Talk:Doric order

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 28 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psloann. Peer reviewers: Rpoyer1, Dinahmiles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2017 and 3 January 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KnightOrnstein.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

This has been moved here:

(quote removed due to copyright infringement O8TY (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC))"

"Doric" refers to a cultural group of Greeks, as does Ionic order. "Dorus" is an invented eponym for these Greeks. "Mother mushroom" is apparently a private dream. --Wetman (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Adult supervision of this article is urgently requested. The account O8TY was opened for the purpose of inserting this intentionally disruptive nonsense: see its Contributions History.--Wetman (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fungitecture™" [sic]

The following external link has been inserted here and at various other articles: www.fungitecture.com/about.html A sense of what's up with this ican be had from the following introductory statement: "The term Fungitecture was coined to describe the peculiar resemblance between certain ancient styles of monumental architecture and the fruit of one or other species of fungus. However, Fungitecture also serves as an umbrella term covering a much wider field of human endeavour, wherever fungus imagery, lore or substance may have been invoked." There are no references to any responsible peer-reviewed literature, needless to say. This does not show Wikipedia in a flattering light, in my opinion.--Wetman (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wetman's incompetent reference to link correctedO8TY (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The name "Fungitecture" is a trademark and must be recognised as such. O8TY (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See also response here. [O8TY:Talk] O8TY (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

inspiring modern art

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663306/the-worlds-most-complex-architecture-cardboard-columns-with-16-million-facets Hansmeyer developed his concept by taking a traditional Doric column and feeding the form into his computer where his subdivision algorithm could go to work on it.

(also see http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html?screenSize=1&color=0#8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.140.119 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

errors

This article has several factual errors. There are 2 grooves, not 3 in a triglyph. There are 3 raised portions, and 2 grooves.

Also the Doric order was widely used in interior design in architecture in the UK and North America by the 1740s or so. So its revival was long before the early 19th c. "Greek Revival" period. I'm sure any architectural historian could point to dozens of examples of the use of Doric in the middle 18th c.

Pt 1 changed. On pt 2, are there really many that are fully Doric rather than informal Tuscan? In America??? Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Doric order/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

(removed for copyright violation)O8TY (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Let's play marbles.

Last edited at 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict with remark on another page

This page says of Doric, "It was the earliest and in its essence the simplest of the orders," and yet the page linked in the same paragraph says in section 3, "Sometimes the Doric order is considered the earliest order, but there is no evidence to support this. Rather, the Doric and Ionic orders seem to have appeared at around the same time, the Ionic in eastern Greece and the Doric in the west and mainland." Neither statement is given citation, I can't confirm which is right, but a consistent position should be taken, even if that is one of uncertainty. --Dean Sayers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.152.26.190 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Good catch! The other article you refer to is Classical order. I'll look into this when I can, but likely someone else will get there first. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

