marked the image as being processed for licensing. Please note that this is an OTRS procedure without prejudice as to the usability of the image. Asav (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (OTRS Team)
Kept, even in its simplified state, this has very real educational potential, thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
