# Talk:Islamic geometric patterns

Opening sentencesxare confusing as squares are polygons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.85.123 (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC) 

From what I see on the Islamic interlace patterns page, I don't that topic should be its own article; "interlace" is a general descriptive term, not really a style in itself; it's not unique to Islamic art and it's not distinguishable from other, more distinctive, elements in Islamic art. More to the point: everything on that page seems to overlap directly with the topic of Islamic geometric patterns, except for the short section on Arabesques which of course overlaps with arabesque. Even the sources cited there all seem to be about geometric art. I'd recommend that any material there that isn't covered here or in other relevant pages simply be moved to those pages, and then the page itself merged/redirected here. I will place a tag for merger; hope to hear from others on their thoughts about this. Thanks, Robert Prazeres (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for looking over the topic. You are right that the article has been neglected and does not in any way do justice to its rich and complex subject, which has a long history across the Islamic world, in countries from Islamic Spain to medieval Persia. You are correct also that Islamic interlace includes patterns such as Girih (but by no means limited to that) as well as the wide variety of designs covered by the vague term "arabesque" - from lines to foliage; this means (as it seems you have appreciated) that there cannot be a simple merge to any single article, as interlace covers a variety of techniques, some of them with existing articles. A couple of historical details may further suggest that a merger would be less than appropriate. Firstly, interlace patterns came from the Islamic world, and indeed the English term 'arabesque' and the European usage of interlace is in large measure (Celtic knots aside) derived from Islamic influence, via Renaissance Italy - Venetian ships trading across the Mediterranean, and all that. Secondly, Islamic geometric patterns basically exclude the elaborate arabesques (along with Arabic/Persian calligraphy, which are often worked into the interlacing designs). In short, we have multiple topics, and Islamic interlace is in fact a major one, despite the current limited coverage. There are many academic texts on the subject; it would be best if someone with deep knowledge of the area would look over the article, but merging isn't the answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the full response, this helps. Maybe the better question then should have been whether Islamic interlace patterns should actually be its own page? (If preferable, I can move this discussion to the talk page there.) I take it that if the "interlace" page is supposed to be an umbrella term then for both arabesques and geometric patterns, then should we argue that both these topics can be covered more fully in their respective pages anyways? I'm concerned that there isn't much to say about interlacing as a distinctive topic beyond saying the term includes these two general topics (it might be better as a category in that regard), and an overview of these topics could simply belong more usefully on the Islamic art page. And if interlacing in European art is derived from Islamic art, then that too could simply be appropriately discussed on the interlace (art) page (which it partly is)?
The main hint that convinced me to bring this up is that, for example, the Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture (not the final authority but probably the most relevant encyclopedia to compare with) has an entry on "Arabesque", geometric art is at least covered explicitly as sub-section of a few entries, and their entry on "Ornament and pattern" has sections on "Vegetal" (arabesque), "Figural", "Geometric", and "Epigraphic" motifs. But "Interlace" has no entry or subsection and only comes up occasionally as a general descriptive adjective; and there's no entry that would appear equivalent to it, other than the ones I just mentioned. When checking on Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition (not quite as useful because it's less specialized, but still worth looking), there's an entry an "Arabesque" (where they note that at one point it was used as an umbrella term itself but is now more specific to vegetal motifs) and a general entry on ornament ("Zak̲h̲rafa") that names the main elements of ornament as being "vegetal, geometric, epigraphic and figural". But again "interlace" is only used as an occasional descriptive adjective. Likewise, in other general Islamic art/architecture books I've seen, the usual distinction is between "geometric" and "vegetal" motifs, plus epigraphy.
I'm not opposed to either outcome here, I'm just genuinely wondering what's more useful for readers, as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Having a lot of nearly-parallel/overlapping pages can just make it hard for readers (and even editors) to figure out which page they actually want, or create the impression that there's this notable independent topic when really it's just a partial sample of a few topics better covered elsewhere. (PS: another alternative to merger could be to keep that page as is but rename it something like "Ornament in Islamic art" or "Islamic art motifs", which would still cover a fairly definable aspect of Islamic art.) Thanks again for any thoughts! Robert Prazeres (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. I think what there ought to be is an overview page called something like 'Islamic ornament', with sections on Arabesque, Geometric patterns, and Calligraphy, and some sort of discussion of how all three are often used together. The current article could simply redirect to that, and would form the beginnings of that article, given a summary of Islamic calligraphy and a new Overview. Oh, and a brief section summarizing the relevant parts of Islamic influences on Western art. Johnbod, would that work for you? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, though imo arabesque is the least vague of the various terms, & should always be capable of being understood as stylised foliage tendrils. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, we all seem to be agreed, let's do that then. Robert Prazeres, seems we're going for the move/redirect to "Islamic ornament" and write up further, so it'd be best if you withdrew the merge proposal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I think this is a good solve. Will remove the merge template now. Thanks! R Prazeres (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was this important piece of info removed from the lead https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1155535663 Hu741f4 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it belongs in the article body. We do not add "new" materials and their citations to the lead section, which is always and only a summary of the body of the article. If you had read my edit comment you would have seen that I told you "mv recently-added definition and citation out of lead", i.e. I moved it per WP:MOS into the article body. You may find it helpful to read WP:LEAD on this matter. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. It was an over-statemenrt when first added - not all Islamic geometric patterns are like this. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The entire article focuses only on this type of geometric pattern. Hu741f4 (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Which is a good reason for starting the article's main text with a definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't, nor should it. I'm not very happy with this as a definition for the whole subject. Several of the images could not be so described. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to remove it then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I was going to suggest it could be moved to the "Early stage" section further below, as Bonner on pp.5-6 is mostly talking about the early development of this style, which fits well I think with the existing comment in that section about the earliest examples. Bonner also plenty of other info that could be used in the future to add to the "Evolution" section generally. R Prazeres (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I went through the journal article by the researchers and the companion article on nature, there does not seem to be a reason to suggest this was controversial. 
Perhaps more neutral phrasing would be appropriate? Sudo1618 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)