12 December edits

The scope of this series of edits by ‎KnightOrnstein was large: a significant amount of content was removed, along with some images, and the structure of the article was altered radically. It occurs to me that edit summaries, while very welcome, are probably not up to the task of explaining all of this, so I'm opening a discussion. In addition, I noted a number of glaring errors of grammar, spelling, etc., which left the article in a really bad way. Therefore, I have undone the changes. Let's find consensus. Pinging Johnbod, who has edited this extensively in the not-too-distant past. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 09:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that what might be termed a 'bold revert' was in order for changes that were not a clear improvement. It would be best to get a statement of the shortcomings of the article and the improvements required, then if they can be agreed, move on to sources, and specific changes. William Avery (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, on a quick look that seems the best move. The new version had only 4 extra references (8 to 12 - still not enough for sure). A lot of the more technical stuff was just removed, and replaced with more discursive and perhaps over-basic introductory stuff on Greek influence and Rome, Vitruvius (or "Virtruvius" as he calls him) and so on. In fact a version combining the old & new is probably possible. If ‎KnightOrnstein has not finished, he might want to transfer his version to a "sandbox" (User:‎KnightOrnstein/Doric order) and continue working on it there. I'll wait for responses, but at some point I'll sift through the changes looking for a final version - or just a better one, which is certainly possible. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the user who did the heavy editing. I will admit I am a novice to Wikipedia who was editing an article for one of my courses. I apologize for no consultation with regards to the drastic changes I made to the article. Despite the commotion it has caused, I meant no harm. I simply found the article's organization to be a bit unfocused and attempted to streamline and condense it into simpler and easier sections to read. As for the spelling errors, I will not hide my faults. I should have proofread everything I had written more than a couple of times. To misspell the name Vitruvius is embarrassing since I am a practicing art historian whose focus is European art. If possible, I would like to see my edits and hard work come to fruition, so if there are suggestions as to how to integrate or improve this article with my contributions, I would much like to hear them.--KnightOrnstein (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And how well do you think you succeeded? Frankly I think your supervisor should have steered you away from such a popular page on a complex subject. Your colleagues on the course (most anyway) seem to have mostly made more suitable choices, of less highly-visible articles that were less well-developed. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not very well if it was reverted back. However, I do see a sentence I added still present despite it being an overly broad generalization that you, Johnbod, pointed out and that, I, corrected in the new article I placed before it was reverted back. You have all spoken that some of the edits I made could be combined with the existing article and I clearly see this edit was kept despite the information not being as specific as my final product. So, I ask for suggestions as I continue to edit this article on my sandbox. Is there anything I can integrate? Do I have permission to not remove, but rearrange some sections? I ask now less any future edits be in vein.KnightOrnstein (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, KnightOrnstein. You don't need anyone's permission to edit the article—we're all volunteers here, and all on an equal footing—but thanks for asking. I'd suggest that you describe here, as clearly and concisely as possible, the changes you want to make, and give others the chance to vehemently object, enthusiastically approve or (most likely) respond somewhere in between. Alternatively, you can try just making the changes, but maybe only one or two at a time, and see if they stick. If there's just a little clean-up to do, I'm much more likely to do it, and less likely to revert. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It was a mistake to just remove so much stuff, without any coverage replacing it. The article structure doesn't really seem any clearer after compared to before, but perhaps I'm biased, as I wrote some of the before. I have to say the copyediting of eg the lead did not seem to me to lead to improvement. I'd either set out what you want to do here, as User:Rivertorch suggests, or try a new draft in userspace for people to look at, as I suggested earlier. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for both your suggestions. I understand I need no permission and I understand we are all on equal footing, but I also understand that the two of you have much more experience at this than I do. It is very clear in the works both of you have done that I decided to look over, so I feel the need to ask. It is hard to judge emotion via text, but I hope I have not offended either of you. I will make some changes and I will (without a doubt) spellcheck them. I have a CSET test to take today, so expect them to be posted here or integrated more smoothly in to the article come tomorrow or so. Once again, thank you for being patient with me.KnightOrnstein (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is ‎KnightOrnstein's instructor. I'd like to thank everyone for helping him as he works on this project. I have a few ideas for places where he could concentrate his efforts, without deleting content previously written. I think the major issue with ‎KnightOrnstein's edits is that it was unclear why some information was in the "History" heading and some information was in the "Characteristics" heading. I would advise him against such a reorganization going forward. However, here are some places where he could make a good contribution:

• He has good information on theories about the origin of the Doric order (cited in Ian Jenkins's book) and I think that could be added back in under the "Greek" subheading, making sure that the grammar errors are worked out.
• I think that ‎KnightOrnstein could also add the subheading "Vitruvius" under the "Roman" heading and flesh out that section, adding quotes from Vitruvius's text.

Thoughts? Again, thanks for your patience. Rmmiller364 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, as does the next section. I'll be busy until early January, but will look then. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@KnightOrnstein: You haven't offended. @Rmmiller364: Off the top of my head, what you're saying seems OK, but I'm a bit fatigued. I'll try to get back to this sometime next week, if not before. I'd like to devote my full attention. The nice thing about building an encyclopedia is there's no rush! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Planned Additions

Out of all the things I wrote, I think this area would be beneficiary in the "Temples" subheading. It's just a small bit on the origins of Doric temples, but I believe it will add a bit of new information. It also has the edited sentence for the next paragraph in that subheading. If I see no complaints to this little addition, I will add it to the article.

There are many theories as to the creation of the Doric order. The term Doric is believed to have originated from the Greek-speaking Dorian tribes. One belief is that the Doric order is the result of early wood prototypes of previous temples. With no hard proof and the sudden appearance of stone temples from one period after the other, this becomes mostly speculation. Another belief is that the Doric was inspired by the architecture of Egypt. With the Greeks being present in Ancient Egypt as soon the 7th-century BC, it is possible that Greek traders were inspired by the structures they saw in what they would consider foreign land. Finally, another theory states that the inspiration for the Doric came from Mycenae. At the ruins of this civilization lies architecture very similar to the Doric order. It is also in Greece, which would make it very accessible.

Some of the earliest examples of the Doric order come from the 7th-century BC. These examples include the Temple of Apollo at Corinth and the Temple of Zeus at Nemea.

This is the end of current additions to the article. I will update this if I have any more. I'll try to implement these today, after a few more reads and edits.KnightOrnstein (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Photos

An article about Doric columns without a photo of the Parthenon or generally a temple that is located in what is now Greece, doesn't make sense.... A photo of a library in France? Come on.. Onoufrios d (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)