text:
Talk:Teleology

Discuss OR tag
User:Carchasm - in April 2022, an OR tag was added with this edit

Noting TALK has no comment and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about the concern, I have put in this section per the tag template where it says "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."

I'm thinking that if the concern hasn't gotten any involvement, then it might as well be removed, but wanted to try this first.

Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment "it would be difficult to name a single predicate in this article that originated from a reliable source".

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 * At the very least, the "History" and "Modern philosophy" sections only cite primary sources, which especially in the case of Plato and Aristotle can't possibly be sufficient, given that "teleology" as a discipline is a later notion.
 * A number of the other claims appear to cite primary sources as well, and although I'm less familiar with economics, it seems that even the connection of this metaphysical topic to an entire other field of study should rely on more direct attributions of sources.
 * I would also remind you that "no work being done" is not a reason to remove a tag. And in this case I believe the tag is still unquestionably valid given the state of the History section, so it shouldn't be removed.  - car chasm (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 * User:Carchasm - thanks for the reply. I think your are right -- while a link to the work being talked about is nice, and what the article says about them may be right, supporting what the article says about the works needs a cite to third party commentator.  I'll try a bit, caveat I'll try to find what is usually said per WEIGHT and what is here might not have any supports online.   And that my take on this is slightly different than the article -- I see it as talk about physics, at least at root that motions and changes proceed towards some endpoint.  (stones fall to earth, acrons grow into oaks) and Aristotle was trying to explain how things change, and that folks still expllain things by reference to their purpose.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss LEAD REWRITE tag ?
User:Carchasm - in August 2022, a LEAD REWRITE tag was added by this edit with the edit comment "lead should be rewritten to follow MOS and be more accessible".

Noting TALK has no section for discussion and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about where it differs from MOS or accessibility, I have put in this section. The template does not explicitly call for it and so the WP:WTRMT guide about when to remove a tag does not explicitly say this is cause for removal, but it does look like a lack of edits and/or talk page discussion.

Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment, perhaps suggested content or detailing critiques of specific locations with reasoning.

I think obviously the lead could be rewritten --and will offer the below from a google then looking at Britanica or wikis or Stanford, and trying to keep content focused about the philosophy aspects -- but with such a randomly crafted alternative I have no idea if it is addressing whatever concern and I tail off is anything to say towards the bottom.

 * Teleology (from the Greek word telos meaning end or purpose) is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations. It is one of Aristotle's descriptions of four causes of a thing or event.  A teleology holds that there is a final cause or purpose coming either from within, an intrinsic finality or from outside, an extrinsic finality.  It is traditionally contrasted with philosophical naturalism, which views nature as lacking design or purpose.

 * Historically, teleology may be identified with Aristotelianism and the Scholasticism tradition in philosophy. It's rationale was explored in detail by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgement.

 * In theology, a teleological argument for the existence of God was used in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his best known work Summa Theologica, in the 18th century by William Paley in his text on natural theology and watchmaker analogy.  In bioethics, teleology is used to describe a utilitarian view that an action's ethical right or wrong is based on the balance of good or bad consequences.  In psychology, teleology is used to describe where psychological norms are dependent on at least in part on functional norms.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 * you really don't need to ping me about this, you've been here a while, so I assume you are competent and capable of reading the MOS and determining for yourself what was wrong, as per your statement that "...I think obviously the lead could be rewritten...."
 * I tag articles that appear to me to have issues, so that improvements can be made to them. If you make improvements, and you believe the issues are no longer valid, you may remove the tag.  - car chasm (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 * User:Carchasm - Not me, at least not much.   To clarify, by "obviously the lead could be rewritten" I meant only there were many ways to phrase things and choices of what to say and illustrated with a plausible but fairly different one.  I might skip out on doing a full rewrite though, and go more for cutting any bits not further supported by the article body.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 * User:Carchasm - I have made those cuts to the lead, please examine and see if you agree that LEAD REWRITE tag should now be removed.
 * rephrased first line to start with saying it as a branch of Causality in philosophy (versus as a form of phrasing) and remove odd/long "which serves as" phrasing in the line
 * moved into a See Also the one-line para mentioning Kant (as UNDUE or not enough of article content to justify lead mention per WP:LEAD)
 * moved into the Science section the para mentioning current debate on use - there is summary note of it in the second para, no need for detail in lead.

 * Those seem enough to consider as providing the requested lead rewrite -- I'm not getting into non-lead items as those would be different threads, e.g.
 * "History" section seems deficient - Aristotle should be less a quotefarm and get mention teleology as one of the Four causes, then History should also mention some other history
 * such as Thomas Aquinas use in the fith of his Five Ways (Aquinas) to prove the existence of God, Sir Francis Bacon counter in Novum Organum, René Descartes in Mechanism (philosophy), Immanuel Kant and Kant's teleology, etc...
 * "Modern Philosophy" tagged for expansion seems to need a cut instead as it is not philosophy, but just a oneline WP:OR editorial remark about creationists that seems misplaced in this article (and telos "end" is not the same as design "mechanism")
 * But again those are not part of this thread topic so for now do you think the lead rewrite tag to be removed ?  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Having no reply to the contrary, I will remove the tag. Markbassett (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Economics section needs rewrite
This section is wholly devoted to Ludwig von Mises (and his controversial "science" of praxeology), whose historical figure is not specified (Austrian, libertarian, right wing, heterodox, etc. could all be used). It also omits any discussion of Marx's historical materialism, which drew on Hegel's teleological philosophy of history and has been of far broader historical consequence than Mises. It finishes with external links to articles on a wiki devoted to Mises. 104.57.64.23 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Deontology
Why is deontology even part of this article? Deontology is not a teleological ethical theory. Captchacatcher (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Polemic morass
Refer to the Teleological argument section (contributed by @Quercus solaris): is "polemic morass" a term of art in cosmology or ontology? A cosmological/ontological sense isn't obvious, so an indication of what it means here would be helpful. Is the proposition that the "... chief instance, and the largest polemic morass, of teleological viewpoint in modern cosmology and ontology is the teleological argument that posits an intelligent designer as a god" verifiable? Without a reference, it looks like original research. Can anyone help, please? --- Frans Fowler (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The wording is a simple sum of parts, an adjective describing a noun: the area of teleology most subject to polemicism is the question of whether any intelligent designer exists and how humans satisfy themselves epistemologically that they either (believe that they) know or (believe that they) don't know which answer to that question is true. This isn't any kind of research at all, let alone original research; on the contrary, it is WP:BLUE. To falsify it, one would need to point to an aspect of teleology that is more contentious than it: subject to greater polemics. There isn't one. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Teleology


text:
Talk:Norrmalmstorg robbery

Name mixups
I noticed several lines of faulty information in the text, where the authors have mixed Olsson and Olofssons names up. For instance in one of the last parts it is mentioned that "Olsson" went on comminting further crimes and turned him self in after being on the runt for several years. This part is not true! It was Olofsson who continued on the path of crime, Olsson on the other hand did his time for the Norrmalmstorg Robbery and then kept away from crime, later moving to Thailand.

Someone should correct this, becuase there are more bits where the info is not correct. Sorry but I don't have the time to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.188.12.132 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the source now used in the article (no idea if it was used at the time) supports the idea Olsson also went on to commit further crimes before going on the run for 10-15 years. I presume moving to Thailand was part of being on the run, and he came from Thailand to turn himself in only to be told he was no longer being sought (perhaps the statute of limitations expired or the police simply decided it was no longer productive to continue to pursue him). Another source albeit in Swedish is used to support the claim Olofsson also committed further crimes, whether he went on the run as well I can't say. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wounded police
I corrected the information about wounded police officers to better reflect what really happened (two officers wounded, both in the hand). See http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=30354&a=369361 (in swedish, from the government television's site) regarding the second wounding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.168 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Currency value
I know "9 crown ~ 1 US dollar" now, but this is long ago enough to list the current (i.e. inflation-adjusted) value in US dollars. Anyone got a clue? --Gabbe 08:25 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * Hmm.. The figures about the amount of money is not correct. At that time, the krona was worth at least ten times more than it does today... --Konstantin 17:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The Swedish Consumer Price Index (KPI; see http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____33895.asp) was 740 in August 1973, and is currently around 4200, so "at least ten times more" is a bit high. --83.250.8.232 09:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Swedish terms
This article refers to the Norrmalmstorg robbery as a "reality drama" refering to some word in the Swedish language. I have no clue what word the the writer is refering to. The thing about "engagerad" is correct, though.

I believe the word for "Stockholm Syndrome" was originaly in Swedish "Norrmalmstorgssyndrom". "Stockholm Syndrome" was an English translation of it. But I'm not sure about this.

