Talk:Folly

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What should this article be about?

I'd rather we had an article on architectural follies than this bizarre sanctimonious article -- Tarquin 23:34 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with myself! (surprise!) Any objections before I remove the non-encyclopedic stuff? -- Tarquin 13:56, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And I agree with you. Do it. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:07, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's probably encyclopedic stuff that could be written on "folly" (Erasmus' Praise of Folly, etc.) but the stuff that's there now certainly isn't it... Wield the knife! -- Someone else 14:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does the Taj Mahal qualify as a folly? --Paul A 01:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. The Taj Mahal is an islamic mausoleum. Cuddlyable3 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a pretty fancy tomb; I'd have to say it, some Communist mausoleums, and the Pyramids may well have had elements of folly, but there may have been a religious aspect to those structures. I'd proceed a bit cautiously before considering a religious structure a folly, although these structures are often quite fanciful. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to incorporate something about Seward's Folly here, but I can't figure out how to make it fit. Any thoughts? Voyager640 03:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does Portmeirion qualify as a folly? --Paul A 03:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would vote yes. --james_anatidae 04:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Irish Follies

Most of the comments I have read are written by people who are capable of contributing to this site themselves... I am not, but have read a little about follies in Ireland, which were built by Irish workers during the time of the Great Famine in exchange for pay by the British Government. This was the British government's way of aiding the Irish victims of the famine without giving general social aid.

I've heard of roads that led nowhere, as well as a lighthouse built miles from the coast in Co. Meath. Apparently the British government didn't want to commission any work to be done that a British contractor could get paid for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.139.13 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 16 August 2005

Most of the follies and Famine projects were not government projects but rather private initiatives by landowners. The point about contractors is not generally germane.

An interesting background point is that there were "Famine follies" from earlier famines than the Great Famine. SeoR (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez faire

I'm not happy with the mention of laissez faire. The Famine (which began in 1845) helped bring on the free trade period, by providing moral impetus for the repeal (1846) of the protectionist Corn Laws. —Tamfang 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tamfang. The whole idea of an aid program is intrinsically socialist, and the idea of protecting industries through legislation is completely opposite of laissez faire. The reference also seems to be written from a non-neutral standpoint so I'm just going to remove the reference to LF AND socialism. Their mention doesn't help the understanding of the section anyways. --dmkrantz 19:34, 18 November, 2008 (CST)

Eiffel Tower?

Should the Eiffel Tower be listed here? Michael Hardy 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Eiffel Tower was an expression of engineering ambition, not an architectural doodle. Cuddlyable3 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; it had no real purpose, other than to look impressive to other people, and that is why folks stuck it up in the first place. The Eiffel Tower constitutes a folly. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rickyrab. Eiffel Tower seems to fit the description. Purpose-built strictly as an ornament, eccentric in design or construction. Although since its purpose was to demonstrate Eiffel's architecture and construction technique, maybe that gives it a purpose other than ornamentation? A 300 meter tall iron viewing platform doesn't seem much like a "functional building."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk • contribs) 15:27, February 20, 2014‎

I'm against the Eiffel Tower's inclusion, for it served no real practical purpose. Therefore, the Eiffel Tower can't accurately be described as a folly according to the article. User:ZachariahReed 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZachariaReed: You seem to have read the description backward. "it served no real practical purpose" is an important point as to why it shoud be included as a folly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk • contribs) 15:27, February 20, 2014‎

Unless we have reliable sources that describe the Eiffel Tower as a "folly", including it in this article woulb be original research. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Hotels?

