Talk:Construction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

(Bias, Seemingly animate Cranes)

North American bias

The section heading "North American bias" is preserved as a heading in order to preserve its addressability, but was no more chosen by the contributor whose comment it summarizes than was the larger, parenthesized heading just above it. (In contrast, parentheses may alert readers that a heading is retro-fitted to summarize a section whose originally failed summarize the topic via a TOC entry -- breaks links to the previous "bare" address.)

I am a British architect and note the strong North American bias of this article. Be that as it may I refer to the caption of the mustachioed worker who is dealing with GORM-Wire That is a term unknown to me and, I imagine, many others. The spiral looks to me like reinforcing rod for a concrete column, but it would help to have an explanation.

I note too that the crane is said to be "getting ready", etc. Cranes are inanimate but can be readied for operation by humans.
Jack Hill— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:24, 12 December 2004 (talk) 62.252.192.4

(Please note that the sig & date on the next line was not intended by IP 98... to indicate the date or IP of the unsigned "Jack Hill" contribution. --Jerzy•t 11:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)) 98.67.166.55 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I also note the heavy Americn bias of this article, and the "Authority Having Jurisdiction" section seems particularly irrelevant to this article.

Alistair Twiname98.67.166.55 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly that inanimate objects and machines such as cranes, bulldozers, I-beams, and so forth must not be acribed with human or animate characteristics. Part of the problem is that so many writers also do not know anything about writing English sentences in the passive voice.98.67.166.55 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


However, the Wikipedia is operated by a corporation organized under the laws of the United States of America, it follows American copyright law, and the Wikipedia is housed and maintained in Internet servers in the United States. Therefore, you foreigners must not gripe about any so-called "North American" bias to the Wikipedia. If you dislike this, you are surely welcome to create similar operations in your own countries. This is exactly as in the case of dictionaries in American English and British English. If you dislike the Wikipedia, you are quite free to "go do your own thing".98.67.166.55 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)#
And that is exactly the sort of xenophobic, and possibly racist, attitude that luckily the people behind wikipedia despise. I suggest you read About Wikipedia page and point out exactly where it says that they only want a north american point of view. Other pages which maybe of interest to you, include wikimediafoundation.org and especially WP:WORLDVIEW. Thanks for reading! --ADtalk 14:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I detest complainers who are not willing to actually do something about their situation. Wikipedia is a worlwide collaborative encyclopedia of information. I happen to live in the US, and while I know about major construction projects that are reported in other parts of the world, I am no expert on them. If you have knowledge and can cite sources of information about construction in places other than North America (or the US), that's what Wikipedia is here for and you have been requested to do. Rather than complain about it, add your content, please. You will be helping everyone expand their knowledge. If you don't like the wording or human attributes ascribed to inanimate objects, change it! The White House will not comment on it. Gshills (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This! Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You must be the change you wish to see. Mxheil (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New project proposal related to this article

There is a new construction project proposal that some of you here may be interested in: Wikibuilder - a knowledge base covering the design and construction of the built environment, in its entirety, in all languages. See meta:Proposals for new projects#Wikibuilder and meta:Wikibuilder for more information, and feel free to add your comments to meta:Talk:Wikibuilder —Christiaan - ☎ 09:42, 18 Jan 2005

Heavy Construction

I work in highway/heavy construction and this article seams to be missing much of what we do. Building highways, bridges, dams, and the like are also construction. I'm going to make some minor relevant changes now, and when I have time expand a larger section to highway/heavy.
Zath42 09:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Mack builders columbus ohio

