This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Gothic architecture is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Gothic architecture is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
The section on the influence of Islamic architecture on the Gothic style needs more evidence. The pointed arch is just one feature of Gothic, and is found in other styles, including Islamic architecture. The rib vault is an essential feature, along with flying buttresses, which made the height and great windows of Gothic cathedrals possible. The current citations for this section aren't sufficient. The section needs to give examples, with illustrations, of the use of rib vaults in Islamic architecture that predate Gothic cathedrals. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claims only relate to those features, & the arch is undeniable & well-referenced (not, nb, necessarily that IA was the first to use it, but the immediate source for Gothic). We don't actually absolutely need "examples, with illustrations" - we just need WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular dispute about pointed arches, they existed in other cultures and regions before the Gothic cathedral. The question is about the rib vault, which, along with the buttress,, is the feature that made Gothic cathedrals possible. Are there any examples of the use of rib vaults in Islamic architecture which predate Durham Cathedral and the Basilica of Saint-Denis? If there are, they should be included, with illustrations. Without specific examples and illustrations, I don't see how the article can credibly claim that the Gothic style was directly influenced by Islamic architecture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful. Cordoba Cathedral seems to be the most prominent example. The difference between the Gothic and the Islamic rib vaults, if I understand correctly, is that the vaults of the dome of Cordoba Mosque carried the weight directly downward onto the walls, while the Gothic rib vaults carried the weight outwards to rows of columns, and a little later to buttresses outside the walls, which allowed the greater height and very large windows of Gothic churches. 09:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Christopher Wren when he mentioned his distaste for gothic and the influence of the Muslims was talking primarily about the decorative elements such as tracery, compound arches, multilobed arches and so forth, as seen in the Cordoba Mosque. And much of those design elements are owed to the evolution of math during the Islamic Golden age which led to the designs based on intersecting circles, squares, triangles other geometric figures to produce complex shapes. The reason for the preoccupation with such forms in Islamic art was due to its iconoclasm, as in not depicting the human form in their art. He was not talking about the basic design of European churches which got their basic form from Roman basilica and the evolution thereof under the Byzantines in places like Syria and Armenia. And a lot of that merging of styles between Christian and Muslim came from Spain such as again Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba or Castles like Aljafería. Big-dynamo (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sure you know by now, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You've recently restored your old text, complete with spelling errors, and deleted later edits and citations, by other editors, including me. This really isn't how Wikipedia works. Please expect that more edits will be made to your text by others, including me. And please don't delete edits with reliable citations, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, simply because you disagree with them. Yours is not necessarily the only valid point of view, Other views should be and will be included. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is yours, Siefkin, nor that of your French sources. You have had a pretty good run with the article, with 1106 edits since 2018. I would give Amanda some time to complete her edits, as you have been given (does your post here actually belong in this section, or is it more general?) Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC), are you repsonding to me?[reply]
Of course I was! I named you. Please don't be silly. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to the bottom of the page to continue. Amandajm (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. The influence section should be after the section on the history and the different elements of the style. as in the articles on other architectural styles. Please do not move it. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In every architecture related articles "Influence"
Section appers at the top. Then come history and elements of that architecture. One should first know what influenced that architecture and its origin. This is the pattern that all books and academic articles, journals related to architecture follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:1118:A3E:7E16:29C:C0F5:8273 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not true in the cases of the articles on Modern architecture, Romanesque architecture, Baroque architecture, Art Deco, and others. These all start with the origins and principal features of the style. "Influence" is extremely subjective, as this article has shown, and depends largely upon personal opinions and points of view. These belong lower in the article, not ahead of the principal examples. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 Definition
2 Scope
3 History
3.1 Origins
3.2 Politics
3.3 Religion
4 Characteristics
4.1 Walls
4.2 Buttresses
4.3 Arches and openings
4.4 Arcades
4.5 Piers
4.6 Columns
4.7 Vaults and roofs
5 Ecclesiastical architecture
5.1 Plan
5.2 Section
5.3 Church and cathedral east ends
5.4 Church and cathedral façades and external decoration
5.5 Church towers
5.6 Portals
5.7 Interiors
5.8 Other structures
5.9 Decoration
5.10 Transitional style and the continued use of Romanesque forms
6 Romanesque castles, houses and other buildings
7 Romanesque Revival
8 Notes
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
The section Origins starts with Ancient Rome. The section is roughly equivalent to the section titled Influences in the present article.
One of the necessary differences between the two articles, Romanesque and Gothic, is that Romanesque showed less stylistic development. The developments wer more in the use of and engineering of the vault.
For this reason I don't intend to follow exactly the same format as this list here.
