Talk:Terracotta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nagajyotsna.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soymilkp20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Old stuff

I have(/will) reverted the removal of the colour information and redirected the page Terracotta (color) to Terra cotta. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra cotta (color), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles and Talk:Terra cotta (color).--blue520 17:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Baked earth

I believe there's a translation mistake of Terra Cotta, since in Italian Terra has several meanings. It can be the planet Earth, Soil or even Land. I believe that Terra Cotta is connected to the Soil (the material) and not to the planet. Mariano(t/c)

Hello Marianocecowski, Thank you for your comment but the entry noting the meaning being Italian for Baked Earth is valid as this is the translation given by the OED. In this context the earth will be the just that, earth. 'Earth' has a number of meanings also, including the planet and material extracted from the ground Kind regards, Andy

But what is it?

Is terra cotta ANY fired ceramic? Or just any ceramic that happens to be terra cotta-colored? What gives it its color? Are there specific ingredients? --Mdwyer 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Terra cotta is low-fired ware. It tends to be permiable to water unless glazed and is of relatively low strength. Unglazed uses include scupture and garden ware. Glazed uses include garden ware, building decorations, pipes for sewage and drainage and low cost table ware. Archaic uses include oil lamps, amphorae, pots, ovens, and water conduits and piping. Compare this to stoneware, which is fired at high temperature and carefully cooled to avoid cracking and causing the base materials to transform to a glassy state, waterproof even if unglazed. Uncracked Terra cotta will ring when lightly struck, but not as brightly as will stoneware. Older terra cotta may be glased with lead containing glazes which can cause health and environmental probles, not a problem with stoneware since the lead glazes cannot survive a high temperature. Terra cotta, literally "burnt earth", may be produced by stacking ware over sufficent combustable materials, ignited, and then at an appropriate stage covered with sand, while stoneware requires a sophisticated hearth and kiln arrangement. Terra cotta may be made from clays that would melt down under high firing temperature. Most terra cotta is orangish to brownish red due to included iron minerals (the "terra cotta color", but can range to yellow, pink, or gray. - Leonard G. 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Terra Cotta is also a town in Ontario, Canada Canking 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One word or two?

• I have dealt with terracotta objects from many sources over the years and have quite a few good books on the subject and nowhere have I ever seen it written as two words. Is this a regional thing? The OED[1], quoted as a reference above has it as terracotta as does Wiktionary, although both list terra cotta as an alternative. I feel that the article should use the single-word form throughout, since that appears to be more widely accepted, but list the alternative in the opening para? Anyone feel differently? Secret Squïrrel approx 11:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, although my old OED actually uses "Terra-cotta", but one word is now surely standard. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Terra cotta → Terracotta— Canonical spelling: one word, not two. Has been discussed on Talk:Terra cotta. — Enki H. (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from "uncontroversial" proposals. Where has it been discussed? This is not enough of a discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I had overlooked that my contribution in support had been undone and was no longer on the talk page ... Please note that the original proposal was uncontested since July 2007, it has been supported in January 2009 and I support it as well. A glance into the relevant literature in art history will show that this is the canonical spelling, moreover it is the canonical version listed e.g. in the OED. I hope that you find this acceptable. Kind regards Enki H. (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Start a discussion using the steps described above, and we'll get some broader input on the matter. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done The move was kindly effected by Rich Farmbrough. Thank you. Enki H. (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Baked earth?

In Italian the word "terra" means three things:

• "terra" - planet earth
• "terra" - land ("the land of freedom, of hope" for example)
• "terra" - soil, ground (the thing fields are covered with)

In this case the third meaning is the right one. Since "terra" must be intended as "pug", "clay". --Absinthe88 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I removed a "recognized as producing both health and environmental hazards." This is a very, very big over simplification. Lead can be used in glazes quite safely. It is only inappropriate use and lack of knowledge that creates problems. In fact glazes with some lead content, commonly introduced as lead bisilicate, are used. There are recognised test methods and standards which demonstrate the saftey of these glazes. The removed entry is a typical example of one weakness of Wikipedia:- contributions by people without a proper understanding of subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Army?

Does this have any relation to the Terra cotta army?Bless sins (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Terracotta: Latin?

This word isn't latin, but it's italian. If it was so, it would be written "Terra cocta". And then, why in the article there's the detailed note that interpret the meaning as it was a latin term? I'd suggest rectifying this little information to improve the page.

--Daqo89 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

JVM Clustering

I've added a link to the Terracotta Cluster to the disambiguation page. So, I'm wondering if this phrase should be removed from the top of the article: "For the JVM clustering software, see Terracotta Cluster." --anonymous coward, 2009-07-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.80.6 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Early Roman Plumbing

Should there be mention of its use in early Roman times as a plumbing solution? Ie: Terra Cotta pipes used in Ephesus, Turkey? Maybe this information should also be included in the "History" section of "Water Pipes" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.114.48 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Latin The Latin should be "terra cocta", not "terra cotta". I'll change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Dark terra cotta

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Why does the article lead with the *solid* spelling of "terra cotta"???

Terra cotta is almost always written as two words. So why does the article lead with its spelling as a single word? Was it written by someone unfamiliar with standard spelling?

That is a bad idea. It will suggest to all the young readers of the article that that is the standard way to spell it.

It is not.2601:200:C000:1A0:D468:F23C:FD48:2F6E (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think it is the more common spelling. Johnbod (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This is wrong, terracotta is spelt with one word 58.84.145.206 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

See the section "One word or two?" above. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence extremely awkward

The current rendering, "Terracotta, terra cotta, or terra-cotta ...", is extremely awkward at best.

