Talk:Ovolo

The egg link here links to a disambig page. I don't know what it is trying to say, so I can't help it Jon513

Disputed tag, and rebuttal and removal
The claim that an ovolo is the same as modern quarter round is false. Maybe a result of too-literal translation? The claim that it's always got egg-and-dart carved in it when used in classical architecture is also false, although the ovolo is indeed the classical base stock for carving egg-and-dart and other motifs.

The ovolo profile is basically a quarter round with two beads, filets or steps running along the edges. When replacing antique wooden ovolo it can be built up from two slats or filets placed on either side of a quarter round moulding, but this introduces more seams that will require treatment and maintenance, so it is generally better to buy a commercial ovolo or roundover bit for a router. Wooden ovolo mouldings are commonly found in American architecture of the mid-Atlantic coast and century-old ovolo planes are easily found in antique stores and flea markets in that area.

Links to pictures of real ovolos (not quarter round)
 * https://www.ministryofstone.com/how-to-work-an-ovolo
 * http://goodmillwork.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/03/good-millwork-classical-architectural-moldings.html
 * https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/537506c5-ecfd-4b97-9be9-d7435f77847f.jpg
 * http://martocchia.com/images/architecture-guide/6classic-moulding-types/4ovolo-moulding.gif
 * http://gluedideas.com/content-collection/Radfords-cyclopedia-of-construction-Vol-2-practical-carpenter/Mouldings_P1.html (image 168)
 * https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/e9/14/5fe9140b37bfbe383fafc89154d5480d.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The requirement for wikipedia is that it be true to the available sources. The sources it uses must be published, and not blogs or other self-published (un-refereed, un-factchecked) sources. The pictures and the sources you post are less helpful —as commercial, and non-book/academic sources—than would be a single, authoritative, up-to-date source, ideally with a usable picture, that presents the case you argue. As it stands, the article is true to its principle source, the early 20th century Encyclopedia Britannica article that it cites, making it not so much inaccurate as incomplete (presenting only an understanding that is now inaccurate to the current usage of the term). For the record, here is the complete entry from that dated encylopedia entry, as cited on the article page:"OVOLO (adapted from Ital. uovolo, diminutive of uovo, an egg; other foreign equivalents are Fr. ove, échine, quart de rond; Lat. echinus), in architecture, a convex moulding known also as the echinus, which in Classic architecture was invariably carved with the egg and tongue. In Roman and Italian work the moulding is called by workmen a quarter round. It must not be confounded with the echinus of the Greek Doric capital, as this was of a more varied form and of much larger dimensions than the ovolo, which was only a subordinate moulding."


 * I will correct the article, which is current a plagiarised mess, to this article, and I will remove the quarter round image, but can only move the article in the direction you argue, if you identify the authoritative published source that we need. 2601:246:C700:19D:3480:FB6D:D609:FD73 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After consulting a well regarded architectural design book published in 1986, it is clear that the description above is not far from correct. The egg and dart is a variant of the ovolo—it is considered an adornment added to the fundamental ovolo—and the description of the ovolo as a fundamental shape found in moldings that is convex, and generally quarter round in cross-section, is correct in the view of this published authority (see article, esp. new material and sourcing). If language has evolved to add other connotations, this is fine, but the sourcing for those must be as authoritative as the ones that will appear (supporting the thrust of the original article content), as of later today. At the same time, I will be removing the article tag, as being off point. Wrong, no. Incomplete, perhaps, but not as much as suggested, earlier. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:3480:FB6D:D609:FD73 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)