Talk:Adobe

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cube Wang. Peer reviewers: Dandan619, Mengyurui.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find a reference for " The word adobe /əˈdoʊbiː/ has existed for around 4,000 years, with relatively little change in either pronunciation or meaning. The word can be traced from the Middle Egyptian (c. 2000 BC) word dbt "mud brick." As Middle Egyptian evolved into Late Egyptian, Demotic, and finally Coptic (c. 600 BC), τωωβε dj-b-t became tobe "[mud] brick." " Please provide references or remove text.

As referenced in the article (Oxford Dictionary). It states that the word is originally Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:80:289:6A17:29FF:FE85:4927 (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Q Is this the author's own pronunciaton symbol scheme or one borrowed from the source encylopedia. In any case, I think if you use a pronunciation guide you should reference it. As it is, this pronunciation could be construed as a number of things, and therefore, close to useless...:-).. Our usual would be /a-doh'-bee/ I believe. Your worst nightmare

Does the article claim that the adobe technique used in Spain came from the Americas insted of the Moors? I don't quite understand. -- Davidme —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 2 March 2003.

"16 mm (1/16th of an inch)". 256mm. That's a bloody big inch :) (One of those is probably a typo). --blades 17:26, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now (can't find the text that you quote). --Singkong2005 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Adobe article:

• Can link the Middle East: ...e of adobe. Buildings made of sun-dried earth are common in the Middle East, North Africa, and in Spain (usually in the [[Mudejar]] sty...
• Can link North Africa: ...ings made of sun-dried earth are common in the Middle East, North Africa, and in Spain (usually in the [[Mudejar]] style), but adobe...
• Can link raw material: ...lay is used by [[pueblo people|Pueblo Indians]] to make the raw material for production of [[pottery]] or even to make molds for the... (link to section)
• Can link rammed earth: ...n== Because an adobe wall, either made of bricks or using a rammed earth technique, is quite massive it will hold heat or cold. That... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In Example Scrabble tournament game, can backlink ADOBE: ...ediately after the game, he regretted not having played 15f ADOBE for 29 points. He feared that it might set up a big play i...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Added all the links except raw material; didn't link the backlink. JesseW 02:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there any need for the mudbrick article? I suppose it can just redirect to this article. China Crisis 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mudbrick is described as having a very short lifespan, 30 years and generally is poor. Adobe is described as being much more effective. I think it must be the formula that makes the difference. Lotusduck 01:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The "formula" does indeed make a big difference. Adobe varies so widely that no estimate of lifespan is useful without qualification. A useful estimate would have to include climate in which it is found, whether it has been maintained, it's ingredients, and type of construction.

Thus an adobe house built on concrete footings protects the bricks from spashes of rainfall and erosion of the bottom of a wall - a constant problem. Annual re-plastering is common in some parts of the world. I have read reports of an adobe house built and lived in for decades in a rain forest ! Some near-eastern locations have adobe structures older than two millenia. Mixing either cement or bitumen with natural adobe creates a brick which competes with fired clay in longevity ands water resistence.Stasi2 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This and the mudbrick article should IMHO be combined or at least thought through more systematically. As presently presented (and linked to other articles) there is a lot of overlap but some questionable patterns. Some questions:

• Is there a clear typology for earthen materials in terms of composition - either human engineered or natural (i.e., the clay, lime, sand, & OM naturally occuring)? If so, could it be the basis for a more logically organized set of articles?
• Or is it related to climate (adobe where it's arid and earthen structures can be maintained for centuries, and mudbrick in more humid climates)? In which case maybe the pages should be merged.
• Or is it more cultural - we use adobe, they (poor folks that they be) use mud bricks? On this one I'm not trying to score PC points - note that the mudbrick article is linked to the Wikipedia:WikiProject International development project, but this adobe article is not...--A12n 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

NB- I was the one who added references to the Sahel and to the Great Mosque of Djenné to this article on adobe.--A12n 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now I see someone took out the reference to the Sahel which make no sense to me at all. Consider the multiple cultural, historic, etc. ties between North Africa which is retained in the article and the Sahel which is deleted. What makes it "adobe" on one side of the Sahara and not on the other? --A12n 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The text says that Adobe brickmaking was brought to the Americas in the 16th century, but I just linked to this atricle from the Mayan civilization article, in the Building materials sections...seems like a simple overlook, but could use some checking into...

Another possible error is in the Adobe bricks sections: "If the sediment collects on the bottom, that indicates there is a high clay content and is good for adobe. If the mixture remains a liquid, then there is little clay in the soil and using it would yield weak bricks." That's the opposite to what I think it should be but 'm no expert on this. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.201.132.13 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

a part of this is written like a very incomplete how-to. Lets do some research and make a wikibook that tells the average person how to make their own adobe bricks, after all, it should mostly be a matter of the right proportion of both materials. People could learn and maybe help themselves landscape their yard. Who is with me? Lotusduck 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not quite that easy as soil/dirt varies in its suitability for adobe bricks. Must have the right clay/sand content.