Would some of the hotels in Las Vegas (specifically the New York New York) qualify as follies in the architectural sense? The New York New York in particular is made to appear to be several separate buildings rather than one single structure. It seems akin to the imitations of Gothic castles described in this article. GeorgeJBendo 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If "yes" to the above, then will you also include any of Disneyland's pseudo-historical structures? I think that buildings erected specifically for a modern commercial use (and liable to be replaced whenever that raison d'etre ceases) are too rational to be called follies. Cuddlyable3 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the edifices of the Disney amusement parks qualify (not necessarily all: some are very useful as well as good-looking, such as the Grand Floridian Beach and Polynesian Resorts). The Castles and the Matterhorn appear to be mainly for showing off (although the Matterhorn also serves as a roller coaster, while the Castles have such things in them as restaurants and a prize suite). — Rickyrab | Talk 01:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous parts of amusement and theme parks that are follies in their own right - architectural showoffs with little purpose other than to attract people and decorate the scene (or rides). — Rickyrab | Talk 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folly or ruin?

Just reading the article, I'm not entirely sure what the dividing line is between a folly and someone intentionally creating a ruin. e.g. Would the ruins at the Mackenzie King Estates count? http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-2802370-mackenzie_king_estate_ottawa-i A bit more elaboration would be helpful. Mucus 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seward's Folly

Not a folly by definition placed in this article, but deserves mention in the "See also" section. Seward's Folly refers to the Alaska purchase. --Geopgeop 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't even the same meaning of the word 'folly'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The external link section did not appear to meet WP:EL. I have moved them here for community discussion on which if any do meet the criteria and should be returned. Active Banana (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential external links

1) The Folly Fellowship- An organization which celebrates architectural follies
2) Follies in the English Landscape
3) Follies and Monuments - A comprehensive catalogue of Follies within the UK
4) Images of follies on Odd-stuff!
5) [1] - stylish blog of modern follies around the world

discussion about whether or not individual links listed above meet WP:EL

Leafy places

It seems unlikely that the alternative etymology can be correct, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the Ordnance Survey wasn't even founded until 150 years after the OED's earliest cited instance of the architectural sense of "folly." For another, the OED lists a separate dialectical sense of "folly," with cites dating only to the late 19th century, defined as a cluster of fir-trees on a hilltop. Unless somebody can come up with a citable source for the "leafy" etymology, I suggest we delete that bit. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Tower, Scituate, Massachusetts ??

Built originally as a water tower, should this be a folly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezawadzki (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bowers?

What about bowers? Shouldn't they be mentioned? Chrisrus (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the article to Folly (architecture) for the purpose of disambiguation

I think the page Folly should redirect to Folly (disambiguation), to avoid any confusion. There are currently many pages that link here incorrectly, due to the multiple meanings of the word folly in the English language. I was surprised when I found that this article was about architecture, instead of being about folly in the more general sense of foolishness.

So which came first; the usage here or the synonym for foolishness. I would have assume the latter, not being particularly familiar with the architectural usage, but perhaps it was indeed the other way around. Wschart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Lucy the Elephant

Per the definition above in the section What follies are not: "Fantasy and novelty buildings are essentially the converse of follies...The many American shops and water towers in the shapes of commonplace items, for example, are not properly follies." Lucy the Elephant is a novelty building, a shop in the shape of another object. It has been a functioning building for most of its 130 years of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Usen Castle

Per the section General properties: "They have no purpose other than as an ornament." "They are purpose-built. Follies are deliberately built as ornaments." "They were built or commissioned for pleasure." And per the section What follies are not: "Follies often look like real, usable buildings, but never are" "Many mansions and castles are quite eccentric, but being purpose-built to be used as residences, they are not properly follies." The article on Usen Castle clearly indicates that it violates all of these properties. It is, and always has been (since its construction in 1928), a functional building. It is not strictly ornamental, it was not build or commissioned for pleasure. It is simply a modern building with an unusual design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just removed both 'Usen' and 'Lucy', though I have to say that MOST of the US entries seem to be 'novelty buildings' … but I didn't have the heart to remove most of them !Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please link in the German-language article

There is a German-language article on "Folly (Gartenkunst)" - folly (garden art) that clearly shares the same semantic intent as this article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly_(Gartenkunst) In my opinion it should be linked here. 178.12.39.33 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'm trying to do so (despite my uselessness at interwiki links) but am currently being prevented by some, er technical ishoo. Watch this space (but do not hold your breath). DBaK (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... I have had a try. It hasn't shown up yet. If the Universe explodes later today, it is probably my fault. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DBaK, I don't know if there is a better way, but one can put 'foreign' Wikipedia pages as an external link (with tag saying German).Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