File:Stockholm2.jpg
What is this photograph (File:Stockholm2.jpg) adding to the article? It seems to show to bows of two cargo ships with Stockholm in the background. The caption does not appear to relate to the photograph at all. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Some correction needed
Someone needs to fix the following "He received many admiring letters from women who found him attractive. (She was not, as some state, one of the former hostages.)" There was one woman or many women? Who does "She" refer to? Masonmilan (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC). It's been fixed. Thanks.Masonmilan (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norrmalmstorg robbery. 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/20141011004222/http://www.worldcrunch.com/default/forty-years-ago-a-swedish-bank-robber-gave-us-quot-stockholm-syndrome-quot-/stockholm-syndrome-jan-erik-olsson-hostage-hostages/c0s13206/ to http://www.worldcrunch.com/default/forty-years-ago-a-swedish-bank-robber-gave-us-quot-stockholm-syndrome-quot-/stockholm-syndrome-jan-erik-olsson-hostage-hostages/c0s13206/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Towards Stockholm Syndrome
Stockholm syndrome is a hotly debated and controversial topic in psychology, and the article should be updated to reflect that view. Kristin Enmark has continued to tell her part of the story and alleged that Stockholm syndrome is a smear to discredit her criticisms of police and government response. 2600:1700:D580:8680:CC69:C05D:1BB3:FBDD (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Norrmalmstorg robbery


text:
Dornbirn

Dornbirn is a city in the westernmost Austrian state of Vorarlberg. It is the administrative centre for the district of Dornbirn, which also includes the town of Hohenems, and the market town Lustenau.

Dornbirn is the largest city in Vorarlberg and the tenth largest city in Austria. It is an important commercial and shopping centre.

Location
Dornbirn is located at 437 metres above sea level in the Alpine Rhine Valley, at the foot of the Karren mountain, part of the Bregenz Forest Mountain chain at the edge of the Eastern Alps. It is near the borders to Switzerland, Germany and Liechtenstein. The Dornbirner Ach river flows through the town and later into Lake Constance.

Municipal structure
Dornbirn once consisted only of four "quarters" or precincts: Markt, Hatlerdorf, Oberdorf and Haselstauden. By the 20th century, two new precincts to the west were formed: Rohrbach (formerly a part of Markt) and Schoren (formerly a part of Hatlerdorf), thus bringing the total number of precincts to six.

Neighbouring municipalities
The town of Dornbirn itself constitutes almost 70% of the surface of the district Dornbirn and borders on numerous other municipalities: Hohenems and Lustenau, 15 municipalities of the Bregenz District: (Lauterach, Wolfurt, Schwarzach, Bildstein, Alberschwende, Schwarzenberg, Reuthe, Mellau, Damüls), and four of the Feldkirch District: (Laterns, Zwischenwasser, Viktorsberg, Fraxern).

History
The earliest evidence of human presence in the Dornbirn area dates from the Mesolithic era. The name "Dornbirn" derives from 'torrin puirron', meaning the 'Settlement of Torro' (the name of an Alemannic farmer living there), and thus has nothing to do with "pears" (German "Birnen"), although this fruit is prominently portrayed on the town emblem. 'Torrin puirron' is mentioned for the first time in 895, in a document from St. Gallen (Switzerland).

Dornbirn became part of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1380. In 1793 it was elevated to a market community. It was not given municipal status until 1901. In 1932 the mountain village of Ebnit was annexed. In 1969 Dornbirn became the seat of the new Dornbirn district administrative authority.

Historic marginalia
1881: the first telephone service in the K&K empire was inaugurated by Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria on August 10, 1881.

Municipal Council
The Dornbirn Municipal Council has 36 seats and the following party mandates:
 * 17 Austrian People's Party (ÖVP)
 * 7 The Greens – The Green Alternative (Die Grünen)
 * 5 Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ)
 * 4 Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ)
 * 3 NEOS - The New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS)

The current mayor (since 2013) is Andrea Kaufmann (ÖVP). The current vice-mayor is Julian Fässler (ÖVP). The city council consists of 9 council members (including mayor and vice-mayor). and the following party mandates:
 * 5 Austrian People's Party (ÖVP)
 * 2 The Greens – The Green Alternative (Die Grünen)
 * 2 Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ)
 * 1 Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ)

International relations
Dornbirn has town partnerships with
 * Kecskemét, Hungary
 * Sélestat, France
 * Dubuque, Iowa, United States

Museums
The City Museum Dornbirn is Dornbirn's local museum, specialized in the city's history, early photography, traditional crafts, agriculture and the formerly flourishing textile industry.

Inatura is an interactive natural history museum. The museum includes a documentation center about nature in Vorarlberg, along with an interactive exhibition.

The Mohren Biererlebniswelt is a beer museum of Vorarlberg's oldest brewery Mohrenbrauerei. It shows traditional brewery equipment and gives insights in the history of beer brewing. Additionally, it hosts workshops on beer.

The Rolls-Royce Museum is a privately-owned automobile museum. It is said to have the world's largest collection of Rolls-Royce cars.

ART BODENSEE is an annual meeting point for artists, art collectors, and connoisseurs. Since 2001, it has included exhibits of works by international artists.

The FLATZ Museum sees itself as a forum concerned with artistic impulses and contemporary cultural positions. It shows changing exhibitions designed by international guest curators, with a focus on photographic art; it organises readings, lecture series, discussions and performances.

Architecture
Dornbirn's Messestadion is an indoor sporting arena, and home to the local ice hockey team.

An example of modern Vorarlberg architecture is the LifeCycle-Tower ONE (LCT ONE), an innovative architectural project concerned with environmental and energy efficiency. With its eight floors, it is the first modular wooden hybrid complex; it was built in 2012.

Economy
Vorarlberg's regional studio of the ORF (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) is located in Dornbirn.

Zumtobel Group is an ATX traded company, one of many firms based in Dornbirn. The town was formerly a major centre of the textile industry, which suffered a serious decline beginning in the 1980s.

The Mohrenbrauerei August Huber is Vorarlberg's oldest brewery and market leader in the gastronomy and retail sectors.

Transport
Located in the middle of the Rhine valley, Dornbirn is an important junction of regional and interregional bus lines, connecting Bregenz to the north, Feldkirch to the south, and the Bregenz Forest to the east. The A14 Rheintal motorway (Autobahn) passes by to the west. The Achrain tunnel, opened in 2009, directly connects Dornbirn/Haselstauden with the Bregenz Forest - Alberschwende region. The town has a network of municipal buses.

There are four railway stations in the municipality of Dornbirn: Dornbirn, Dornbirn-Schoren, Hatlerdorf and Haselstauden, all situated on the Vorarlberg railway line of ÖBB. Dornbirn railway station is an important stop for trains between western and eastern Austria.

A small airport is located at nearby Hohenems.

Education
Educational institutions in Dornbirn include the Vorarlberg University of Applied Sciences, two general education secondary schools, and a higher technical vocational college (Höhere Technische Lehranstalt).

The Vorarlberg University of Applied Sciences (German: Fachhochschule Vorarlberg) was originally founded as a school for technology in 1989. It achieved the status of an officially recognized university in 1999. It currently offers bachelor's and master's degrees in the fields of Business, Engineering & Technology, Design, and Social Work.

Sports
Among the most important sports institutions in Dornbirn is the RHC Dornbirn, one of the most powerful Austrian Rink Hockey teams. In 2010 it hosted the 2010 Rink Hockey Men's B World Championship.

The Baseball & Softball Club Dornbirn was founded in 1990, and has won the Austrian national title twice. BSC Dornbirn consists of one youth team, two men's teams, and two women's teams.

Dornbirn hosted the World Gymnaestrada event in 2007 and 2019.

The Mohrenbrauerei (Mohren brewery)
The Mohrenbrauerei was founded in Dornbirn in 1834, which makes it the oldest operating brewery in Vorarlberg.