I'm wondering whether there should be a category called "sustainable technology" - but perhaps it would overlap too much with categories like Category:Appropriate technology & Category:Renewable energy. For the moment, I'll just use Category:Appropriate technology (which is a subcategory of Category:Development and Category:Sustainability).

In the cases of Rammed earth, Adobe & Dutch brick, I think they reasonably belong in Category:Appropriate technology. At the moment, though, the Appropriate technology aspect of these technologies is not developed in the articles. Anyway, feel free to make a different edit or suggestion.

btw, Mudbrick needs either a lot of work, or to be merged with the Adobe article. --Singkong2005 02:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article and the mudbrick article imply that they are the same thing. I'm not sure that this is true - someone from a permaculture garden told me that adobe is built up from mud and then allowed to dry, whereas mudbricks are made into bricks and then dried. However, the articles seem to suggest otherwise, and so I've put the merge tags up so that we can discuss and resolve the issue. --Singkong2005 05:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

VOTE FOR MERGE; They are closely related enough to describe in a single article. Mudbrick could have a section in the Adobe article if needed. --Kaleb.G 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that merging the two is more reasonable. I believe that mudbrick is a forerunner to adobe but still not monumental enough to have it's own article. I have also heard that the only difference between the two is materials used, not methods used to produce (though these methods may change slightly from region to region). Look at other articles in this subject, such as concrete. The Concrete article has the different types of materials and processes used throughout history. I think that mentioning mudbrick in this same context within the Adobe article would be totally sufficient.

I dissagree... In parts of Africa, mud brick can also describe a method of construction where bricks are actually cut out of the hard earth under dry lakebeds (and often simply out of quarries that are not near a water source) and then stacked and coated with plaster.

Where exactly? This sounds interesting enough to merit an article. Re the topic of merging the articles, maybe what we are talking about is 2 kinds of "mud bricks" - one molded (merge that and adobe) and the other cut, per what you describe. The main problem here seems to be names (see also my remarks above); on another level there might be a kind of strategy for the articles on building with earth that would have a summary page (with definitions of categories and links to the main articles). --A12n 00:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some joker seems to have added "Drek pek sex" to the article section about the composition of adobe. What Italic textisItalic text that?

This article us coming up under a Chemistry Link. Don't think this has much to do with chemistry in the classic sense.

Closest I could see would be soil composition, but you are right that a link to chemistry seems a little removed (though I wonder if anyone has looked at soil pH and adobe/mudbrick quality; most soils in arid/semi-arid areas tend to be alkaline I believe). I still need to find time to deal with this article and mudbrick and in that context would discuss soils as the material but not chemistry per se. --A12n 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm reading a book entitled Native North American Art by Berlo and Philips, where it is written, "Anasazi construction techniques at Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde favoured the use of stone blocks. In the last few centuries, however, most Pueblo architecture has used adobe bricks as building blocks. Made in wooden moulds, by hand, by many members of the community, adobe block construction was an innovation introduced by the Spanish" (p. 49).

If Anasazi culture had extensive trade and cultural exchange with the Mimbres Mogollon culture, which extended into southern Mexico, then how is the following statement from the Wiki article true? "[A]dobe had been in use by indigenous peoples of the Americas in the Southwestern United States, Mesoamerica, and the Andean region of South America for several thousand years, although often substantial amounts of stone are used in the walls of Pueblo buildings." Voxmea 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