The grammar in the opening sentence is broken at the moment. Can someone who knows that that sentence is trying to say please fix it, because I have no idea what it's trying to say. 116.48.12.222 (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that work for you? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think that 'by' breaks the necessary negation. So, I made a new edit that restores the negation ('but') and then adds the missing verb in the 'or' section of the either-or clause. The essential sentence now works out to "A folly is a (decorative) building..., but either (1) suggesting... some other purpose, or (2) appearing to be so extravagant that it transcends..." On another note, I do have an issue with "transcends the normal range". Do we mean somethings like "transcends the usual traits/characteristics"? —Waldhorn (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the by/but … I also think your thought is right about the 'transcends etc.' phrase, but even your suggestion still seems unclear/complicated. Also the link to 'extravagance' leads to 'Tryphé' as a concept in antiquity (and doesn't really deal with 'excessive design'). I wonder if someone can come up with a simple phrasing of 'appearing to be … …' onwards (or even a reliably sourced definition).Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the opening needs simplification. The extravagance link should simply be removed. The core of the article appears to suffers from WP:SYNTH and lacks authoritative sources; so dolling up the grammar and sentence structure might be beside the point. By the way, this edit from 10 April 2010 introduced the current definition. I'll contact the editor to see if he has a source for the change. —Waldhorn (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% .... It occurred to me after posting my last comment, that garden ornaments are PRECISELY what follies are. However, ornaments of such a scale of conception, design and execution, and often in gardens/landscapes of such a scale, that the normal term no longer seems adequate. That thought is probably not helpful for the article, but helped me to clarify my own understanding.Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is so dense, if not pompous, that I didn't even notice the negation was intended. Sorry about that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really Grammar, but connected to prev.: As well as convoluted phrasing, there seem to be contradictions within the page, specifically about how useful a folly can be. In the opening saying 'not at all', but later saying However, very few follies are completely without a practical purpose … many originally had a use which was lost later, such as hunting towers.. Apart from being unclear, this affects whether certain buildings are included or not.Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How useful ?

The article contradicts itself in several places about how useful or practical a folly can be, I've just repaired one point of contradiction, however we need to decide. IMO, a folly can be a practical building, but its design has to not primarily be practical (an elaborate abbey ruin to keep the lawn mower in!). However we need to be consistent.Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present description in the Characteristics section is clear. Probably there are follies with some practical use, for example as a viewing point or as a place to store things, but minor compared to what it looks like. Bever (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agree I think, not PRIMARILY practical, or a design which is incredibly elaborate for its practical purpose. The content has actually been 'toned down' considerably since August, such that the NO practical purpose condition has gone. Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aschaffenburg

The Bavarian town of Aschaffenburg in Germany used to be the Summer residency of Ludwig I of Bavaria during the 19th century. Ludwig commissioned a number of buildings, among others the Pompejanum, a replica of a Roman villa. It was never intended to be inhabited, so I am wondering if the building counts as a folly?

Being regarded as eccentric, Ludwig also had a number of other structures erected in various parks (e.g. Nilkheimer Park, Park Schönbusch), such as replicas of Roman and Greek temples, pagodas, etc. I think these are relevant enough to be mentioned, maybe as a consolidated entry rather than listing each item separately - I am not exactly well-versed in history, but as I spent nearly twenty years living here, I would be happy to conduct the relevant research and add sources, if there are no objections. Cosmillogica (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cosmillogica. Great ideas. Regarding the Nilkheimer Park structures, my suggestion would be to confirm that each is indeed a folly and then to integrate qualifying individual entries into the existing structure of this article. As a bonus, if you'd like to go into greater detail about these structures, consider adding a more detailed 'follies' section, with sources, to the Park Schönbusch article.