Notable people

 * Joseph Anton Rhomberg (1786–1853) a German painter, illustrator and graphic artist.
 * Francis Martin Drexel (1792–1863), Philadelphia banker and artist
 * Johann Georg Waibel, (DE Wiki) (1828–1908), Mayor of Dornbirn 1869–1908, member of the Austrian Reichsrat and Landtag
 * Joseph Bobleter (1846–1909) an American newspaper editor and politician.
 * Karl Aubert Salzmann (1876–1934), president of Federal Council (Austria), 1926/1927
 * Wolfgang Blenk (1926–1996), politician (Nazi Party, Austrian People's Party)
 * Margret Dünser (1926–1980), journalist
 * Wolfgang Rümmele, (DE Wiki) (1946–2019), Mayor of Dornbirn 1999-2013
 * Elfi Graf (born 1952), Schlager music singer
 * Eva Maria Waibel (born 1953) a high school teacher and former ÖVP politician
 * Tobias G. Natter (born 1961) an Austrian art historian
 * Aaron Pilsan (born 1995) an Austrian classical pianist.
 * Günter Vetter (1936–2022), Austrian politician, member of the Vorarlberg state council
 * Reinold Geiger (born 1947), Austrian businessman

Sport

 * Karl Cordin (born 1948), ski racer
 * Ingrid Eberle (born 1957), ski racer
 * Yvonne Meusburger Garamszegi (born 1983), WTA tennis player
 * Eva Pinkelnig (born 1988), ski jumper
 * Tamira Paszek (born 1990), WTA tennis player
 * Deniz Mujić (born 1990) an Austrian footballer of Bosnian descent with over 280 club caps

Twin towns – sister cities
Dornbirn is twinned with:
 * 🇺🇸 Dubuque, United States
 * 🇭🇺 Kecskemét, Hungary
 * 🇫🇷 Sélestat, France

title: Dornbirn


text:
Hohenems

Hohenems (High Alemannic: Ems) is a town in the Austrian state of Vorarlberg in the Dornbirn district. It lies in the middle of the Austrian part of the Rhine valley. With a population of 16,946, it is the fifth largest municipality in Vorarlberg. Hohenems' attractions include a Renaissance palace dating back to the 16th century, a Jewish history museum, and the old town center.

Geography
The town is located at 432 m above sea level, about 16 km south of Lake Constance. Hohenems extends for 5.5 km from north to south and 8.2 km from west to east. Its total area is 29 km², of which 42% is covered with forest. The oxbow lake of the river Rhine in the west, forming the border of Austria as well as EU to Switzerland, and the mountainside in the east is at the narrowest point of the Austrian Rhine valley. The Schlossberg ("castle mountain"), elevation 740 m, offers a distinctive backdrop to the town center.

Hohenems is divided into the neighborhoods of Markt (centre), Oberklien and Unterklien (north), Hohenems-Reute (east), Schwefel (south) and Herrenried (west). It is surrounded by six other communities, Lustenau and Dornbirn in the Dornbirn district (north and east), Fraxern, Götzis and Altach in the Feldkirch district (south) and Diepoldsau in the Swiss canton St. Gallen (west).

History
The summit of the Schlossberg rock, within 45 minutes walk from the town center, is crowned by the ruins of Alt-Ems, a castle dating back to the 9th century CE. From the 12th century it was among the largest fortifications in the south of the German kingdom. The stronghold was very extensive, with a length of up to 800 m (2,625 ft) and a width of 85 m (280 ft). It reached its peak of fame from the 13th to 16th centuries, as a residence of many lords and knights of Hohenems. As they were loyal ministeriales of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, the castle served as a prison for notable prisoners like the Norman king William III of Sicily, who probably died there in 1198.

Hohenems was granted municipal rights and liberties (German Stadtrecht) in 1333, but the town did not make use of these rights for 650 years until, in 1983, the government of Vorarlberg granted Hohenems full status as a "municipality".

The Burg Neu-Ems (also called "Schloss Glopper"), built in 1343, is located on a mountain promontory near Alt-Ems. In 1407 both castles were destroyed during the Appenzell Wars, but rebuilt shortly afterwards. Burg Neu-Ems is still intact today and is the private property of the Waldburg-Zeil family.

The Renaissance palace stands at the foot of the Schlossberg and dominates the main square of town, the Schlossplatz. It was built from 1562 to 1567, according to plans by architect Martino Longhi the Elder at the initiative of Cardinal Marcus Sittich Hohenems (Altemps), architect who also designed the Cardinal’s palace in Rome. Religious wars and a plague decimated the population and devastated the area over the next century, ironically the time of the greatest power of the (Protestant) Counts of Hohenems, when they acquired Vaduz Castle from what was later to become Liechtenstein. Two manuscripts of the Nibelungenlied were found in Hohenems, in 1755 and 1779, in the palace's library.

Jewish heritage
The Jewish community in Hohenems had its beginnings with a charter in 1617. Soon thereafter a synagogue, a ritual bath (mikvah), a school and a poorhouse were built. A cemetery was established on the southern outskirts of town. Jewish economic activity in the town resulted in the first coffee house in 1797, and in 1841, the first bank and insurance company in Vorarlberg. The Hohenems Jewish community celebrated its golden era around 1862, with nearly 600 Jewish citizens, 12% of the population. The Jewish presence in town was terminated in 1942 with the deportation of the last remaining Jew, Frieda Nagelberg, to Vienna and eventually to Izbica. Recently three Jewish people have moved into Hohenems.

The synagogue survived the Kristallnacht without damage. It was acquired by the municipality after the war and converted into a fire station. All objects pertaining to its use as a synagogue were removed or destroyed. In 2001 the synagogue was renovated and it now used as a cultural centre. The Jewish quarter, which has had historical preservation status since 1996, includes numerous townhouses and mansions surrounding the synagogue. Along with the former Christengasse ("Christian Lane"), renamed Marktstrasse (Market Street), it forms the urban core of Hohenems.

In 1991, the Jewish Museum Hohenems was opened in a mansion in the center of the Jewish quarter. The museum commemorates the history of the Jewish community in Hohenems. The many remaining objects it exhibits bear witness to the former flourishing Jewish community in Hohenems. As part of its remembrance culture, a section of the museum is dedicated to the memory of the darkest chapter in Vorarlberg history – the national socialist period, and its attempts to eliminate all traces of Jewish culture in Vorarlberg and beyond. The Jewish cemetery south of the town dates to the first Jewish settlement in 1617 and is still in use today. It contains more than 500 graves, with 370 surviving gravestones.

Mayors
2004–2015: Richard Amann

Since December 2015: Dieter Egger (born 1969)

Infrastructure
Apart from the historical sites, the town center is rapidly developing a modest urban ambience, with hotels, shops, and restaurants. On the outskirts of town there are large businesses, with branches of multinational retail chains and a ten-screen multiplex. On the way to the mountain village Reute, high above Hohenems, there is a unique museum – Stoffels Säge-Mühle ("Stoffel's Sawmill") – which presents the history of saw milling and mill grinding technologies.

Hohenems has several leisure amenities. In the mountain area there is a small ski resort (Schuttannen) and a rock-climbing area called Löwenzähne ("Lion's Teeth") with walls up to 150 m (500 ft) and level 10. There also is a wide range of hiking trails and mountain biking routes nearby. The town boasts of the largest recreational centers (13 hectares) in Vorarlberg, situated on the banks of the river Rhine's oxbow lake.

One section of the hospital in Hohenems was originally built in 1908, and has now been totally renovated. Called the Kaiserin-Elisabeth-Krankenhaus ("Empress Elisabeth hospital"), it is a magnificent example of Art Nouveau architecture. It hosts the palliative care unit. The modern General Hospital was built in 1972.

Transport
Two state roads, the Vorarlberger Strasse L190 and the Rheinstrasse L203 cross the municipality from north to south. The L46 leads from the town center to the customs buildings at the border to Switzerland. Hohenems has motorway access to the Rheintal/Walgau-Autobahn (Austrian A14/European route E60) and is on the main west–east route connecting the Vorarlbergbahn railway line in the directions Bregenz and Innsbruck. The train system is operated by the Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB). The sole airfield in Vorarlberg, with a 630 m (2,066 ft) runway, is located within the municipal borders

Trivia
Hohenems was one of the locations in the Swiss-Austrian film Akte Grüninger.

The town is the site of the climax of Dennis Wheatley's novel about the 1914 outbreak of the First World War, The Second Seal (1950).

Bernard Levin mentions Hohenems in his book Conducted Tour (1982) as being the location of a music festival where all the works of Franz Schubert were performed in chronological order.