For a 6th grade class project in social studies, my daughter was tasked with making a mud brick. No specific formula was given, and mud bricks were tested and compared in a sort of competition with three trials. 1. bricks were "rolled" across a hard surface (wear-test). 2. bricks were soaked under water for 30 seconds. 3. bricks were load-tested with 50 pounds (US) weight. We used the formula supplied with this wikipedia article; ROUGHLY 50% sand (from Pismo Beach, CA, a fine, high-quality sand), 35% clay (local - very chalky yellowish-white stuff, pounded to a fine powder - this clay DID pass the sediment-test, very well!), and 15% hay. Resulting liquid mixture behaved like a non-Newtonian fluid. Brick was dried in an oven approx 17 hrs at 190 degrees F. Resulting brick was very crumbly. Failed the first test. Next time; I would try MUCH less sand; and probably try to do something to compress the clay mixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.166.166.204 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Think of the sediment test sort of like a centrifuge. The sand should fall out of solution first, then lighter silt, then clay. It's the relative thickness of these layers that tells you how good the soil will be for adobe. There IS sand in clay, so if you added more, chances are you had too much. Also, try lowering the drying temperature or even misting the bricks down as they're drying. The longer they cure, the stronger they'll be. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Moors introduced adobe construction to Spain and then the Spaniards brought it to their New World colonies. Prior to Spanish settlement of current New Mexico the indigenous people used puddled mud construction by stacking damp earth to form walls without making bricks first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.150.103 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added the Great Mosque of Djenné as an example building, thinking that banco is a type of adobe. Since it is made by fermenting rice husks with mud, I believe it to be adobe. KVDP (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noting User:Der Golem's suggestion to merge Mudbrick and Earth block into this article, which points to this page, I'm taking the opportunity to start the discussion. Note discussion above on the previous suggested merge with Mudbrick (2006), which ended inconclusively, and related discussion on Talk:Mudbrick. Note also that the Earth block article was created after this discussion, later in 2006, evidently as Compressed earth block.--A12n (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Adding in merge from Chirpici.--A12n (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Support merge of Mudbrick into Adobe. Don't think there was ever a clear set of criteria for distinguishing Adobe and Mudbrick, and a single article could treat the range of techniques and composition, as well as climatic and soil factors etc. that are encountered by this type of building material. (See also previous comments in Talk:Adobe and Talk:Mudbrick.)--A12n (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Neutral on merge of Earthen block into Adobe. This article describes the product of a technique that is arguably distinguishable from Adobe/Mudbrick.--A12n (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose merging Earth block Compressed earth presses are new devices that are powered with gasoline engines or hydraulic presses - coming into being in the 1980's and use are distinguishable from older types. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Support merge of Chirpici into Adobe. The local term for and use of adobe/mudbrick in Romania - does it need a separate article or a section in this one?--A12n (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have noted this topic myself in the past and contemplated suggesting a merge. However, I think mudbrick is a more international term so adobe should be merged into mudbrick instead of the suggested merge of mudbrick into adobe. The Online Etymology Dictionary states that adobe is American English. On the other hand adobe gets a lot more hits on Google search and has a lot more interlanguage links on Wikipedia. I agree earthen block may be different than adobe because they may also contain cement as a stabilizer and use more technology, a press, than hand filled and compacted molds for adobe bricks, but I think earthen block could be merged into mudbrick in a section which covers bricks with added chemical binders like cement and bitumen. I agree chirpici should merge into mudbrick just like banco has it's own section in mudbrick. Jim Derby (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

In researching adobe I have come to learn that adobe means three things: 1. a material derived from "adobe soil", 2. a sun dried brick, and 3. a house type. Adobe material has been used not just in bricks but like cob (puddled adobe) and for "poured adobe" (which I have not been able to find good information on yet), adobe plaster, poured adobe floors and I saw mention of poured adobe walls in formwork. With the additional meaning of adobe as a material and the different building methods I do not think adobe would merge well into mudbrick. I have also seen reference to compressed adobe and rammed adobe so the earth building terms are all loosely used and there are lots of regional synonyms. Jim Derby (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

So, after doing my homework I oppose merging adobe and mudbrick. The adobe article can be clarified and greatly expanded to cover the other methods of using the material and the ratio of ingredients. The mud brick aspects of adobe can be mostly covered in mudbrick as the "main article". Mudbrick can be greatly expanded including the history, materials, repair and maintenance and comparisons with rammed earth, compressed earth blocks, cob, fired brick, sandcrete, etc.

Oppose merging earthen block into adobe. Earthen block should be renamed compressed earth block and discuss that subject. The technology used to make compressed earth blocks is substantially different than to make mud bricks.

Support merge of Chirpici into mud-brick (not adobe). Jim Derby (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Agree with Jim. Not all adobe is made into mudbricks before use, nor are all mudbricks made from adobe, so the two terms are not synonymous and the articles should not be merged. The articles can use some editing to make this clearer. "Chirpici" is just a foreign language term for mudbricks and should not have an article in the English Wikipedia. And compressed earth blocks are a different, modern technology. I have already reverted the factually incorrect move there, and am adding a sentence clarifying and distinguishing them from mudbricks. oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I removed this GF addition because - to my eye - it did not look like an example of adobe so much as stucco over brick and wood, which were both visible in the photograph. But I was mistaken, as confirmed by the photo's creator. I do however think that the photo is better as an example of the style rather than as an exemplar, and have therefore moved it to the gallery, down from the prior position at the top. Comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The home, that you can see was built of Adobe to the right, was later added on to with a wood structure. The Adobe bricks are seen clearly, on the right while the regular bricks were used to create a fireplace. You do see what looks to be stucco over brick, but Adobe is weathering and eroding away. It looks fine where it is. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe. 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/20060525191123/http://kerpic.org:80/ to http://www.kerpic.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great article on the Adobe being used as a construction medium.But it can also be used as a ARTISTIC modeling scullpture medium too! Thanks!Eddson storms (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adobe. 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/20131202232337/http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/nmg/downloads/6/n4/nmg_v6_n4_p69.pdf to http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/nmg/downloads/6/n4/nmg_v6_n4_p69.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818200926/http://quentinwilson.squarespace.com/storage/adobecode.pdf to http://quentinwilson.squarespace.com/storage/adobecode.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kerpic.org/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply