Talk:Carpenter Gothic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Moving or renaming article[edit]

Please do not move or rename this article without a discussion and consensus on this page. clariosophic (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move page, per discussion below. Clariosophic is correct that there is no name convention requiring the move, although this is somewhat beside the point, because we're always free to decide things on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, there is no argument given

Carpenter GothicCarpenter Gothic architecture — Per naming convention for architecture articles —Katr67 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support Clearly desirable to have homogeneity in article naming conventions across similar subjects. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Summary of the following: There is no naming convention that requires this article to be renamed. clariosophic (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Somehow I can't seem to find any naming convention that is applicable, either in general or in the Architecture Project. Carpenter Gothic is an architectural style, not a type of architecture and is really a popular term, not an architectural one. National Register listings commonly classify Carpenter Gothic structures as Gothic Revival architecture, if they even give a classification. Sometimes they just say unknown. Many architects do not even recognize it. For instance, a local AIA member in my county described the Carpenter Gothic church I belong to as wooden vernacular in the AIA survey of Florida architecture published by the University of Florida. The Carpenter Gothic article was based on a paragraph or two in Gothic Revival architecture and I see no reason to change it now. I have found too often that when a Naming Convention is cited as the reason for renaming, there is in actuality no convention that is applicable to the particular situation. I have learned this myself when I cited per naming convention only to find that there was no such convention: rather I perceived a convention where none actually existed. Instead it becomes a subjective change rather than an objective one. I can see no good purpose in this change, only confusion. clariosophic (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, it appears to be the convention here. CApitol3 (talk)
  • Neutral for now. I'm merely a participant because listed this through the proper channels for a rename discussion since the move was contested and reverted. Perhaps WikiProject Architecture should be contacted. P.S. Clariosophic, you might want to remove your argument from the main page move page, since the discussion belongs here. Katr67 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

The naming convention I was writing about was in these other article page titles:

Each one has "architecture" as the last word.

On the other hand, some architectural style pages do NOT have the word "architecture" appended to the title:

Personally, I don't have any problem with this Carpenter Gothic article being moved to Carpenter Gothic architecture as it helps define what is being talked about. Similarly, some of the architecture topics which don't include the word architecture in their title could benefit from being moved to a better-defined page. Bauhaus is a fine page as it is but includes other subjects such as fine art, typography, etc. Streamline Moderne might benefit from being split into an architecture page and an industrial design (not architecture) page. National Park Service Rustic might well be moved in its entirety to National Park Service Rustic architecture with no adverse effects; in the same vein, American Craftsman could easily become American Craftsman architecture. I think the ambiguity is lessened when the word "architecture" shows up in the title page. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi binksternet, Arcology is really a distinct deisgn ethic of mostly one architect, and I guess a small handfull of folowers. Bauhaus refers to a school, a building, and a general deisgn ethic. Streamline Moderne is more a new term merging two terms, appearing here on wiki than in existing published literature. CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More articles that do NOT have architecture in their names:

There are also more articles with architecture in their titles, but the point I am trying to make is that there is no consensus, yet alone a convention, on the naming of such articles. A convention, by the way, is something that had been formally adopted by Wikipedia or one of its projects and is spelled out somewhere in Wikipedia. In conclusion, there is NO naming convention in Wikipedia or its projects that would require or suggest that architecture be added to Carpenter Gothic. User:GearedBull, signed on this page as CApitol3, gave "more common term" as the reason for moving the article to Carpenter Gothic architecture. I would submit that Carpenter Gothic is the more common term and there is no need to add architecture to it. In summation: There is no convention on this. clariosophic (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC) clariosophic (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture research and editing[edit]

I am curious to editors thoughts on picture editing on the article. The first image is tilted and has telephone or electric cable running through it. The third image, being brick, is stylistically related but atypical of the style. The American Gothic House is both prototypical and quintessential. CApitol3 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To reply to the above and the message you placed on my talk page:

