![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'd rather we had an article on architectural follies than this bizarre sanctimonious article -- Tarquin 23:34 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Does the Taj Mahal qualify as a folly? -- Paul A 01:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
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)
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
Should the Eiffel Tower be listed here? Michael Hardy 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
What about bowers? Shouldn't they be mentioned? Chrisrus ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
– 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)
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)
Duwisib Castle etc … do they qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.149.57 ( talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Grotto of the Redemption Does this count? If it does feel free to add it yourself. Xannon ( talk) 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'd rather we had an article on architectural follies than this bizarre sanctimonious article -- Tarquin 23:34 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Does the Taj Mahal qualify as a folly? -- Paul A 01:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
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)
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
Should the Eiffel Tower be listed here? Michael Hardy 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
What about bowers? Shouldn't they be mentioned? Chrisrus ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
– 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)
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)
Duwisib Castle etc … do they qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.149.57 ( talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Grotto of the Redemption Does this count? If it does feel free to add it yourself. Xannon ( talk) 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)