Jump to content

Talk:Geison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The ENTABLATURE is made up of the EPISTYLE (or ARCHITRAVE), FRIEZE, AND CORNICE. The CORNICE is made of several smaller elements, one being the GEISON. These elements might not need to be combined; more so the GEISON should be detailed into the description of the CORNICE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.192.197 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Suggested merge

[edit]
This suggested merge may close on or after 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (e.g., 5 days).--Jreferee 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in German geison is ordinarily simply corona: see German Wikipedia. A Hephestaion is a temple of Hephaestus: "Hephestaion temple" was a naive tautology. The image pointing out "mutuals" (i.e. mutules) should not be used until it has been corrected. The idea here that Ionic and Corinthian orders have no frieze, simply an architrave, is a neophyte's confusion. But why do Wikipedians preferentially hunt out the more obscure term, whenever given a choice? Even a little reading in architectural history would have made one aware that cornice is the normal English term. --Wetman 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German page simply states: geison aka cornice. The syntactic range of the terms is not equivalent, somewhat as hound and dog are similar terms but not of the same range. The addition of "temple" to Hephaisteion was an intentional gloss for those who do not know, not a naive tautology. It was never suggested that Ionic or Corinthian orders by definition lack a frieze course, though they may in some applications. Not everyone is aware that among Classical archaeologists the term geison is very much in use and in print. This specific term might well be searched by many in need of clarification. A link to cornice was provided to link these similar terms. The love of displaying vocabulary and baseless arrogance is not equivalent to cleverness; in fact, it more often indicates low self-esteem. Basic civility seems the minimum response for the effort to begin an article, which will be improved by the process.--Nefasdicere 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The love of displaying vocabulary and baseless arrogance is not equivalent to cleverness" indeed: it voices my own very private reaction to a separate Wikiopedia article on Geison, displaying our perhaps recently-acquired erudition! However, if geison can genuinely be distinguished from cornice in the article, it would go far to justify the apparent pretentiousness of all this. I doubt that it can— "a distinction without a difference" we say in English— but I'll withhold my judgment until I've seen an attempt made.
"The geison is the part of the entablature that projects outward from the top of the frieze in the Doric order and from the top of the frieze course of the Ionic and Corinthan orders; it forms the outer edge of the roof on the sides of a structure with a sloped roof" This isn't the answer, for it simply describes "cornice". --Wetman 23:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a bema is “simply” a rostra by your logic. Why don't we just name every Greek thing with its Latinate counterpart? The fact that a Latin term may be of later coinage or the Roman form may derive from an earlier Greek one does not mean that the Latin term should not predominate. Yes? Next we could burn all the uncounted thousands of books and articles published from the dawn of archaeology to the present that use the term geison for some mad reason, when the perfectly equivalent term cornice exists and is manifestly the only real one.
The real question, however, is why you feel so much animosity about a minor point that you feel the need to insult the erudition of someone who may well know far more about this matter than yourself. This entry is not a scholarly publication, nor is it a manuscript proof. It is one iteration of a reference text for the general reader. The article on Cornice speaks of furniture moldings and other aspects of the semantic field of the term cornice that are not interchangeable with the term geison. The question of this merger is a reflection of a proposed merger between Portico and Stoa that I noticed; while that one is a case of laughable foolishness, this is more on the scale of an overly casual disrespect for distinctions that are not apparent to a non-specialist. I intended this article to provide a ready answer to anyone who might encounter the term geison. Even a well-written merged document will be more confusing or imprecise than separate by linked articles. --Nefasdicere 12:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge with Cornice. Cornice is a significant term in architecture, used by many articles about architecture in many countries. The merge with geison would be confusing to many readers clicking on the link and expecting an explanation of Cornice. Thanks! --Mattisse 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles are not to be merged, then geison needs to be clearly distinguished from corona in a concise paragraph that can be inserted in each article. If geison cannot be distinguished from corona, then corona is the more familiar term in English— "geison" not appearing in the Shorter OED— and my remarks about pretentious affectations are perhaps justified. --Wetman 09:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geison&oldid=1198282059"