Twin towns
Hohenems has twinned with 🇨🇿 Bystré and Polička in the Czech Republic (since 1997)

Notable persons

 * Rudolf von Ems (1200–1254), Middle High German poet and minstrel.
 * Markus Sittich von Hohenems (1574–1619), Archbishop of Salzburg
 * Salomon Sulzer (1804–1890), reform cantor and composer
 * August Brentano (1829–1886), New York City newspaper dealer; emigrated in 1851
 * Eugen Steinach (1861–1944), an Austrian physiologist and pioneer in endocrinology.
 * Bernhard Vogel, (DE Wiki) (1913–2000), politician (SPÖ), member of Parliament and the Federal Council
 * Michael Köhlmeier (born 1949), Austrian writer and musician, lives locally
 * Hans Jörg Schelling (born 1953), entrepreneur, politician (ÖVP) and former Federal Minister of Finance
 * Fatima Spar, (DE Wiki) (born 1977), jazz singer and composer

Sport

 * Adi Hütter (born 1970), football player and coach, played 480 games and 14 for Austria
 * Wolfram Waibel Jr. (born 1970), sports marksman, bronze and silver medallist at the 1996 Summer Olympics
 * Harald Morscher (born 1972), retired cyclist
 * Christian Klien (born 1983), former Formula One racing driver
 * Ramazan Özcan (born 1984), football goalkeeper, played over 240 games and 10 for Austria
 * Matthias Brändle (born 1989), professional cyclist
 * Kevin Fend (born 1990), an Austrian football goalkeeper; has played over 330 games
 * Marcel Mathis (born 1993), alpine skier
 * David Reinbacher, professional ice hockey player

title: Hohenems


text:
Talk:Design

Messy page
I believe this page is a mess, and it needs a top level view to suceed. For now, it would be useful to separate the "See Also" links into some categories. Matt Whyndham 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I organized the "see also" section. I'm not married to the category labels if anyone want to suggest changes. Oicumayberight 06:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Th

This page is worse than a mess! It just gets worse. It is not a reliable entry. Yes, I know the response is 'well, be our guest', but it really needs most of what's there to be deleted and someone to start it all over again - and I expect there would be lots of complaints and reverts if someone does so. Nigel Cross 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd rather have a messy article than no article at all. Design (in general) is one of those subjects that many are involved in but very few people profess in. I've put a lot of effort on this page in the hopes of just getting people interested in the general subject. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of takers. What do you suggest would be an improvement other than just deleting everything at the risk of having no article at all? Oicumayberight 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the "Design disciplines" section of "See also" is large enough to to it's own article? I've been hoping to have some time to help here, but I've gotten bogged down in changing Design methods from an essay to something encyclopedic. --Ronz 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That would be better than just deleting material and starting over. Oicumayberight 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't see a need to start over. I think the progress that's been made with the article is commendable. --Ronz 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Design Education
This section was both unfounded and incorrect. I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.32 (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

asera
I've removed some things from the article.

First, I'm trying to expand the philosophical part of the article, and this definition, unfortunately, does not expand to cover all senses of design now discussed in the article:

 * Design is a process of arriving at a finished work, or as finished as time or energy allows, usually based on an idea/thought/impression.

Second, I'm removing this, because I don't understand why architecture needs special treatment, above and beyond that given to, say, industrial design. Hopefully someone will restore the relevant parts.

 * When applied to architecture, design is both a noun and a verb. You can design a building, and your building is a design.  ... The operative notion is that design embodies the countless nights of thought, iteration and re-design, to approach a level of completeness that all parties can agree upon.  In architecture this usually happens when the architect, client, building code inspector, and finally the construction industry can agree to a finished design.

Here are some thoughts that I would like to refine and somehow incorperate into the article: In the realm of the arts, design is more relevent to the applied arts, such as graphic arts, architechture, product design, ...   Design implies a concious effort to create something that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing. For example a graphic artist may design an advertisement poster. This person's job is to communicate the advertisement message (functional aspect) and to make it look good (astetically pleasing). The distinction between pure and applied arts is not completely clear, but we could take Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings as an example of pure art. Sure his art may convey some message, but there are obvious differences between the kind of concrete information in a poster and the message of a Jackson Pollock. Second, I think that a reasonable person would agree that Pollock worked more intuitively than the graphic artist's concious effort to design the poster. This is not to say that Pollock did not have some sort of a priori idea of what he was going to paint before he started (I have no idea whether he did or not). I guess my point is that on the spectrum between pure and applied art, degree of design' is the the most important factor. User:Ike9898
 * I included this in the article with WP:NPOV language. Oicumayberight 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Design implies a concious effort to create something that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing." This is totally wrong. There is no 'both' and 'and'. A car's gearbox is most definitely a conscious effort to create it, it is most definitely designed yet no effort is put into it's aesthetic at all. There are cases when both has to be taken into account but it is not a universal requirement. Only functionality and conscious effort are. Even if it is an artwork. A painter could consciously study people, then consciously create the layout of the picture, chose the colours and so on to achieve the desired functionality: telling the story, creating the mood. (You'll find the many study-paintings as the painter researches the subject) This picture was designed. On the other hand, a painter can do all these subconsciously to arrive to the functionality. However, that picture was not designed because it is not a conscious effort. (It doesn't mean it is a bad picture though!)

One more comment, on a slightly different vein...one might say that anything that a person makes is designed. To an extent I guess this is true. Things can be well designed or poorly designed. But i would say that something produced with out significant conscious effort is not truely designed. At the moment I am having trouble thinking of uncontroversial examples, so he's a controversial one.... Assuming you agree with mainstream evolutionary therory (as I do) living creatures are not designed, their bodies are the way they are as the result of a natural, unconcious process (evolution). (Please, I realize that not everyone agrees with evolution, let's not discuss that here). User:Ike9898

 * Many people agree with your assessment that, given the validity of evolutionary theory, living creatures are not designed. Some (e.g. Dennett) disagree, opting to employ design in a broader sense, such that something doesn't need to have had a conscious, sentient designer to be considered designed. I've tried to clarify this somewhat in the article. --Ryguasu 23:13 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

sounds like design to me. change and adaptation is true, never was in question, but many species require that all their organs and nerves be in a certain place and in certain order and "design." In that it is incorrect to say it is undesigned, especially sense no matter what changes have evolved, the blueprint and function remains the same. You will not see penguins over time evolve into flying birds. Just won't happen. So you could say in the natural world there is an implied design, but an even more uncomfortable topic many wish not to acknowledge due to the controversy, a designer. The second part of the statement is what keeps this observable fact surpressed until a cause can be found for a universe magically being created through natural causes, doesn't fly in the realm of true science and not psuedo or theroretical "science." To avoid an edit war on this article, avoid making any reference to Design Theory because both sides are wrong, equally biased and ignorant, and just stick with what we know, not what we speculate. Science and Religion have never been at odds. It is the starting theological points of that are at odds, not the validity of claims and observations.

Disambig?
Why has this article got a disambiguation notice? Above (in this talk) there are some fantastic ideas for an article. If I take off the notice, is it ok to leave the really long "See also" section, which is useful for readers? Any thoughts are welcome.--Commander Keane 17:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, too. Surely Design can stand alone as a topic? The 'article' is a mess as it stands. I'm not so sure about the fantastic-ness of the comments, though. The article should avoid straying into art versus design, and into 'intentional design' (creationism). I think there could be a perfectly straightforward article on Design, and the beginnings are there. Nigel Cross 18:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag - it's an article now, maybe it will develop.--Commander Keane 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Article content
I have revised and rearranged the original bits and pieces of content in order to try to begin a coherent article. It could use more work. I really don't understand what the intention(s) of the author(s) were behind the 'Basic Categories' contents - I don't understand them. Unless anyone can explain, I suggest that they get deleted. Nigel Cross 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, and I have deleted them. The code is below if someone wants to revive it:

Basic categories

 * Image
 * Function
 * Morphology

 * Volfy 00:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining Design
Defining water and its forms=Design

This discussion about trying to define Design is very good to read. from all the the words from Designers, i would like to discuss in layers. Oceans, Sea's,Rivers,Lakes,ponds,Dam waters, tap waters, tank waters and what not? so many names. And names depending upon the states of water, liquid, rain, moisture, dew, ice etc., we try to capture(existing things) and relate it to something (humans). The properties of water are, it takes the shape and form of the container, it takes the color of the container too. That is what i think we are trying to do here, trying to define Design. The Oceans, sea's ... are based on the context. The state rain,moisture... are things with some purpose(function) for the context. From the discussion there is a vague understanding that Desing is transient (thats how it is used individually). The scale and Bandwidth or spectrum is huge and wide respectively. Depending upon intra personal, interpersonal and societal perception, words do not stand the same. So is Design. so can we say defining Design = defining Water ? will it stand similar?
 * Design is both process and product. Water is mere product. To put it in terms of water, design is to designs what hydraulics is to water.

 * If you are saying that design is very broad and general, it's true. I think that's reflected in the "see also" section. It would be nice if there was a little more organization of the list rather than just an alphabetical listing of the broader fields mixed with subfields and redundant alternate terms. However, if you are suggesting that we use an abstract metaphor to describe what could be expanded on with literal words, I don't think it would work well, particularly with the scientific analytical types.

