Talk:Antae temple

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Temple in antis into Antae temple; they seem to refer to the same concept. While Temple in antis is a lot longer than Antae temple, I'm not sure how much of it has merit. Aside from being rather poorly written and formatted, it seems to contain original research. For example, it has a significant section on Solomon's temple, but the source cited does not mention antae/in antis, and neither does the article Solomon's temple itself. I'm actually hoping that someone who is a bit more familiar with ancient architecture can determine how much of Temple in antis (if any) is relevant to merge into this article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Comment I also wonder whether Distyle in antis should be considered for merging, as I can't really tell what the difference between that and an Antae temple is. Again, expert needed! Lennart97 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with the nominator's reasoning, but also wonder if an expert could clarify if these two articles are the same topic. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 20:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into Distyle in antis, since that title makes more sense, and appears to cover the same topic. Not sure if "Temple in antis" does, however.  The "antae" (I'm guessing "antis" is ablative for plural "antae", i.e. in antis = "within a pair of antae") are the forward wall extensions ahead of the wall of the main interior room.  The "distyle" refers to the two pillars set on either side of the center (usually framing the door) to hold up the roof, but I'm not sure whether these are a requirement of a "temple in antis"; it seems to me that you could have a narrow porch with no pillars, or a wide one with more than two.  If there were nearly always two pillars, then perhaps all three articles could be merged into "Distyle in antis", with any exceptions to the distyle part explained and noted.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both articles are pretty poor, but Temple in antis is about Syrian/Levantine temples, and Antae temple about Greek ones. I don't see merit in combining them, though they should cross-link. No strong views about merging Distyle in antis with Antae temple (both Greek).  Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Distyle in antis, Antae temple, and Temple in antis into Anta (architecture). "Distyle in antis" would be problematic as the name for the main article, because other arrangements are possible (e.g. monostyle in antis, antis with no columns). "Antae temple" sounds odd to me; it is unusual for the first word in that sort of compound to be plural... I agree that Temple in antis is about a different topic, but: (1) people are just as likely to search for that term when looking for information on Greek temples in antis, and (2) there is no reason to have separate articles for the Greco-Roman and Levantine aspects. Anyway, temple in antis is very low quality stuff - whatever can be salvaged should be merged into Anta (architecture), but most of it should be deleted. Furius (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very badly done (by a student) but is on a valid topic in an area we cover very poorly indeed (unlike Greek temples, where we have loads), so I'd prefer to see it improved. It might be better just to call it Levantine Bronze and Iron Age temples or something. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The duplication or triplication is plainly unnecessary, but more generally, we have too many stubby articles on the various elements of classical architecture in general, and different plans of Ancient Greek temples in particular, with little likelihood that they will ever will be expanded into thorough articles on each separate type: pseudodipteral, distyle in antis, distyle (but tetrastyle, hexastyle, etc redirect to portico), prostyle, amphiprostyle, peripteros, pseudoperipteros, tholos (architecture). The last, tholos, is perhaps the best as a survey of examples, but very light on text.  The rest are essentially dictionary definitions.  (God forgive me, but perhaps the problem is best illustrated by the list at Outline of classical architecture.) I think it would be better to merge most of the information on temple plans at Ancient_Greek_temple, where there is already have a nice illustration (diagram 1 below, although perhaps diagram 2 might be better: both are better than the French one used here).  Or bring it all together at a new article, such as Ancient Greek temple plans (or something else, if someone can suggest something better?).  One nice informative encyclopedic article would be better than many permanent stubs.  Theramin (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the direction of this suggestion. It would certainly be good to have details like this in one place, since in most cases there won't be enough information about particular styles to justify separate articles—"This style is just like that style except that there are two rows of pillars instead of one, and here's a list of temples known to have been built this way..."  P Aculeius (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can certainly agree with this. As a preliminary measure, one might merge/redirect all the Greek variants to Anta (architecture), but I'd prefer to keep the Levant out of it (or just mentioned). Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Anta (architecture) and Ancient Greek temple where appropriate. The current temple in antis article is utterly synthetic and unsourced, and occupies what is the best article if a standalone article for temples in antis, which should if decided on deal with all such architectural forms, not merely "classical" ones; there are Egyptian and modern examples of the type. GPinkerton (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)