Google maps clearly shows the 3 square enclosures one inside the other, I'm not sure that from the ground we have a good view of this.

Copan and Forbidden City? With Odeasa and Rome.
Not the other staircases of the Mayan pyramids but the Copan one is exceptional.

Things may have changed or it may depend on who you "baksheesh"! Also there seems to be potential confusion about different rules inside and outside the Temple itself. Generally the ubiquity of mobile Phones has made it harder and harder for authorities around the World to enforce complete bans. I remember having to check my camera in at the Khomeini Mausoleum... only to find everyone inside using mobiles..... who I then promptly joined!!,
See this article (scroll down a bit) in rather convoluted English from 2020. It suggests that there were still "No Photography" notices but implementation was varied......

This review talks of buying photography tickets without making clear whether they are valid inside the Temple building itself -but does include an inside photo. You can actually read the "No Photography" sign in this photo!!!!!

And then the same source (scroll down) writes this elsewhere "Little has changed here. You still can't take photos inside. Why? But the blatant bribing of guards continues if you do want to take a photo or even take a piece of the inner temple home with you."

Ha ha - "More than 500 steps"!
Potemkin only has 192 and Spanish only 174...... but the Bom Jesus de Braga has 577 ...so should be added??

I think the idea was that the WHS has "famous" steps even though that would be subjective. 1000 steps of Haifa?

Of course - I was merely confirming that neither would "get in" on one the 2 current Connections we have for Steps/Stairs - Over 500 (The other being Double Helix).

Quite a lot of the very long ones would/could also generally be considered "famous" - any definition of that (if we were to have it) should ideally minimize the number of duplicates and maximize the number of new sites. One consideration might be whether they are "famous" enough to be identifiable even without mentioning where they are - thus confirming a degree of "Iconic uniqueness". Limiting to out door "steps" (rather than stairways in buildings) "Potemkin" and "Spanish" would pass that test - but not "hieroglyphic stairway". Copan might be famous and monumental but there are others at Palenque and elsewhere. I suppose also that any stairway on a Pyramid should be considered a part of a "building"?

Solivagant
You'll find I have included the medina of tetouan among moorish architecture.
Mudejar and moorish architecture are frequently confused but the former is an eclectic style. Sometimes It's about as moorish as it's gothic or renaissance. As such I wouldn't include It in a moorish connection, but that's my opinion.

Honestly, I was very surprised to find out there's no connection for moorish architecture. It is a very distinct style (low lying buildings, cubic shape squares minarets, horseshoe arches, extensive geometric and floral decoration, extensive use of muqarnas, ...) and It's surprisingly consistent across the Mahgreb and Iberia, because of crossed influences. Imo It's a very clear connection. Though as elsslots said ksar ait ben hadou first better in vernacular architecture and mazagan's architecture is not moorish at all.

As you say, nasrid architecture would very much be a subcategory. Though the concept is not unheard of. Afterall we do have duplication in european architectural connections. Churrigueresque and barroque for example. Granted perhaps three sites IS still too few for such a dubious connection. Anyway, I think It might be time as you say to comprehensibly standardize the connections for islamic architecture, which at the moment seem to very much go on a case by case scenario.
I think for moorish architecture we could go with the wikipedia Split: early architecture, "rival caliphates", political fragmentation, almoravids (i think this one doesn't have 3 sites!!), Almohad (already a connection) and "Marinids, Nasrids, and Zayyanids".

elsslots
Ok let's do a better job: Moorish architecture is a style within Islamic architecture which developed in the western Islamic world, including al-Andalus (on the Iberian peninsula) and what is now Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia (part of the Maghreb). It became a unique style over centuries with recognizable features such as the horseshoe arch, riad gardens (courtyard gardens with a symmetrical four-part division), square (cuboid) minarets, and elaborate geometric and arabesque motifs in wood, stucco, and tilework (notably zellij). Over time, this western style made increasing use of surface decoration while also retaining a tradition of focusing attention on the interior of buildings rather than their exterior. Unlike Islamic architecture further east, this style did not make prominent use of large vaults and domes.

The connection would be reserved for sites which have significant testaments to this architectural tradition.

Furthermore ksar beit han adou, M'zab valley, Medina of essaouira, mazagan and Sintra are dropped from the connection. Rabat does have the uddaya kasbah and Hassan tower, so imo it's on the line.

Almohad is a (political) historical connection. For the new one, Moorish architecture, it's best to focus on the architectural elements and I'll gladly use your new description of that connection. Will try to add the connected sites including examples/quotes/sources. Will report back if I have questions or doubts!

Have a first one already: Toledo's Mosque of Cristo de la Luz. Is it Mudejar or Moorish Architecture?
AB ev: does name the mosque (as Bib Mardum) among the Islamic Art Monuments, and names several (other) examples of Mudejar architecture in the city
Wiki: names both, implying that the main structure is Moorish and that there are a few later additions which are Mudejar.

So for Andalusian sites, can we assume that architecture made when under Arab rule is seen as Moorish Architecture, and later* but similar-looking works are Mudejar? (* later as defined as "after the Reconquest", which year differs per city)

In the case of Toledo, keep both connections and add explanations to both.

Good.
Agree that Mudejar is NOT a sub category of Moorish (and neither is Neo-Moorish!)
I still have a few issues about categories and sub-categories of Architecture. Have just had a look at Churrigueresque. Of its 12 entries 9 are also connected under Baroque. The 3 that are not (Cordoba, Salamanca and Segovia) OUGHT to be under Baroque as well surely - and even more so!!? Are we happy that something is being gained by having both Connections? Often it isn't clear inf the same buildings are being used to justify each Connection. If they are.....? Certainly there could be "added value" in highlighting "Churrigueresque" as a sub-category bu if the same buildings are in both then the same benefit could be obtained by either mentioning in the Baroque Connection that "Churrigueresque" has its own connection of by mentioning the sub-category for each entry where relevant. I just don't know.
We could just decide to allow sub category "duplicates" where we feel the sub category is worth highlighting. Els has suggested that Almohad is more of a "historical" definition than an architectural one ... and presumably the same for "Marinids, Nasrids, and Zayyanids". That distinction wouldn't work for the "Churrigueresque" sub categoy.

I would do so, as the Connections were always meant to be a loose collection of sites. While for the Categories we try to assign only 1 per site, so those need a more rigid structure.

In general, it helps already to add explanations to the connected sites. So you know what to specifically look for when walking around a site.

I wasn't using the word "Category" in that sense here - but as a category of Architecture (e.g "Baroque" or "Moorish") which themselves have subcategories (e.g "Churrigueresque" and "Almohad") and trying to work out a set of rules as to when we should (or should not) have both levels as Connections - even where, as in the cases above, both would result in the duplication of entries.

Yes I understand


I think it is unavoidable, as when we would go for only the most specific connection (Churri), we cannot subdivide all other Baroque sites into other specific connections as some may not have 3 sites to connect.

Also, I think Churrigueresque often only covers a specific element of the site (a door, a facade), while the whole church for example can be general baroque.

Have done Spain. That went fairly well and have updated the site connection with examples of both Mudejar and Moorish architecture elements.

On to Morocco now. Starting at Rabat - here we immediately stumble upon the use of the word "Moorish" exclusively in the context of people who came (back) from Al-Andalus in the 17th century.

There is a danger in the connection (as defined at Wiki) that 'Moorish' or 'Western Islamic' architecture is mostly a geographical grouping. Like 'Scandinavian architecture'. It needs a period as well I think. But let me try a few more from Algeria and Tunisia.