Yes, it seems to focus too much on business/legal side of things, ignoring the technical side. Samohyl Jan 15:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I added some to the Highway/heavy section, my personal experience puts close to 1/3 of these projects, if not more, being private work, generally for large corporations, mines, factories and the like. Zath42 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Are mines part of the construction industry? Please provide examples of large projects done in heavy/highway completed for private corporations. Thanks. Steven McCrary 02:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I work for a highway/heavy contractor, a substantial portion of the work we do is contracted for the mines, in the early years we did the mass grading, and site work for the haul roads and site locations of the Largest Iron Ore Mine in the U.S., and we built and do the maintenance on multiple tailings basins. We get large projects to move anything from 100,00CYLV to 3,000,000CYLV on most if the mines, this year marked the 3rd year in a row that we worked on every iron ore mine in the state of Minnesota. This is all private work and it is on the scale of two to 20 million dollar highway projects. The mines themselves do lots of heavy construction, and we are not the only contractor that works with the mines. They most often hold competitive bids much like a state. Clevland Clifs is one of the major owners in a many of these mines, paticularly Hibbing Taconite where I have done most of my work building large dams and building and mantaining haul roads. These haul roads are built and designed for 250ton trucks. Often the mines do this work themselves and it varies form mine to mine, I only know for sure at the iron ore mines, but the equipment they use which is the same as what many contractors use is used at large gold mines in Nevada, and coal mines out east. Also we do private work for the Canadian National Railroad as well as the rail systems used by the mines. Also we do large site work projects the mass grading for large factories, much like that found at the mines, for shopping malls, wal marts, loews, united health, olive garden, the list goes own, and this is work in Minnesota, we have 10 to 15 main competitors in the area, as well as many from out of the area.Zath42 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) This might not be true of outher countrys or other parts of the world, but we have worked in colorado, canada, michigan, wisconsin, and alaska, so I would say so in the us.Zath42 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the company i work for Hoover Construcion Co. And our webpage has examples of many different projects.Zath42 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Zath42, thanks. So, as I understand it, your company is not doing the actual mining but assisting the mine with its operations, such as building its rail lines, access roads, building dams, and doing general "site" work. That is certainly heavy construction; thanks for the clarification. I have added the content to the main page; please check it to see if it represents that segment of the industry. Thanks again, Steven McCrary 00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes you have it. The changes reflect the industry as I know it.Zath42 02:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

(History of Construction)

Any thoughts on the History of Construction? eg Primitive Shelters -Megaliths of Europe - Egypt, Greece, Rome etc
Rossfi —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 30 August 2005‎

Heavy/Highway vs Highway/Heavy

Well I'm on here I ponder if there is any significances in the ordering of these words, all of the literature I have looked at in the office has it highway heavy, is this a company to company thing or region to region, or insignificant?Zath42 02:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Construction = word for result or only for process?

I come here from te german Wikipedia and wanted to link de:Bauwerk somewhere. This is the word not only for a Building (de:Gebäude), but for every kind of construction made by men. So my question is: why is this articel only related to the process, not to the result? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.79.87 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 8 February 2006

I don't know anything about the German language, but I believe that this article only discusses the process of construction because there are innumerable results. Construction can produce anything because it is such a general term. A user will search for the specific result of construction, most likely, if he or she wants to know about that particular result, or he or she can click on any of the links under the construction trades section to see the results for that particular type of construction. J. Finkelstein 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Bauwerk" refers to the finished building. "Baugewerbe" or "Bauen" or "Häuslebauen" would be closer. "Bauwerk" or "Gebäude" could be linked to building.--Achim 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the external links section, as it was becoming akin to a mini web directory of anything vaguely construction-related. Link should generally go on the most specific relevant page - e.g. Carpentry tips on Carpentry etc.

Furthermore, most of this article is unstrucured, information-less lists - this sort of list is exactly what categories are for! There is no need to write out the contents of Category:Construction to fill an article. This should be converted to prose, or deleted.

Aquilina 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

AHJ / NVQ / SVQ

Is "authority having jurisdiction" a term specific to the United States? Also isn't NVQ specific to England and SVQ to Scotland? Addhoc 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure about the construction code, but in the National Electrical Code the Authority Having Jurisdiction(AHJ) can be an inspector, a single person, not just an agency. Wouldn't this be the same for construction?