 * What's important about this article is the broader definition without going into too much detail of the individual fields and sub-disciplines. The goal is a little more than what you'd get from a dictionary definition, but a little more generalization and inclusion than what you'd get from only one of the many professional perspectives. Oicumayberight 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some suggested references for the definition of design:

 * There are some very important authors missing from this definition of design: Bryan Lawson, Michael Brawne, Peter Rowe, Peter Downton, J C Jones, Robin Evans, Christopher Alexander, Donald Schon and Nigel Cross (who has contributed to this page himself). Each of these authors offer constructive definitions of design that are not limited to any particular discipline. I hope this is useful to anyone attempting to revise this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.95.107 (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition given is overly wordy, muddled in terminology and vague in its conclusion. The need to appeal to a veriety of attributes of related processes which surround the design phase of any porject during the course of bringing it to fruition reveals the weakness of the statement as a definition. My experience comes from over 40 years in aircraft, defence and commercial engineering in design, planning, manufacturing and quality. However I want to respect the ideals and values of the Wiki encylcopedia. I also need to appologize for not being able to strongly reference what I am about to say but I would claim that the following is very widely known accross the engineering profession. There are three distinct phases to the execution or creation of a design.

1. The Design phase is where the specification is written, it is no more or less than the creation of piece of signal information, (even if it only ever resides in the mind of its creator). This also includes any material specification.

2. The Planning phase is where such questions as where, when, how many, what tooling is required, what is the quality standard, source of material, batch size, etc are answered.

3. The Make phase where such issues as training, qualifications, cost collection, OH&S, workshop procedures, machine availability and alternatives etc are considered.

 * Mixing up the above terms detracts from the clarity of what they actually mean, whereas they are all distinct, identifiable and present in all creative activity even the abstract arts. In this context 'signal information' is also in need of a definition which at this point does not appear to be in the encyclopedia. Without going too far along this path I hope that you my appreciate the above description of 'design' (point 1.) is simple, comprehensive and does not confuse the reader with other parts of the creative process. Examples may be appropriate to illustrate the meaning but should not be a necessary part of the definition itself.

Vh mby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

This relates to the definition as well as the history of Design: The word is related to the Italian Disegno, meaning "drawing", which is the painter's preparation for a painting. Also useful: A "design", especially in literature, is used for a plot or scheme that a character is planning. I think these sources of the word help define it, even if the article itself is more strictly geared to the engineering-type contexts of the word. --Realedr (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a broad spectrum of examples however the fundamental meaning should not be clouded in such a way as to confuse that meaning.. the discipline is irrelevant for instance considering the following.. in the article..

"Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed."

So to not to exclude the biosphere I would also propose DNA meets the criteria for a design specification of a living organism. Vh mby (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

History of design
What about the history of design? In some ways, design is not a very old profession; the separation of designer and maker only happened in the past 200 years. Industry gave room for a person who could outline a prototype or even just design an object on paper and have a factory produce and assemble it. Unknown user 04:04, 27 November 2006

 * Good suggestion. I would imagine someone would have to find the first recorded use of the word "design". My guess is that it originated in the industrial revolution. If I were a historian, I would research and write the section myself. Oicumayberight 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reagarding the history of design: Wasn't the entire field called "industrial design" until about 1960? Every time I go to this article I find it as confusing and all-inclusive as a beer-fueled all-night college bull session. Please get to the point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.197.81 (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd changes to opening
The latest edit of the opening section was a major change. I've read it several times, and it's not obvious to me why certain words were deleted and included. Here was the version before the edit:

Design, usually considered in the context of the applied arts, engineering, architecture, and other such creative endeavours, is a homonym, used as both a noun and a verb. "Design" as a verb refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a new object (machine, building, product, etc.). As a noun, "design" is used both for the final plan or proposal (a drawing, model, or other description), or the result of implementing that plan or proposal (the object produced). Designing normally requires considering aesthetic, functional, and many other aspects of an object, which usually requires considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Design as a process can take many forms depending on the object being designed and the individual or individuals participating. In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to pattern, or to purpose/purposefulness (or teleology). Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.

and after 23:33, 28 November 2006 Markwiki:

Design is the manipulation of elements to create a functional and/or pleasing product. It is a homonym, used as both a verb and a noun. "Design" as a verb refers to the process of planning. As a noun, "design" is used for the final plan or final product. The process of designing often includes research and modeling. The word is most often used in relation to concrete products, such as in the applied arts, engineering, and architecture. In designing concrete items, seven elements are commonly recognized. These are form, mass, shape, line, color, texture and pattern. In abstract applications, such as philosophy and theology, the noun "design" refers to pattern, or to purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity. The philosophical study of abstract design is teleology.

Is it just me, or is there a lot of odd changes here? 1) The word "manipulation" often implies a controversial adjustment. A design can be an arrangement as well as an adjustment. 2) I don't see why the examples in the parenthesis were removed. The sentence may have been a little long, but it could have been divided into multiples sentences rather than stripped of the examples. 3) The word "aesthetics" was removed, a simpler word that could include the seven elements. 4) The seven elements seem to be too specific to graphic design, which excludes the other forms and disciplines of design. 5) Functional design is relevant, but was deleted. It isn't clear if or where function is included in the seven elements. 6) Design seems irrelevant to theology unless you are talking about intelligent design, which is a theory, not a known discipline of design. Oicumayberight 09:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the last two edits including the reference to the teleological argument. There seems to be an association with Intelligent Design, which has no place in this article. This is an article about what is known regarding the various disciplines of design. Oicumayberight 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) open to evary downlod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.157.108 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Design process
Why all the definitions etc from Dino Dini 'in a talk at Liverpool University'? It isn't anything new or especially helpful - many people have said similar things before, with more authority. Or am I missing something? Somebody could rewrite it more objectively? Nigel Cross 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Be my guest to rewrite it more objectively. Oicumayberight 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole field of design research! I am very disappointed by this design entry (in agreement with Nigel Cross). The answer to his request("be my guest...") is too easy, it is also the responsibility of an author of an entry to look for high quality sources and thorough historical background, or isn't it ?
 * I doubt there is a school on the planet were one could profess in "genera design" in the broadest scope of the word. I doubt there is a widely accepted authority on the meaning of design. I doubt there will ever be a scientific definition of a design process. Are we suggesting that the section be removed? Oicumayberight 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merges
I moved design process and design philosophy to this page. Oicumayberight 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied talk from design philosophy page

 * I believe that design process should be split from the article. A number of other processes follow the same principle. Inwind 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * If there were only one or a few widely accepted design processes, I would agree. However, since there are multiple processes within any one discipline and countless design processes overall, I doubt that a focus or neutrality could be maintained in such an article using such a generic term. Oicumayberight 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd to restict Design philosophy to Software engineering only. This should be a very general article IMHO. Patrick L. Goes 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Design vs Engineering
Oicumayberight: I see you just made a change saying that "engineering is a form of design". I also see that the discussion under the heading "Design versus engineering" includes what appears to be (IMO) a misinterpretation of the two definitions supplied immediately above it. That discussion says that The most significant distinction (is) the application of "scientific and mathematical principles". However, the full definition of Engineering just supplied is The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.

So another important distinction is being ignored altogether, namely that Engineering is a much broader term, which includes Design as just one component of the definition. The two terms are not equivalent, because Design does not include Engineering. And while one might (speaking very loosely) say that design was a form of engineering, I believe it would be much more accurate to say that design is an aspect of engineering. And one certainly cannot say that engineering is a form of design, because design does not cover the manufacturing and operations aspects of engineering that are included in the definition supplied.

I view this as the general case of the discussion we're having elsewhere about Software Development and Software Design, in which the latter is a subset of the former. And I don't agree with the caption you just (re)wrote, because it is inconsistent with my understanding of the terms, and with their definitions as supplied in the article itself. Regards, Chris Loosley 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it's seems biased. I see your point that engineering is applied in production as well as design. According to the referenced definition engineering is not a subset of design. That doesn't mean that design is a subset of engineering. They may simply overlap. Both design and engineering are forms of problem solving. Designers don't like submitting to the harsh constraints associated with engineering any more than engineers like the open-ended expectations associated with design. This is a debate that will not be resolved on the wikipedia. I made changes to reflect a contrary and a neutral point of view to both the subsection and the caption.