As an improvement, I would propose something along the lines of "Terracotta (also rendered terra cotta or terra-cotta) ..."

The only reason I haven't already done this is that I'm not sure how best to integrate the pronunciation information that follows, but anything has to be better than the present arrangement of starting the article by stating the same word(s) three times in a row. 1980fast (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's really the Wikipedia way, which I think most readers are used to. I'm not sure talk of "rendering" helps. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Shaping and tableware

Recently a couple of edits & edit summaries appear to cast doubt on the existence of (or use of the term) glazed terracotta tableware, and the use of various shaping techniques for terracotta. Placed here for quick reference are the results of a few quick related Google searches:

Glazed terracotta tableware

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Slipcasting terracotta

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Plastic shaping methods of terracotta (throwing, RAM pressing and jiggering/jolleying)

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

User name for this site (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Recent changes serve only to confuse the reader. The essential point to grasp, which has now been obscured and removed (it was said more than once), is that in English "terracotta" is a term applied by convention to some types of earthenware, but not others. It is not a technical class of ceramic as such. This is now not at all clear. You don't need to prove to me that "terracotta" can be formed by all the normal pottery methods. I put a statement saying that in, and you have taken it out, in your usual way. The article could have something on the resurgence since say 1960 of "terracotta"-styled earthenware for middle-class cookware and large tableware, mostly unglazed but not always, for which in the UK Elizabeth David, Terence Conran and others are responsible, but at least for serving plates etc this is a trend past its peak, and historically "terracotta" has only been used for these purposes by the poorest in the last 2 centuries or so. None of these references above are WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Johnbod:-

  1)- Recent changes serve only to confuse the reader.' Recent changes were made to, and have achieved, improved clarity and to avoid previous confusion arising from, amongst other issues, somewhat restricted use of the term 'terracotta'. The edits also removed unreferenced commentary and added a definition from a notable source.

  2)- 'that in English "terracotta" is a term applied by convention to some types of earthenware, but not others.' The use of terracotta is not universally consistent, including across different disciplines.

  3)- 'It is not a technical class of ceramic as such.' I do not know what you mean by 'a technical class of ceramic.' None the less, at least some disciplines related to ceramics consider it a type of ceramic material.

  4)- 'in your usual way.' I have no idea what you mean.

  5)- 'You don't need to prove to me that "terracotta" can be formed by all the normal pottery methods.' If you have references to the high-pressure casting and iso-pressing of terracotta I would be most interested to read.

  6)- 'The article could have something on the resurgence since say 1960 of "terracotta"-styled earthenware for middle-class cookware and large tableware, mostly unglazed but not always, for which in the UK Elizabeth David, Terence Conran and others are responsible, but at least for serving plates etc this is a trend past its peak, and historically "terracotta" has only been used for these purposes by the poorest in the last 2 centuries or so.' 1.) There is no reason to use "terracotta-styled earthenware" given terracotta tableware, both glazed & unglazed, exists, and 2.) If you have appropriate references to support the rest then perhaps include as part of a history section.

  - 'None of these references above are WP:RS' The references were presented on the talk page to both illustrate usage and to address some of the edits to the article.

User name for this site (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

1) No the lead is now far more confusing. What is "somewhat restricted use of the term 'terracotta'" supposed to mean. It needs to be sorted out.

2) Exactly, the point your edits cloud and confuse! It would be truer to say a "set of conventions" which have arisen separately, and are inherently rather confusing. It is our job to explain these as clearly and accurately as possible.

3) It is defined by use NOT by materials or manufacturing process, where it is just a sub-type of earthenware, the crucial point you keep removing. If there is an actual definition of terracotta as "a type of ceramic material", what is it? Earthenware, fritware, stoneware and porcelain are each 'a technical class of ceramic', but terracotta isn't. I think you know this perfectly well, but are just trying to be obstructive.

4) Wow!

5) Well I don't. Do you have any that it never can be? If so, why not?

6) yes I may add this. That you can say things like "There is no reason to use "terracotta-styled earthenware" given terracotta tableware, both glazed & unglazed, exists" shows you don't really grasp the matter.

Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Johnbod:-

-'1) No the lead is now far more confusing.' That currently shown is a considerable improvement to that of, say, 48 hours ago.

-'2) Exactly, the point your edits cloud and confuse!' No. My edits have clarified.

-'It would be truer to say a "set of conventions" which have arisen separately, and are inherently rather confusing.' Re-wording my earlier comment.

-'3) It is defined by use NOT by materials'. In some disciplines but not in all.

-'3) It is defined by use NOT by materials or manufacturing process.' Who has defined it by manufacturing process?

-'Earthenware, fritware, stoneware and porcelain are each 'a technical class of ceramic'. Those are types of ceramic materials, and there are others. And would you explain what you mean by 'technical class of ceramic'?

-'but terracotta isn't.' It is within some understandings / disciples.

-'but are just trying to be obstructive.' I ask you not to make unfounded accusations and insults.

-'4) Wow!' Again, I have no idea what you mean.

-'5) Well I don't. Do you have any that it never can be? If so, why not?' You stated that terracotta can be formed by all pottery shaping methods. As I'm unaware of pressure casting and iso-pressing of terracotta I would be interested to know more of the use of these methods for the material, which you alluded to knowing.

-'That you can say things like "There is no reason to use "terracotta-styled earthenware" given terracotta tableware, both glazed & unglazed, exists" shows you don't really grasp the matter.' Please explain, and I request with civility.

User name for this site (talk)