--cfcx23 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)AHJ is unquestionably a United States term that refers broadly to a Building Official (inspector, fire marshal etc.) and the local, state or federal authority l that is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the building code that is in effect at a given location--cfcx23 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Construction industry qualifications

The section about "construction industry qualifications" makes little to no sense. "Sandwich Study"? I propose deleting this section. Drnathanfurious 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's probably a place to talk about training programs, including craft/trade apprenticeships and more technical training prgrams for superintendents and construction engineers, but the section as written is crap. (It also looks like it was written by someone infected with credentialitis in a really bad way.) Go ahead and nuke it. Αργυριου (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

I've rescued the building construction paragraph which had been vandalised and left for a month or so. The whole article does reek of jargon though. It needs rewriting in Plain English. Secretlondon 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

>I am with the American Society of Professional Estimators and I have a short comment regarding jargon omitted from the site. I believe there should be definitions and terms common to all countries included if possible. I see under "Design Team", that cost professional titles like "cost engineer" and "quantity surveyor" are included, but not the American term "estimator" or “cost estimator”. The typical American estimator must understand and contribute both a quantity survey and pricing, which not all quantity surveys do. We feel it is an important distinction and should be included in the construction design team paragraph. Walshaspe (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Edward Walsh

Images

A bit heavy on the buildings and skyscrapers only. Where are the bridges, tunnels, dams? Suggest broadening the scope of the images, and reducing buidling images to two or three only to make space. MadMaxDog 12:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Sentence

I believe there should be an "and" in the third sentence between "manager" and "supervised" instead of a comma.

You could just leap in and fix it yourself. Be bold! Cheers Kevin 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Red and White construction site poles

Query - What is the purpose of those red and white pole "archways/tunnel" that are littered around a large building site, especially I've noticed on highway construction sites. They have wires with little red and white triangles hanging on them between two coloured poles, and look like lorries and equipment get driven under/through them... What are they and why are they there?? Thanks Geraint

Try asking the question at the Reference Desk. The discussion pages are solely aimed at improving the article itself. Cheers. --LeyteWolfer 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Metal stick thingys

What are those metal stick thingys that help hold the building. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to rebar--ADtalk 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rebar helps to reinforce concrete (foundations, floors, walls etc.), not the building itself. The building is held to the concrete foundation using anchor bolts. Various fasteners are used to hold the building together; rivets, bolts, screws, nails (to name 3). Edward27821 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Construction is an Industry

I think this article does not convey, that construction is an industry. Architecture and Civil Engineering are professions within the construction industry - not vice versa. Does anyone disagree?--ADtalk 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.92.135 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Globalize

Authority having jurisdiction

This section has a strong north american bias and needs to be modified so that it is clear what region it refers to and so that information on other regions can be clearly added. Thanks to anyone who knows anything about it. --ADtalk 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Construction Careers

I have cleaned up the section on 'construction careers', but now it is simply blatantly obvious that all the information is British. Can anyone with knowlege of the equivalent professions in other countries please expand the section, thanks.--ADtalk 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here in the United States the employment market for construction executives is very slow. 2010 will be a worse time for employment than 2009 according to the hundreds of clients we have in construction.

From: Frederick Hornberger CEO of Hornberger Management Company, senior construction recruiter for executives regarding construction jobs, and construction resumes. http://www.hmc.com http://www.constructionexecutive.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhornberger (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating Paragraphs

{{editsemiprotected}} Two paragraphs under the Types of Construction heading are repeated further down the section. The first paragraph starts with: "Building construction is the process of adding structure to real property". The second paragraph follows the first. I suggest removing the second instance of the repeated paragraphs.--SimonC (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Celestra (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)



(Addressibility-preserving hacks for section on DEGREES)

This Article Omits =

Untitled

(Degrees)

This article amits any mention of the academic education programs that lead to either associate's degrees or bachelor's degrees in the fields that are called Building Construction, Building Technology, or Building Science, and as you can see, there are not any articles on these subjects already. None of these phrases is even mentioned in this article, yet people who have earned these degreesddfasd work on the same projects, and on the same work teams as civil engineers, architects, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, structural engineers, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.166.55 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Best construction shapes

Wouldn't a section or a new article regarding "the best construction shapes" be useful ? Appearantly, bees have chosen the hexagon since it requires less material than making ie the combs from triangles. Thus, it is still a very good construction shape ie when building storage cells (ie for food, ...) Decagons are the best shape for construction as an alternative to the circle (which can't be built). Finally, the rectangle shape with a crossed beam (similar to the structure of Euplectella aspergillum ) is especially strong . See User:Tylerlorenzi/Hierarchical_Structure_of_Glass_Sponges Ref: Sci-Trek: What animals built Ref:Grand designs: episode ? 91.182.241.204 (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Positive pressure Fire management