 * According to the definition, when math and science is not applied to problem solving, would you still call it engineering? If so what would be the difference between that and design? Oicumayberight 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I see your point about some kinds of design not ever being a subset of any kind of engineering, and I think your use of "overlapping" is OK. So I agree that you have reworded the article to a neutral POV now, except that production is itself a very imprecise term. (In IT, for example, designers use it to mean "creation," while developers use it to mean "operation". This is because software products are similar to machine tools, which are themselves produced, but are then used in a production line). Engineering (after the design phase) also covers the manufacturing, installation (if required), operation, and ongoing maintenance of the artifact produced. Chris Loosley 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I expanded the sentence using the word "operations". That should cover any other areas where engineering is applied. I didn't link it to business operations, because business is a narrower scope of the word "operations." Oicumayberight 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Looks good. No doubt someone will need to wordsmith it further, but you have captured the essence! Chris Loosley 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Character Design?
The Commercial Character Design link under the design disciplines is probably not unique enough to be listed as its own discipline. I'm afraid if we allow that, some will want to list "Greeting Card Design" and every other rare application of communication design. Anyone else with an opinion on this? Oicumayberight 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed sections
I removed the section on "Design Pollution" from the terminology section. It has little to do with terminology. Pollution is not a common term to describe bad design. The section also lacked WP:NPOV by implying that bad design is rarely if ever the fault of the designer. Oicumayberight 19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Icons
Can we start a discussion here about the icons rather than edit-warring? Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL while doing so. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Sure. I don't see a problem, with having them. The only 2 users that have had a problem with them are just arguing their own opinions and taste. They can't speak for the millions of readers when they say that the icons don't help visual learning. Even if they seem childish, it snobbish to delete them for that reason alone because children read the wikipedia. I have yet to hear a case for why the icons are misleading. They've been there for over a year with no problem. I'm going to put them back up so anyone who wants to weigh in on this will at least see the icons we are discussing. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I am all for visual learning (I want to see icons on DAB pages for example) but these seem out-of-place. Example pictures of "design in art" or "design and engineering" would be great, I just don't see what a series of KDE application icons have to do with design. Plus, almost all of them picture dividers, so it's unclear how the differ. The dividers all have a Qt logo in their hinge, which is a non sequitur. Furthermore, it's just nonstandard for Wikipedia articles to have icons for each section heading. With all that in mind, I don't see any reason to keep them. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Icons are pictures. Just because they are illustrated and not photographed doesn't make them any less clear. If anything, illustrations are more reducible. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the icons somewhat confusing, and maybe unnecessary. I honestly couldn't tell what some of the icons represented, either literally or symbolically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.243 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Confusion is relative to the observer. Tell me what's inaccurate about the icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * So, what's the verdict? Only Oicumayberight is in favour, so can we have them removed now? Oicumayberight can't speak (or edit) for 'millions of readers', either. The icons seem to have been put there by someone with nothing better to do. They are just eye-candy, not visual learning devices. Bristolian46 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Get rid of the icons. I dislike them. Necz0r (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Get a moderator if you want to get rid of them. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia operates by consensus, and I see consensus for removal. Only one editor wants them to stay, and that may be a sign of ownership issues.  192.65.41.20 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A compromise has been reached as treatment of the icons have since been edited by one of the objectors. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this before i removed the imaged but as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate .Wiki is a serious encyclopaedia not a children's book. I removed the images and they should not return . They really lower the tone of this very high profile article Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The icons are for more than decoration, so the manual of style doesn't apply in this case. There is an obvious visual learning association here, and only a complete idiot would not see the association between what is discussed and the imagery of the symbols. As for the tone, that's a matter of personal taste. This article benefits young readers more than old snobbish "expert" editors. If there were less primary colors used in the icons, would you have less of a problem with them? Oicumayberight (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The icon don't add any additional information and thus are decoration. Idiot and snobbish are a Personal attack. I don't care how many colours are in the icons, they are not need. Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * No personal attacks were made because "idiot" and "snobbish" weren't directed at any specific user. The icons add visual information to all but the blind. Face it, it's highly unlikely any professional designer will read this article for any reason other than to get confirmation of what they already believe or know. It's mostly young readers that actually learn from articles like this. This notion that the icons do not help visual learning is baseless. You'd have to interview every person who has read this article to prove that none of them were helped by the icons. It would be one thing if you said that the icons were misleading. But personal taste is no reason to undo the work. There is no harm in them being there even if you don't like them. At least Necz0r gave logical reasons for not liking them and found a positive compromising solution. If you can't do that, then get a moderator if you don't think they should be there. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) If this method of "visual learning" is so effective, then why is this the only article on Wikipedia that uses some of these icons? There is a huge difference between using an icon image in something like (found at the bottom of tagged stub pages) and as an inline image to decorate the section headers. How is a generic square root symbol illustrative of "Design and Engineering"? It's just gratuituous, and it doesn't have support from any editors here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not true that there is no support for the icons. After much more reasonable discussion than what's been used against me in this section, Necz0r agreed on this talk page that the icons were useful in the terminology section. But since you two are ganging up on me in an edit war, I'm not going to fight your lack of concern for younger users who are less familiar with design anymore. I've added more photos and captions to the section so they can at least have a visual reference for what is being discussed. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The new images you added in that section are significantly more informative—or dare I say "encyclopedic"?—than the abstract icon images. Thank you for that substantive improvement to this article.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to second that. Those images exemplify their topics rather than just being icons. Good work. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems
This article has more than one problem. It's not sourced well enough to be making the claims it does, in my opinion. It's not very well structured to give any sort of basic understanding to design. Considering its role as a sort of crossroads leading out into all the various branches of design that may be, it does a bad job at being the tying knot. If people don't mind, I'll go ahead and be bold when possible. Necz0r (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your contribution and integrated much of it with my last edit to restore text. Please be more specific about what is inaccurate or poorly written. Please do not delete text or links without explanations. We don't want to oversimplify the subject or edit it for the sake of people who already know the full scope of the subject. From my interviews with people, I gather that it's mostly teenagers who benefit from this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * You're right, I should probably have expanded a bit on that. But I really quite like the resulting new text! However, the introduction of an article is actually the one place where simplification is encouraged in order to better pull in readers at all levels, as the remaining sections of an article is used to expand on all these things. The introduction should never be too in-depth, less so with teenagers. Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Design is one of those words that are easy to oversimplify. Most introduction sections define the term and scope of the term. We could have a section titled "what is design"; but that wouldn't leave much for the introduction section. There are many wikipedia articles with long lead sections just because the scope of the term cannot be summed up in a few sentences. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm satisfied with what we have now, at the moment :D Necz0r (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Alright, let me post some of my immediate qualms with this article except from it being unsourced. For one, it's not very well pulled together, it doesn't flow very well. In the section of "philosophies for guiding design", all we see is a definition on what a design philosophy is, although you'd expect that bit of information being right in the section above it, and then one very broad and unsourced sample of one such. Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * This article has come a long way. The reason I got involved was because it seem that nobody else was willing to give this article the attention it deserved. This is what it looked like before I got involved in it. True, it lacks sources. However, not everything on wikipedia that should be there can be sourced. There's a fine line between WP:OR and WP:POV stating the obvious. Those unsourced POV statements of the obvious are the glue that holds most wikipedia articles together, especially the ones that involve art. The goal should always be to get sourced information; but unless there is a problem with an unsourced statement, there's no need to remove it. Unsourced information is better than no information. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll spend some time gathering some useful sources. Indeed, some stuff is obvious and does not need sourcing. But I think we could go a while before only having those left. Necz0r (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * But I also want to question the positioning of the entire section on design philosophy. Speaking clearly, ones' design philosophy is simply used to decide which parts of the design process would be considered important or less important. Considering the paragraph in the introduction about so much attention being put on the process of design, it would be much better to expand on this basic concept before going into the philosophy section. Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * If I'm heavily involved in editing an article such as the case with this one, I structure it in order of what I think those less familiar with the subject would be interested in. I may be wrong on this, but I assumed that the first question an aspiring designer or someone who was just curious would ask is why. Philosophy attempts to answer why even if the answers are not correct or expected. Process attempts to answer how. But if you feel strongly that process should come before purpose, we can give it a try. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Well indeed! This is certainly the best thing to start an article. But I definitely think that design philosophy is but a performer on the stage of the design process, and so it would be, in my opinion, a more solid foundation to expand a bit on the design process before going in depth with the various philosophies. It would b like trying to explain cooking philosophies without explaining how cooking basically works. And all design basically works by the process. Necz0r (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * However, the design process section is not too well put together, either. In the subsection that is meant to define what a design process is, which doesn't really need a subsection because it should be the most basic information of all in this section (and thus should come before subsections), 75% of the text is taken from some talk. The problem is that the definition of a process could probably be found in more than one source. The other problem is that it's badly sourced, the way it's put up. There is no reference to the resource where one would be able to find and verify this information, and it's a Wikipedia editor relaying the information. More appropriate would be to refer to the available resource and then make use of direct quotation. Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * This again is a case of something being better than nothing. If you have some information that is better, I would suggest you add it to the article. If it's saying the same thing that the unsourced information says, then I would say replace it. However, if it neither contradicts nor repeats what is said, I would integrate it, keeping what is important, regardless of who said it or if it's sourced. It's more important to have a complete story with a combination of sourced and unsourced content than to have a bunch of fragmented but sourced content that doesn't cover the scope of what most people would be interested in regarding the subject. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * But after having passed through these sections, it breeds only further confusion that the last section in the article before seeing various disciplines, external links, etc., would be one trying to define the word design again?! "Terminology" - "The word "design" is often considered ambiguous depending on the application." - wait, so this entire article I haven't even been clear what the term means yet? What about the introduction? There has to be a more clear way of relaying the point of that section. Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I moved the terminology section to the end because it's the least important. Most of it is semantics. I would probably say that the article didn't need it at all, but "Design" is one of those words that are used loosely so often that most people are rarely certain of what it means, or even the extent of the meaning in context. The section is to contrast the meaning from other terms. The only term I can think of that is used more loosely and is more vague in context is the term art. The wikipedia article on art doesn't start with the terminology dispute. There is a whole separate article on classificatory disputes about art. I don't think that is necessary for design. But again, this section could precede the other sections if you think it's more important. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It's definitely the least important. I am just dabbling on how to improvement, no bids yet, simply stating a problem. Necz0r (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Finally, considering the section "process design" and in the introduction, "More recently, processes (in general) have also been treated as products of design, giving new meaning to the term "process design".", I'm surprised such a statement can be put here by an editor without any sources. We learn that this is a recent development, so where's the obviously existing source...Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I made that POV statement because process design was a chemical engineering term long before it was used as an information age consulting business term. A simple google search will yield both uses of the term. The only reason it's in the article is to make that contrast. The only thing yet to be proven is which came first. If there were an article for business process design, we could just link the term in the design disciplines section. But for now, there should at least be some explanation of the alternate use of the term in the article, sourced or unsourced. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Alright. Necz0r (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * This is what I think in general, and I don't like the icons. Necz0r (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * What specifically is it that you don't like about the icons? Are they inaccurate, too vague, or too juvenile? Personal taste is not enough of a reason to remove content from any wikipedia article. I'm not completely against removing them, but I'm guessing that they help more than they hurt. Keep in mind that the people who benefit from them will probably not be editors and wouldn't be reading the talk page to know that their usefulness is in question. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I wanted to write that "I think they definitely hurt more than they help. They distracted me more than a few times during reading, pulling away my concentration. They're not useful", but actually, what I mainly don't like would probably be the placement. I think it'd be better to place them close to the headline, not out on the right. The first one appearing in the page, and the next one, simply confused me at first. But they're useful in the terminology section. Necz0r (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Considering the flow of the article, we should probably decide on the last line of the introduction as it can be used to lead into the first section. If the "philosophies" section comes first, it would be more meaningful having this be the last part of the last sentence in the introduction. If we move up the design process section, as it is now would be good :D Necz0r (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I moved the section up. I appreciate your input on this. I would like to see more people involved in editing the Design article. I started the Design Wikipedians category and user box with the hope of getting more people involve. If you browse the edit history, you'll see that I've put more than a fair share of time in attempting to improve this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Edited a bit, mainly icons and images. I'll be back in a few days with some books and ideas. Design is such an excellent subject, I believe the overlying article leading out into all the branches of design should be nothing short of excellent and feature-worthy. Necz0r (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Substantial Page Rework
I am willing and (having just finished my PhD dissertation on Design Science) hopefully qualified to put a lot of work into improving this page. I started by reworking the introduction. I tried to integrate some of the existing text where it fit, but ended up replacing a lot of it. Please leave comments here. I'll give it a week or two, and if no one objects, I will rework another section or two. I think that the major topics that this page should address are: 1) design philosophy, 2) design science, 3) the design process, 4) design methods and method engineering, 5) differences between design in different disciplines, 6) the relationship between design and ethics. Some of these are already here, the others I propose to add. Thoughts anyone? Paulralph (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As nobody has objected, I'm going to update the second section to reflect diverse views on the steps designers engage in. If anyone has any suggestions or objections, please discuss here. It may take a few days for me to put together the content. Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reworked the second section (design as a process) to better reflect diverse views on the activities designers engage in. Existing text is partially preserved in the subsection about typical stages associated with the Rational Model. I've referenced the content as much as possible, focusing on well-respected books and peer-reviewed journal and conference papers. I have also begun migrating to a citation/bibliography split format, which makes more sense when you refer to the same papers multiple times. If this is acceptable, I will continue the migration soon. Please check my work for typos, bias and other mistakes. If you feel that this is not a good update, please discuss improvements here rather than reverting. Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rework. Can you indicate where all the references were actually used? --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ronz, thanks for positive response. The Footnotes section should provide the mapping between the text and the reference list - or have I misunderstood your request? Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Good work. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Content removal needed
Half of this article is written by one person--presumably Dino himself--on what Dino Dini thinks design is. Unless somebody can show the notability of this person in the field of design and how this doesn't constitute original research I'm pretty much going to remove that entire section. Wentomowameadow (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Ha, I was just removing it as you wrote that. Dini, as he stated in his additions, is a video game developer; he is not really enough of a famed design guru to be filling the article on "Design" generally with his opinions. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was reverted again. I removed the section and asked the editor to discuss it here. This section is unsourced and POV: the only source given is a link which is unavailable. We don't publish original research which this is: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV all apply.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone can find independent sources demonstrating Dini's views are worth including, then a small portion might be reintroduced, if properly verified, neutral, and without undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Design Philosophies / Philosophy of Design
I'd like to open a space to specifically discuss philosophy and design. At the moment the article includes a welcome attempt to describe issues in this area but it leaves a lot to be desired.

