Talk:Stucco

Siding
While I added a little bit about stucco used as in place of 'siding', I think that this whole article needs to be redone, and stucco as an art material, and stucco as a siding need to be discussed in separate paragraphs. I am not an expert, and am reluctant to do more than add a few comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.196.66 (talk • contribs) 10 February 2005

Cleanup
I certainly agree with the comment above; in general, the article rambles on and repeats itself about plasters and cements without getting to the point in a timely manner. The different types should really be sectioned off and made clear. Radagast 12:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Started an external links section Eybear 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Stucco or Plaster; an art form
Philadelphia (in my opinion) is the best well thought out city when it comes to estitics and stone architecture. Lime is the primary element to stone buildings and considering what rock the stone is in the climate acts as the stones doctor if crasked or split. It actually is a self healing non-living entity. Questions and comments please to Cychobiker@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.109.102 (talk • contribs) 11 February 2006

Maintenance
I am looking for information on how to maintain my stucco house. Some say to paint it and some say not to. All seem to aggree that once painted it will continue to need painting. The other thing seems to be mending cracks. While a contractor mentioned some silicate, most seem to mention using a more stucco like substance. Another topic might be how to address "wounds" in the stucco from furnature movers and high power sprayers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.120.221 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

If the cracks are hairline, don't worry about them. If they're bigger, there is material made especially for repairing stucco cracks. Do not use silicone caulk. Some small cracking is normal for stucco and doesnt detract from its utility or value. If you paint it, I would suggest using an elastomer made especially for stucco.Copperminer 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)CopperMiner

Painting stucco (or "white washing" it with cement) makes about as much sense as painting a sidewalk. Paint is cheap, but will deteriorate and peel within a couple years, meaning you'd have to paint every year or so to keep it looking decent. To add insult to injury, it is necessary to sandblast (a pressure washer is not be powerful enough) painted or white-washed stucco to fully remove the paint before applying a new layer of stucco (e.g. if you wanted to change the color or touch up the stucco). Paint also prevents moisture from escaping from the home, which can create conditions favorable to mold growth. AzzAz (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Boring . ..
How dull is this article. No, don't remove anything! Just add some information about stucco being used in "modern" (1920s and 1920s) American architecture — also its use in Spanish colonial buildings, etc. Sorry, I can't do it myself — I just like to boss people around. Cheers. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

True?
Portland cement can last indefinitely without requiring maintenance. There are major issues with this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Stucco, render or plaster?
To me the term "stucco" refers to the plastic moulding of all kinds of mortars. I looked it up in and there it says that the term 'stucco' is simply the italian word for 'plaster' (which it is, as I can say as a italian speaking person). Also the cited book says that the meaning nowadays is imprecise and the term should be avoided in preference for 'plaster' and 'render'. My idea now would be the following: --Greenadia06 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * create an aricle about render, which describes external applications
 * keep the article stucco, saying that the term has been used and is used [page 114] to describe a wide range of decorative plasterwork or render.
 * I think of "render" as a builder's term. The usage of the terms is certainly variable and complicated, and has changed over time. The articles try to explain this. Personally "stucco" does not refer "to the plastic moulding of all kinds of mortars" to me (do you mean plaster-like compounds? Mortars are very different). I think of it mainly as being external not internal. To me internal moulded plaster is "plasterwork", but it has been called stucco in English, mainly I think in the past. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably I mean plaster-like compounds by "mortars". I mean a mixture of binders, aggregates, water and - sometimes - filler, additives and admixtures and I think that I had a translation problem there, since I'm not a native speaker of English. Anyway I think that merging "plaster", "stucco" and "plasterwprk" would be a good idea! --Greenadia06 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stucco. 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/20071013062359/http://kopernik.czest.pl/socrates/jasnaciasna.htm to http://www.kopernik.czest.pl/socrates/jasnaciasna.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) 01:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Meaningless paragraph?
The second paragraph reads "In English, stucco usually refers to a coating for the outside of a building and plaster one for interiors; as described below, the material itself is often little different. However, other European languages, notably including Italian, do not have the same distinction; stucco means plaster in Italian and serves for both.[1] This has led to English often using "stucco" for interior decorative plasterwork in relief. "

Does this make sense to a native english speaker? It certainly doesn't to me. It starts out with a sentence that I am not sure how to parse; trying to paraphrase: (stucco in english) refers to [1](a [what kind? concrete?] coating for the outside of a building) or [2](a plaster [coating?] one[?] for interiors)

Or is it trying to say that "stucco" is used for outside, whereas "plaster" is used for inside?

But then that is completely contradicted by the last sentence?

I will now check the history for whether this paragraph has been mangled in an edit, but somehow I doubt I'll find any. Could a competent english speaker, with knowledge of the correct usage of "stucco", please fix this paragraph?

--Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine! Maybe it's your English. Try again. Re the last sentence, yes the English usages are somewhat contradictory. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert of my edit concerning this paragraph
I had problems with the same paragraph.

I don't really see why the fact that "Stucco in Italian means plaster" has "led to English often using "stucco" for interior decorative plasterwork in relief." The latter statement seems too specific for what was said in the preceding sentence.

I had therefore added a passage to the paragraph, explaining that the related term Stuck in German means exactly that: interior decorative plasterwork in relief

And since German and English actually have quite a close relationship it is entirely possible that the second meaning for stucco was adapted from the German Stuck instead of the Italian original.

@Johnbod: I don't see where my edit claimed that "Stuck" would be a term that is used in the English language. Please explain ...

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * English has normally taken its artistic vocabulary from French and Italian rather than German. "Entirely possible" doesn't really cut it. The Italian stucci also means "decorative plasterwork in relief". Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this explanation, Johnbod, which makes sense to me.
 * If you have this information about the Italian usage, though, I wonder why you would not enter it into the article and thus correct the apparent logical shortcoming.
 * As I, Lasse Hillerøe Petersen and Greenadia06 have explained above, some aspects of the current state of the wording of the article do not seem conclusive.
 * thanks again for your efforts,
 * KaiKemmann (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)