ASH Fire Management Ltd UK has the proven ability to successfully remove all of the destructive elements of a Major House Fire namely Noxious Gases Smoke and Heat. From Detection the ASH System assists in the Fire "Fighting Itself" The System is Adaptable To all Dwellings irrespective of the construction materials We are launching in the US in 2011 All Enquiries pevans@yahoo.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.75.1 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern professional bias

The lead and the whole article is written like the only construction that exists is that which builds highways and city blocks in modern times, and is only caried out by huge managed, skilled, professional work force. It also has more emphasis on the staff management and building permits involed and slightly money involved in this career rather than on the "construction" itself. Also many times it has a sentence with a long list of unlinked job words in the middle that feel awkward, like "In the past, architects, interior designers, engineers, developers, construction managers, and general contractors were more likely to be entirely separate companies"

I'm not saying any information is incorrect, or shouldn't be here, but I think some info is repeated and could be trimmed, especially of weasel words and it could be sub section or at least in a more fleshed out article with better coverage of other areas. Has a tiny history section at the end, usually history should be near the top, shouldn't it? Article needs a lot more history from perhaps Stone, Bronze, Iron Age, through Stonehenge, the Pyramids through Medieval, Industrial to modern maybe near future. More on building materials and finding them and getting them there. More on methods of sticking things together like, cement, timber joints, bolts, welds? More on what does the work, man power, animals, use of machines like pulleys, wheels, cranes, diggers. More about foundations. More about why/what we build, homes, storage, infrastructure, military, protection, buisiness, to look pretty. Also even if most of the article is about modern professional builds, some mention of ancient construction, military construction, illegal construction, what happens if built without permission of everyone you need, bad construction, when construction is not sound and falls down, small individual novice DIY type construction. I constructed a garden wall and patio my self I'm sure I could stretch to a brick shed without needing a project manager, and supervised by a construction manager, design engineer, construction engineer or project architect.

It has slight point of views issues, with weasel words about what makes a good construction team, kind of sounds like a job interview, such as "far from being a single activity, large scale construction is a feat of human multitasking." twice, and "For the successful execution of a project, effective planning is essential" and "In the modern industrialized world, construction usually involves the translation of designs into reality". and "Design, finance, and legal aspects overlap and interrelate. The design must be not only structurally sound and appropriate for the use and location, but must also be financially possible to build, and legal to use".

"Kent Hansen (not linked, no description) pointed out that state departments of transportation (DOTs) usually use design build contracts as a way of getting projects done when states don't have the resources" that's nice who is Kent Hansen though.

There are only 7 sources on the whole article and many broad unsourced dubious statements.

Construction is one of Wikipedias vital 100 articles, I think it needs some care.

Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Construction

I recently noticed that the people who manage the article Architecture presume it is only about civil architecture, not about all aspects of architecture. This article is the same, it presumes construction is building construction and ignores big construction topics which show up in Category:Construction such as ship, road, and coastal construction and smaller topics within building construction like demolition, restoration/preservation, home building, etc. Should I take the meanings of words literally? If so the article construction should be an overview of all aspects of the word. That is a lot to wrap one's mind around! Jim Derby (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For example I found a list of construction injuries grouped by "subindustry" from the early 20th century U.S. Some of the terminology has changed but my point is that construction covers a lot more than building construction.