In attempting to improve this area I would suggest making a clear distinction between design philosophies (working theories, ideas, attitudes etc that guide the work of practicing designers), and the Philosophy of Design (contesting theories about the nature of design produced by recognised theorists, philosophers, academics etc.). Of course in reality there might be some blurring or fluidity between these distinctions, but nevertheless I think it is helpful recognise that the philosophical study of design is not the same thing as the working conceptual schema of everyday design practice. A useful comparison might also be that of the theories and philosophies embodied in art movements vs theories and philosophies of aesthetics.

Applying these distinctions to what is currently represented in the article, it is not unfair to say that the current content is muddled, speculative, and fails to represent much of what has been published on these topics. The attempts to actually try to give design a philosophical definition in this article are appalling and uncalled for. What is needed is an overview of what key authors/groups have said regarding design, and an account of dominant areas of philosophical debate within the (very young) field. Ideally an additional article on the philosophy of design would be useful to link to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirrmy (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Operational design
It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of operational design—the relatively new process used by the US military (and others) as a competing process for solving a problem (in simplistic terms). I don't see it as a design discipline at the bottom of the article either. There's been a few dozen books and articles written on this though. Have any other editors here heard of this? --Airborne84 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Design as a Process
The beginning of this section seems a bit too formal and too cautious. It is not necessary to "posit" anything about the model. The model doesn't exist independently - you won't discover later that you were wrong. Since the model is itself a concept created by a person, it has whatever characteristics designers most often associate with that model. So, you can just move directly to describing it (as the rest of the section does very well).Blcklbl (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Design and the sciences
Seems like there could be a (sub-)section on design and the scientific method - specifically the conceptual processes in research design and design of experiments. Perhaps under terminology?--A12n (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Experience optimizaation
Experience optimization (contextually - IT domain) can be defined as a symbiotic process between design (Interaction which is outcome research and analysis, editorial, Visual) and technology (implementation process) that work towards achieving the short term and long term business intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaramanikandan (talk • contribs) 05:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/bt/Documents/KirkebyInterviewMedBF4%200PRINT.pdf
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the blacklist problem
I have deleted the broken and blacklisted link and the message from Cyberbot II,  jacksalssome 17/01/2014  —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition in lede
I removed the latest addition to the definition in the lede of the article. There ae some good points here that need to be addressed. The lede should have a concise definition, while the article body should expand upon the definition and address related issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Karl Ulrich of the University of Pennsylvandia defines design as: "Conceiving and giving form to artifacts that solve problems."

Ulrich draws upon the definitions proposed by Edgar Kaufmann Jr. and Klaus Krippendorf. Kaufman, while curator of the industrial design department at the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) 1946–1948, defined design as: “Conceiving and giving form to objects used in everyday life”

Klaus Krippendorf and Reinhart Butter defined design as: "The conscious creation of forms to serve human needs.”

Another definition for design is ''a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective.''

Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed.