1. The house as depicted in Grant Wood's house is really what it famous. I don't think the actual house itself is. I don't think it is prototypical or quintessential. The Spingdale Gatehouse is a much better example of CG, which is why I placed it in second position at the top. I did put Grant wood's painting and the house side by side at the beginning of the house section. The two really belong together for comparison.
2. As you can see from the gallery section there are a lot more CG churches than houses. So that's why the top billing should go to a church. IMHO, Grace Episcopal Church, power lines and all, is one of the most impressive CG churches for its rugged simplicity and its visibility to travelers on I-70 below.
3. Oak Hill Cottage, not being wooden, is really a Gothic Revival structure, not Carpenter Gothic, but it is a fire example of CG ornamentation on a GR buildings and shows the relationship between the CG style and GR architecture. Its third position is a precursor perhaps to starting a third gallery section on CG ornamentation on buildings not built of wood. clariosophic (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clariosophic. Thanks for sharing your thinking. While there are churches and a few other non-residential examples of Carpenter Gothic, the American Gothic house aside, I believe there to be more examples of residential than church. I understand your liking Episcopal churches. The Grace Episcopal Church sounds like a fine church, and has lovely paint that really shows off the trim, but I think here we you bringing what you know of the place to the subject, and I fear the rest of us not having seen it, don't grasp this from the present picture of it. I don't think the church, or article, justice, or, shows a sterling example of the style. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the Dibble (American Gothic) House is prototypical and quintessential of Carpenter Gothic. Oak Hill Cottage is Gothic Revival, and being brick, its inclusion is more of a stretch than I can understand. But I admit better than wood in a storm (or with wolves). CApitol3 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a better quality image than Grace Episcopal at the top of the article. Our best possible image should be there. The American Gothic House in Iowa is a fine photo of superior resolution. The subject of the photo is iconic, simple and striking and the framing of and lighting within the photo is strong. Even the clouds were behaving themselves that day! I recommend it for the top image. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the first photo is a pretty awful shot, though it does look like it had Richard Upjohn design influences. I notice several later structures (churches) that are just the typical late 19th century Gothic Revival style and have few, if any, true Carpenter Gothic characteristics. For example: Image:UU San Mateo.jpg, Image:Lagrangechurch.jpg, Image:Port Orange Grace Episc Church01.jpg, Image:Bethany-1-kendrick-id-us.png, Image:Dunedin Andr Mem Chapel01.jpg, and United Hebrews of Ocala (Florida). Carpenter Gothic, by a textbook definition, was in it's heyday from 1840-1870. All illustrations for an encyclopedia article on Carpenter Gothic really should have several of the identifying features: steeply pitched roofs and gables, gingerbread ornamentation, fancy scroll work, barge boards, carved porch railings, and strong vertical design elements, such as board and batten siding. Also, we need a truly scholar-written source on the definition of the style. On another note, I wouldn't say that the American Gothic House is prototypical of the style as it is a rather late example, dating to the 1880s. Though, architecturally, it does fit the style well. I would dare to say that Upjohn's Kingscote, built in Newport, RI in 1839, is more of a prototype than any currently on the page. Altairisfartalk 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If the aim is for an example with as many of the identifying features as possible, then how about Image:Moss mansion.jpg built in 1864? Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is Mosswood Mansion wood or stucco? The present problem I see is that the first photograph, is crooked and has wire cables despite the nice polychrome treatment, the quatrefoil ornament and lancet arched window. The Springside gatehouse image (number 2) has great colors on its trim and shiplapping, but is very restrained, and almost no visible Gothic motif. A tiny bit in the shutters but barely visible. Oak Hill Cottage is gorgeous, but brick–not really properly Carpenter Gothic. CApitol3 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Mosswood is mainly redwood shiplap siding atop plastered brickwork foundation and base. Roof is wood shingle. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some parting comments[edit]

This is to let you all know that, for personal reasons, I will have no further involvement in this article. I can't help but question, though, the recent introduction of Rural Gothic, into the article lead since this term was applied in England and later in the United States to brick or stone country houses. Carpenter Gothic was born when these forms were translated into wooden structures. Then free from the restraints of brick or stone, Carpenter Gothic evolved through improvisation, advancing technology and craftsmanship into builder-designed rather than architect-designed structures. Also CG structures have relatively few required identifying characteristics and many optional ones. Account needs to be taken of the changes that took place in CG construction over time. Also CG houses and churches, while sharing some basics, differ in many others, because of their differing purposes. Porches, for instance, were rarely seen on churches. Gables, while found on some early CG churches, are rarely found in later ones. Image quality has been questioned also. Lack of quality may be inherent because of Wikipedia's constraints, which mean that most images are not taken by professionals. Also the physical constraints of the building location play a part in this. Anyway, that's enough. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clariosophic. My request for your participation in the discussion is in no way a request for you to cease editing. Rural Gothic is frequently used by architectural historians as a metonym for Carpenter Gothic. As so many wooden, Gothic style houses, with decorative eaves trim, listed on the National Register are described there as Rural Gothic, it made sense to me to include it as a variant. CApitol3 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

check out Graniteville Historic District[edit]

In South Carolina, Graniteville Historic District includes a company town of "early Gothic revival" houses. Check out their pics. I don't know when a wooden Gothic-style structure is called carpenter Gothic or not, but i do know these are pretty nice. doncram (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this image[edit]

[[File:Churchofthepresidents.jpg|Church of the Presidents]], Long Branch, New Jersey]] because in my opinion it is not a very good example of the style. Elsewhere on wikipedia it is described as being the Shingle Style, which I don't like much better but that is a problem elsewhere, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)