Talk:Muqarnas

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raymondmansfield. Peer reviewers: Evgore4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yasmeenamro. Peer reviewers: Minnow Snow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't muqarnas, with -s, 'singular'?
If I read the Arabic and Persian words right, the word ends in an -s even where that's not a plural ending! Yet in the article, people seem to be treating "muqarnas" as a plural: "the muqarnas are". Going to do a little reading and then fix that if it's indeed wrong. Wegesrand (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In Arabic, the singular is مقرنص "muqarnas" and the plural is مقرنصات "muqarnasat." This might be overlooked for those who haven't studied Arabic, and the mistaken use might be prevalent enough to allow it to continue. I don't know. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia is not a foreign-language grammar, phrase-book, or dictionary, so I don't know why the Arabic plural form would matter here. It isn't likely to cause any confusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually it is those things from time to time when appropriate. No need to be snooty. It doesn't matter to the article merger. I was just trying to help Wegesrand. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No snootiness, but do read WP:NOTDICT for policy. To reply to an old thread, best at least to do it under the same heading - I've joined the sections now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing adding the Arabic plural, nor discussing grammar in the article. I am proposing consistently construing "muqarnas" as singular. One such correction made. I'm confident everyone will be happy with it. Wegesrand (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm an Arabic speaker and a specialist in Islamic art, just confirming that Muqarnas is singular in Arabic as well as in the English common usage among Islamic art historians. ArtsOfIslam (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger
has suggested that Mocárabe be merged here.


 * Oppose However, the styles are not the same so I would oppose any merger. Mocárabe has ornate "stalactites" where Muqarnas has sculpted regions that meet at cusps with no stalactites. Since, further, no reason has been given for the merger, I suggest we close it forthwith, unless an explanation is given rather soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Mocárabe is a Spanish corruption of "مقرنص" (muqarnas). Both refer to the Islamic architectural feature for transitioning from a two-dimentional design to a three-dimensional design. The difference between the two is negligible, and the two articles even share a photo to illustrate each term: The minor distinction could easily be explained in a single article. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's almost nothing anywhere on Wikipedia we couldn't mash into one article. However, the Spanish style is markedly different from what is seen across the Arab world, so the divergence is not only linguistic. Believing that because words have a common origin they must mean the same thing is the etymological fallacy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You will find a learned but plain illustrated introduction to the differences between the two styles at Mocárabes versus muqarnas (in Spanish), translated by Google. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The distinction is an orientalist invention. In Arabic, the language of the nascent culture of the muqarnas/mocárabes, there is no such distinction in nomenclature. There is also no sharp stylistic division; the muqarnas manifests itself in a continuum of different styles and materials from Iberia, across North Africa, Sicily, and eastward into Asia (Also, please note that it is not fair to call this all the "Arab world;" many Amazigh, Persians, and others would be quite incensed at this characterization.). The similarity of the muqarnas and the so-called mocárabes is far greater than any minor distinction. Some little stalactites do not a new architectural style make.


 * The illiteracy of the Castilian invaders need not be perpetuated.
 * That sort of abuse has no place in this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is a description of the muqarnas throughout the Islamic world, past and present, with no special name for the Moorish/Andalusi style with stalactites (in Arabic), translated by Google. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That really won't do. There is a measurably different style (proportions, stalactites) with a centuries-old tradition in what was once Al-Andaluz, and it has a different name. That it's ignored (at least by some) in the Arabic world doesn't prove anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I also proposed this merge in 2015, but didn't actually argue for it. I think Chiswick Chap's Alhambra source contains excellent material and I encourage him to add it to the article. However, at present we have so little on mocárabes that discussing them in their own article seems odd. We also have no in-line citations, and only one live source, which as an argument for WP:notability does not mention any distinction from muqarnas. Unless this article can be substantially expanded, including good, sourced discussion of the distinction, I would support the merge. HLHJ (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I also suggest we ask the views of WilburMercer, who seems to have expertise in the subject. HLHJ (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This has dragged on too long. I agree that there's still too little on Mocárabe, and that whatever the differences, which are real enough, Mocárabe is a kind of Muqarnas, the kind found in al-Andalus. The question of whether it forms a section of a main article or a subsidiary article in its own right is simply one of practicality in proportion to the amount of material to be covered and cited. Since for the moment that is small, I support the merge, without prejudice to having a full article in future should that be needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muqarnas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408151723/http://www.broug.com/learn_muqarnas.htm to http://www.broug.com/learn_muqarnas.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)