Current tagging
stub for process Lycurgus (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Do see 1 problem with clause 'and even methods of design". The given source talks about methodology oriented software development technologies. I sort of expected something about patterns. Pattern construction would have worked. Will wait for overall text review before doing anything. Lycurgus (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Conceptual design
Conceptual design — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.110.194 (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitions from ISO and SEBoK
Well, my edit has been reverted by Freshacconci. He not only left no comments but also marked his edit as "Minor edit". He anyway violated the rule: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist... Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute". It is clear that both my edit and Freshacconci's edit were not minor at all. So I want to get answer why my edit was reverted and why Freshacconci is violating rules. Евгений Мирошниченко (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * your edit was reverted because your definitions are from very specific domain, namely systems design, while the term is extremely generic. And Freshacconci probably has the default setting to label his edits as minor. He must change his edit preferences unless vast majority of his edits a re minor (types, etc.). - üser:Altenmann >t 23:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you but it is you assumption, not his answer. Nevertheless my edit was not vandal and used very reliable sources, so Freshacconci had to substantiate his reversal very seriously. But he left no comments and marked his edit as "Minor". It is not a behavior pattern of an experienced user. As to you argument, well. Now the article is.. very strange, I can say politely. It is actually about systems design so it seems to be a fork for systems design supplemented with some week references to "arts" field ("industrial design") and little-known theory of "The Rational Model". The majority of the "Terminology" section is about systems design: "Design and engineering", "Design and production". The majority of the sources is about engineering, mainly software engineering. And finally the current definition from "the Cambridge Dictionary of American English" is also about systems design. So there is no such a thing, "design" in general sence. There are quite different meanings of this word, and these meanings simply cannot be described in the same article. Cannot be and must not be. This artice should be turned into a disambiguation page providing simple access to different meanings of "design". I don't want to force my opinion and don't want to "fight" for it. So I say goodbye and thank you all. But guys, trust me, this article is actually abominable and you should do something with this. Евгений Мирошниченко (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the article is shit. The subject is very generic. It waits a review by an experienced and involved person. Quite possible there are sources which discuss "design" in very generic terms. May be these sources are already used in the article. Unfortunately I don't care. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the lede and basic definitions
As this talk page is a bit of a dog's breakfast, I think it's important to start this discussion once again. The last attempt was a few years ago. An edit war yesterday necessitates opening this discussion. Design as a topic is, if not a core article, at least important enough to warrant work towards a stable version. Right now it occasionally attracts editors who feel their personal definition is the proper one and set out to change the lead paragraph, usually without consideration of manual of style issues or general guidelines regarding the lede, as happened yesterday. So with this, I will start the discussion. Please read the guidelines on article lead paragraphs and remember that this is an article about design as a whole, not a subset of design.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , : Yes, but . . . The current lead section doesn't comply with Wiki guidelines. The talk page and the whole article (including the lead section) are indeed a dog's breakfast, and the recent edit war is very disappointing to see. Because of this, I am reluctant to get involved, but the insistence on maintaining the introductory 'Design is the creation of a plan or convention' seems mis-guided. How is a design a 'convention'? Please look it up: Convention. It makes no sense to say 'Design is . . . a convention'. Similarly with 'measurable human interaction' - it makes no sense. So, IMHO, the most recent edit by "Knotwood-V" (22 November 2018) seems reasonable and should be maintained: 'Design is the creation of a plan and or schema for the construction of an object, system or behaviour.' Designergene (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey all, I don't actually have much of an interest or stake in the proposed changes to the lede; while patrolling recent changes, I happened upon the IP editing against consensus where there was a previous dispute and figured it might be the editor who was asked to bring their changes to the talk page editing while logged out. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * fixing ping; I originally misspelled your username; sorry about that! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So some of the editing has not been very constructive then. Within a day or two I will make a serious attempt to provide an appropriately revised lead section. I hope it won't be casually reverted. Designergene (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Neoclassical images
The recent (November 2019) addition of a set of images of neoclassical furnishings gives a dramatic new impression to the whole Design article. I don't find them appropriate or useful additions to the article. They are collectively captioned as 'Various examples of design sketches' but they lack variety and are misleading as to what a design sketch is. They lack variety because they are limited solely to furniture or furnishings, and representing work of one particular historical period or style. They are misleading because they depict finished drawings of design proposals rather than the tentative conceptualisations normally associated with a design sketch. They (perhaps) belong elsewhere as illustrations of neoclassical style in interior design. Here, they convey a very restricted interpretation of 'Design' (the article topic) and do not relate to any of the other content of the article and therefore do not 'illustrate' anything in the article. The editor who inserted the images, 'Neoclassicism Enthusiast', may be well intentioned, and is obviously enthusiastic about neoclassicism, but the images are a misplaced intrusion into this particular article. I suggest that they are inappropriate and should be removed. Designergene (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above note has been here for over 7 days and has received no comments. Wikipedia Manual of Style has clear guidelines on the use of images. For example, on Pertinence and Encyclopedic Nature: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." The neoclassical images are not relevant to the context and are primarily decorative. And, on Images for the Lead: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." The neoclassical images do not fulfil this function and are actually misrepresenting the page. So I will remove them. Designergene (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes User:Neoclassicism Enthusiast (the clue's in the name) usually/always overdoes it. But the article, on a very visual subject, does need more images, per the MOS you cite. Lots more. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Deſign" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Deſign. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is well reviewed, have strong elements and good sources. I think it would be a good idea to maybe add some photos just to make it more interesting. It helped me improved my article because it gave me ideas on how to edit mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVB2020UPRC (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

graphic design
graphic design — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.177.172.132 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is intentional design already covered here?
I was reading this article http://purposeandperspective.co/hand-crafted/ while editing the Wikipedia article on the subject, and it reminded me of a concept I'd seen alluded to in other articles but never understood: intentional design. I was thinking of creating a separate Wikipedia article on intentional design and started gathering references and concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greg_Dahlen/intentional_design?venotify=created#Intentional_design. But I would like to know if the current article on Design, the subject of this talk page, already covers it? It would have to be under a different term than "intentional design," since that term isn't in the article. I'm not facile enough yet with these concepts of design approach to say if intentional design is already covered in the Design article and hence I don't need to create a new, separate article.

When it comes to intentional design, I'm thinking generally in terms of product design. Greg Dahlen (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Looks like another name for User-centered design. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 * It isn't covered here, and I don't think it belongs here. If it belongs anywhere I'd suggest it's within UX design. The sources (blogs) you cite are not reliable, and I cannot understand from them what they intend to mean about ‘intentional design’. I found the blog https://uxplanet.org/successful-ux-design-is-intentional-design-73398a91ced confusing. Designers do normally design ‘with intention’; the blog is something about weirdly designing without purpose and then post-rationalising it. The blog https://fourandthree.com/blog/5-elements-of-intentional-design seems to confuse ‘intentional’ purpose with ‘intuitive’ use of product features. Designergene (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

'Types' - proposal to delete section.
The ‘Types’ section now seems out of date and confused. ‘Art’, ‘Engineering’ and ‘Production’ are not ‘types’ of design. ‘Process design’ is already linked in the list of ‘Design disciplines’ as are Engineering design and Production design and Applied arts, etc. So the ‘Types’ section seems to be un-necessary. It seems to be a kind of limited set of statements of ‘compare and contrast’ design with art, engineering, etc. Why? The opening sentence refers to ‘various fields’ rather than ‘types’, and the section below lists ‘Design disciplines’, which are particular types of design fields or application areas. The whole section is confused and composed of loose generalisations or opinions. It doesn’t add to understanding of Design, which is now sufficiently well-established on its own to not need to try to explain how it is different from art, engineering, etc. I would like to propose that it is no longer fit for purpose and should be deleted. Designergene (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Designergene, Feel free to be bold and remove the section in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Just do whatever feels right to you – you will improve the article much faster this way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

home
say about it 175.100.10.3 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Eames quote
I reverted the addition of a Charles Eames quote to the lead. My edit summary was: removed quote that is too ambiguous for the lead section: it doesn't make a clear statement about the subject, doesn't adequately summarize the cited source, and, e.g., some problem solving may occur not by design but by trial and error, so it may not be true that the boundaries of design are equivalent to the boundaries of problems as the quote could be interpreted. Please discuss if you disagree. Biogeographist (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What is design
marketing 102.128.79.60 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Design


text:
Feldkirch

Feldkirch may refer to:

Places

 * Feldkirch, Vorarlberg, a medieval city and capital of an administrative district in Austria
 * Feldkirch (district), an administrative division of Vorarlberg, Austria
 * Feldkirch (Hartheim), a village in the municipality Hartheim, in Baden-Württemberg, Germany
 * Feldkirch, Haut-Rhin, a commune (municipality) in France
 * County of Feldkirch, a county in the Holy Roman Empire

Other uses

 * Battle of Feldkirch, a 1799 battle between Republican France and Habsburg Austria
 * VEU Feldkirch, a professional ice hockey team from Feldkirch, Austria

title: Feldkirch