Talk:Masonry

Architecture Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Images

Wikified, needs some images. Leonard G. 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Bond (masonry) should not be merged with Masonry. Doing so would be equivalent to merging Woodworking joints with Carpentry. The subject is big enough to have its own page and would overwhelm the parent subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbutz (talk • contribs)

There are currently three pages which all appear to cover the same subject. If not exactly the same, then certainly very similar. I believe that this is confusing.

If they genuinely need to be different pages, then maybe some sort of context setting page is in order.

The three pages are : Masonry Brickwork Bond (masonry) [American ?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.may (talk • contribs)

I agree - all 3 articles are currently very short in comparison to the available literature on the subject - we should just replace the merge tags with expand tags. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Bond (masonry) could be merged into Brickwork because bond is just a discussion of the different orientation of bricks. It is discussed in brickwork and then echoed with illustrations in bond. I don't think both articles are required. Masonry, on the other hand, is a broader subject than brickwork. I think brickwork is an important enough topic on it's own to warrant it's own article. I don't think there is any benefit in merging brickwork and masonry. SilentC 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and done it. SilentC 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article and 'brickwork' are also being confused in the other languages wikis too. if you go through all the language links in all the different wikis, you get either 'masonry', 'mason', 'brickwork' or 'bricklayer'. none are consistent with 'mason' to 'mason', 'brickwork' to 'brickwork', etc. examples: english 'masonry' links to portuguese 'brickwork'. spanish 'bricklayer' links to german 'mason' which links back to spanish 'masonry'. english 'brickworks' links to dutch 'mason' and back to english 'masonry'. and links to dutch and french wikis are half for 'mason' half for 'masonry' for both. and dutch 'mason' links to 'stone masonry' wikis. if the exact equivalent article doesnt exist, i understand the divergance, but when they do, i dont understand. someone should take the inititive and relink all 'mason's to each other, 'brickwork's to each other, etc. for all wikis. im sure users of all other wikis wont read this, so someone from here should do so, cuz english wiki has the most language links. anyone can do it using some logic: romance languages links starting with 'mam' go to masonry, starting with 'alb/alv' go to the person bricklayer, ending with 'eria' is the discipline 'brickwork'. germanic language links starting with 'mas/mat' go to masonry, ending with 'er' is the worker, ending in 'n' is the discipline, starting with 'ste/sto' go to stonemasonry. i prefer experts to do the languages they're sure of, but i'll do it if no one else does it soon. i've put the same comment in wikiproject architecture's "construction forum" and 'brickwork's discussion. yall should have mirrored yall's comments in those other articles mentioned, to alert users of those articles to move in the same direction.Ivansevil 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff is pretty cool isnt it guys? KatoABJV 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

I would like to see the history of masonry on this page. (Most likely the Chinese & the Great Wall?) KiNgFrOmHeLl (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I most vehemently agree... to include the IBC in the lead section of masonry is absurd, trivializing the profound history of stonemasonry, dating to the paleolithic. Whilst cavemen simply blocking part of their doorway with stones may be an extreme example, the fantastic works of the Inca, Chinese, Roman and medieval Europe are slighted, especially considering the tremendous difference in chiseling raw stone as compared to setting concrete block. Chrisklinger (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mason means Freemasonry

This article is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.126.117.235 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC) i dont know any thing abut this[reply]

use of "cultured stone"

this page uses "cultured stone" as a synonym for manufactured stone. I'm not sure if this is good because cultured stone is a registered trademark of owens corning, while manufactured stone can refer to st croix, eldorado, and many other brands of artificial stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.93.115 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]