Talk:Roman brick

A fact from Roman brick appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that both ancient and modern examples of Roman brick have similar proportions? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/October.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smuse40. Peer reviewers: Carolinefreeman, Mattygardiner50, Rlippitt19.

Above undated message substituted from

• Roman brick in the British Isles
• Roman Brick in Rome
• Roman Brick size
• More Roman brick in Rome
• Modern sizes, Roman used to be one of a few sizes.
• Size of Roman brick in ancient Rome (G Books hit)
• Blurb about other architects (U.S.)

IvoShandor 06:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rome of Today and Yesterday, description of both late and early brick stamps

To look up in databases

• Interview with Rafael Moneo , JSTOR
• Roman brick industry and its relation to Roman architecture, JSTOR
• Google Scholar search on Roman brick

IvoShandor 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has access to this type of brick, a great photo would be a comparison shot between a Roman brick and a standard brick. I will keep my eyes peeled for both in buildings I see, otherwise we may have to wait on what would obviously be a very encyclopedic illustration. IvoShandor 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From ancient Rome, jumps to British Isles, jumps to U.S. . . . actually. There may be more to it, but is the template appropriate here? IvoShandor 02:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an expansion planned, but it seems to me if we are going to tag articles the least that can happen is an explanation as to why it has been tagged can be provided. This article is not particularly bad concerning globalized content, I think the template is meant for worse. Until some specific objections can be raised here I am going to remove it, especially considering no original objections have been forthcoming. I won't have a problem with it being readded when some issues are brought up, indeed, I would welcome it. IvoShandor 07:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs expanding, at the very least to cover continuing uses of Roman brick other than by American architects from the 1930s on. I don't know much about the subject, but there was considerable use (and re-use of salvaged materials) of the Roman brick in many parts of Europe, and probably Asia and Africa as well, going back several centuries, which the article completely ignores. Ideally the article could be greatly expanded to give proper coverage of ancient Roman brick-building (and how it differed from other ancient brick-building), but the tag does not relate to that. Alternatively the article could be renamed to Roman brick in modern American architecture, which is essentially what we have now. I will replace the tag, which seems perfectly appropriate to me. Johnbod 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think moving the article is the answer. As much as I hate tags, and find them mostly useless, (the article has been around, even with main page exposure and still it seems I am the only one willing to do any leg work on it, I even posted other sources!) I will leave it in place. I have seen sources pertaining to reuse of brick, and will add what I can. Seems most of the scholarly work has been related to brick stamps, of individual brick makers. As you can see from the number of sources used to compile just this small amount of information, this isn't exactly easy, any help would be greatly appreciated. I think the Google Scholar link above that I left has some good stuff. I will look later tonight. IvoShandor 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I doubt if I will be able to contribute, but there are a number of excellent editors on architecture who may well have the reference works needed. Johnbod 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, had to ask though. :) I will see what I can do in the next couple of days, I will ping you for your input when I finish some expansion, if that's okay? IvoShandor 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article indicating what the most common materials were for making Roman brick, nor what is known about their manufacturing process was. That would be useful to add. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit - essentially they were exactly the same as modern bricks. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]