Looking at the Pompejanum article, it appears to me to be less of a decorative extravagance and more of a functional building that just happens to be a replica of a historic structure in the more ordinary sense. So, I don't see that it quite fits the unusual definition of folly; but I could be totally wrong. I hope that helps! Cheers. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the article, there is an ongoing uncertainty as to precisely WHEN a building 'crosses over' from being merely eccentric to becoming a folly.Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Pompejanum seems to be one of those borderline cases, which is why I thought I'd ask for other people's opinions first, rather than simply adding a new entry. I'm not sure how easy it is to find relevant information about the different buildings online, but the locals are very proud of their history; so I'm sure that if I manage to get in touch with the right person, they'd be happy to help. Just hoping that my German is still up to scratch after all those years! :) Cosmillogica (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmillogica, to be honest, I don't know. In the past the article emphasised that there should be NO practical purpose, this would exclude many buildings currently listed. The present wording is less rigid, but still not consistently applied. The lede itself says that ultimately the judgement is subjective.Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folly. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060711233348/http://europeanfollies.com/ to http://www.europeanfollies.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Folly → Folly (building)
Folly (disambiguation) → Folly

– Most book results refer to the use of the word "folly" as it refers to the subject at Foolishness; when looking up "folly", directing readers to the article about the building is a WP:SURPRISE. I propose that the disambiguation page be moved to the base title so that readers can decide for themselves which topic they are attempting to locate. (In addition, I chose the disambiguator "(building)" for the move location due to precedence used in Church (building).) Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The building as primary topic is a surprise, good find. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The building type is the clear primary topic and dwarfs everything else in terms of traffic. I would support an additional link to foolishness in the hatnote. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Erasmus. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Xezbeth, in encyc terms and traffic, the building is the primary topic. Whilst in ordinary usage "vain foolishness" may be more common, few readers are going to want to have "foolishness" explained to them. The same outcome would be achieved by a hatnote as suggested by Xezbeth above. I am actually surprised that the building type is not primary topic for "church", I would have thought that the building type dwarfs all other uses of the term (a specific denomination, the whole body of believers etc.). Pincrete (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the ambiguity usually disappears in normal prose with the presence or not of an article, which our disam setup does not really allow for. Nonetheless, I think things should remain as they are. Apparently only 29 people a day want to find out about foolishness in an encyclopedia (I mean almost any page on the web will do), while this gets 475. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is this another British English American English difference (like Cricket)? Many words have two meanings. One that belongs on Wiktionary (Wiktionary:folly) an another Folly on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so dictionary definition should be placed on Wiktionary and folly as in foolishness is a good example. -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. I'm British and I support the nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the building is the primary use. Mnemonyx (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Even as an aficionado of architectural history, I'd dispute that the architectural sense is the primary meaning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone thinks that the primary meaning is the building (ie the building type would almost certainly NOT be the first entry in a dictionary), but 'foolishness' is barely an encyclopaedic topic at all whereas the building type certainly IS, and is consulted by readers. Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Xezbeth.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOTDICT. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Palais idéal

Fellow wikipedias, I have just included the very extraordinary structure, the Palais idéal built by the French postman, known as Facteur Cheval. It may not fit in to all the criteria met by the other listed "follies". It does however have no practical purpose: it cannot be lived in. Moreover it is considered as an example of striking naive architecture. If you think it should be removed, I would not object, but would think it a shame. What do people think?--Po Mieczu (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are Namibia's castles follies?

Duwisib Castle etc … do they qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.149.57 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as they served other practical functions, namely as forts, barracks, or purpose built residential structures. --Katangais (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Certainly they are practical & functional - merely having a fancy design is not enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa's Grotto of Redemption

Grotto of the Redemption Does this count? If it does feel free to add it yourself. Xannon (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xannon, this probably wouldn't meet the definition as it has practical purposes (albeit religious ones). The usual definition is that there should be no practical purpose, or a very minimal one disproportionate to the elaborate design (a mock Roman villa/mock medieval ruin serving only as a sun-shelter or garden tool-shed for example). But mainly we need sources describing something as a folly. Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]