  • Wrecking, moving and razing of buildings
  • Excavating and foundation work, dredging, ditch-digging
  • Grading, highway work, clearing land and reclamation work
  • Railroad construction
  • Tunneling and subway construction
  • Sewers, cesspools, laying of pipes, etc
  • Canal construction
  • Well-drilling—water (oil drilling under oil industry)
  • Fence construction
  • Dam and levee construction, piers, drydocks—pile driving
  • Boat building of wood—small and large
  • Ship building and repairing—steel and iron
  • Marine wrecking and salvaging
  • Building construction, carpentry, masonry, concrete, brick, steel erecting and iron work on exterior of buildings
  • Elevator erection and installation, both freight and passenger 5
  • Plumbing and gas fitting
  • General electric equipment and installation
  • Marble and stone work—erection and setting stone
  • Paper-hanging, painting, plastering and decorating, both interior and exterior
  • Paving—all sidewalk and street work, asphalt and concrete
  • Roofing, tinsmithing, sheet metal contracting, etc.
  • Bill-posting and sign painting
  • Surveying and inspection work
  • Miscellaneous—not otherwise classified

Jim Derby (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Many of the issues you state (and are also stated in above sections) are a result of a poor merging of building construction into this article back in 2004. I'm going to try to take some stuff out. Building construction can probably be its own article if someone want to do the work. Look at this old version to see it before my edits. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed content

I have removed the below bullet list - should be converted to prose and add sources if reintroduced.

Construction phases

  • Vision/fantasy/idea – a concept never intended to be built, may be an aesthetic or structural design exercise
  • Proposed – a building concept that is under review by the building owner and by government
  • Approved – a building concept that will be constructed in the near future. If the proposed building is not approved then the proposal may be amended and resubmitted, or it may be deferred or cancelled.
  • Design – the specification of what is to be built in sufficient detail to be used as the basis as a contract between the owner and a contractor
  • Procurement – the selection of the contractor or contractors to carry out the construction. This may be by competitive tendering.
  • Diversions – before construction can start any services on the site which must be kept operational to serve other adjacent sites must be diverted so they run outside the footprint of the new building. This can include drainage, water and gas piped services and power and communication cables.
  • Under-construction – a fully designed building currently being built
  • Ground works – construction work below ground level including the construction of basements and foundations
  • Topped-out – a fully designed building where construction has reached the highest point of the building
  • Fitting out – installation of the decorative, non-structural elements once the building main structure is complete. This includes painting, ceilings, light fittings etc.
  • Commissioning or setting to work – Once the building Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, communications, and building control systems are installed they then need to be tested and adjusted so they deliver the required performance. In modern buildings this can take some time during which little seems to be going on but if this is not done properly then these systems will not deliver their design performance leading to hot and cold spots, spurious alarms, higher energy bills, and systems failing during emergencies
  • Substantial Completion / Beneficial Occupancy – a point when the work is sufficiently complete so that the Owner can occupy (Items noted during inspection 'punch list' or 'snag list' may still be corrected)
  • Complete/built – a fully designed building that has been fully built, excluding future expansions (punch list items all completed)
  • Building Operation – All those day-to-day activities need to ensure the building can be used. In simple buildings this means little more than cleaning but in more complicated buildings this is a large scale operation employing a large team of staff. If they do their job right then you hardly notice them.
  • Maintenance – works to ensure the building continues to operate in accordance with its design, including replacing elements which are approaching the end of their useful life
  • Repair – replacing building elements which have been damaged or which have failed to restore the building to its as-built state
  • Renovation – modification to the building. This can be minor modifications that are carried out while the building is occupied or major works where only the structural elements are kept and the building is out of use for years
  • Demolition – destruction of the building which may include the salvage of some elements for reuse elsewhere.

Shaded0 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Construction. 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) 13:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

Construction#Etymology

  • Latin, singular
    • Nominative: constructio
    • Accusative: constructionem
    • Genitive: constructionis
    • Dative: costructioni
    • Ablative: constructione
  • Latin, plural
    • Nominative: constructiones
    • Accusative: constructiones
    • Genitive: constructionium
    • Dative: constructionibus
    • Ablative: constructionibus
      Peter Horn User talk 02:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Article improvement

I have spent a few sessions trying to update this article, to make it broadly applicable to the whole field of construction (some sections were/are heavily focused on US- or UK-centric content), to explain the industry's complexity, and to indicate the scale and importance of the sector to the world economy. This is still very much work-in-progress and it would be good to get more inputs on areas which are currently only sketchily explained, and - across most sections - to add and improve references. Paul W (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Done a bit more today. Updated the barchart using 2018 UN construction GVA data, and tidied up the careers section.Paul W (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Construction/Archive_1&oldid=1185468864"