The statement that the Gothic rib vault was derived from Islamic architecture is made as if it's a proven fact, but in fact it's highly questionable. The Gothic rib vault is entirely different in its form and function than the "rib vaults" under the domes in Spain, which are decorative. Unlike the Gothic rib vaults, they don't have any structural function. It should be made clear that this is a theory, not a proven fact, unless there's some better evidence. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Aachen says that it has iron rods to take side thrust. Sainte-Chapelle is very similar. They both are much taller and narrower than preceding structures, with narrow buttresses and no ambulatory. I don't believe that Sainte-Chapelle is stable without tension elements inside the dome, as implied by this article. David R. Ingham 21:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ransford Ingham (talk • contribs)
The French Wikipedia article on Sainte-Chapelle, [[1]], says that, because there was no room to put flying buttresses, chains were used to take the side thrust of the vault (but I can't these in pictures). Water hammer bloomeries and melting of iron, to speed smelting, began to be used in Europe at around this time, so this may have been the first period in which iron was used as a structural material in buildings. David R. Ingham 01:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I went on sabbatical from Wikipedia about 5 years back, because of ongoing, gender based harrassment.
This harrassment of females became so serious on Wikipedia in the last five years, that one, younger female was even interviewed by the BBC about it.
Yes.
So Wikipedia, as the result of harrassment, lost one of the prime contributors to articles on architecture for the last five years.
Does it matter? Can the rest of you all rush in to fill the space?
The answer, unfortunately, is a resounding no.
Some less experienced contributor fiddled, in a no-doubt well-meaning way, with the introduction to this article.
The result has been that every student for several years who has done a You Tube presentation on Gothic architecture has given the primary features as ribs, and fling buttresses.
Well, that rules out thousands of smaller Gothic structures that have neither.
Until I just deleted most of the section, the pointed arch appeared in the intro only as an also feature!
I suppose that I will fix it. No-one else has fixed it in years.
Amandajm: recently deleted the paragraph of the lead giving the characteristics of Gothic architecture, saying it was "Completely wrong", but not giving any explanation or other reason. Could you please explain what you think is wrong?
Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with this articel arfter revisions of 2018[edit]
The article has some serious problems. It was a functional article, and now is not.
I am going to list some of the problems.
1. The defining factor of Gothic architecture is the pointed arch. Not the flying buttress, not the ribbed vault, not the large windows, not the height, not the tracery, not the stained glass, not the facade or the twoers or the spires or the heavenly light, or anything else.
The defining chareacteristic of Gothic architecture is the ribbed vault. And on the grounds of that statement, I am revising this article.
I am going to sy again, that during my recent Sabbatical, I was alerted to the problem by students quoting this article and continually giving the flying buttress as the primary arhitectural feature!!
2. The problems started in the intro. I deleted part with the intention of rewriting, because pointed arch was mention as an "also".
Since then it has been rewriten and now states The architects of Gothic Cathedrals used the rib vault, flying buttress, and pointed Gothic arch which, combined together, made possible very tall structures and maximum light.
Order Order! Order! (as they say n the Houses of Parliament).
2.1.No. This article is not about Gothic cathedrals. It is about Gothic architecture (of which cathedrals are a major example)
2.2 No. First and foremost, before any List of feature is mentioned, the defining factor is the shape of the arch. It is both the key engineering element and the key decorative element.
2:3 No. The order- ribbed vault, flying buttress, pointed arch- is the wrong order under any circumstance.
3. There is a section called Influences. This is the key to understanding the development of Gothic architecture. This was at the top It is now at the bottom.
4. Three sections on the "History of the Development of the Gothic Style" exclusively in French cathedrals has taken the place of a general statement.
5. There was I believe.... unless I am delusional, a section specifically about the pointed arch.
This section used window s and window tracey to demonstrate the progression through different stylistic periods of Gothic. It has gone.
So where in this article does it tell the student, or the uninformed reader about the pointed arch and its importance to the big picture?
6. The emphasis on France. Yes, yes, the developent of Gothic in France is very important.But the development of Gothic in England at Durham, Wells, Salisbury and Peterborough (in partiular0 is also of great importance as it is almost contemporaneous with France and is extraordinarily different in character. Only at Westminster Abbey is it significantly derivative.
The historic importance of Abbey Saint Denis cannot be overemphasised. But the rest of the development of Gothic in France needs to tajke its place in a section devoted to France, and the artice french Gothic architecture, rather than dominating the first three sections of the generic article on Gothic architecture as a whole.
My plan is to revert this to a stable state and make additions as per its present state, and deletions to sections that have grown out of proportion.
NOTE: The grouchy old woman is half blind, dyslexic and has a barely-functional keybord. When you orrect my numerous typos, please don't do it immediately... it stuffs up the business of writing a paragrpah or sectionif someone does minor edits every minute or so.
Amanda This is how the article was at the start of 2017, if that's any use. It's now twice the size, and has had an astonishing number of edits. It's rather too long now (140k raw bytes) and it would be good to think of parts that can be split off. The referencing is better, though the number of French sources is regretable, and leads to a lack of balance. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an effort at a compromise, as you'll see in the changes, and a cite to the OED (not a French cite). Looking forward to comments. I also think that Johnbod's suggestion of new and separate article on the pointed arch is an excellent one. It's an opportunity to start that topic from scratch, and nobody (or hardly anybody} uses the term "Ogive". SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thre is an artcle calld Ogive as Siefkin points out. I believe that it was oncealld "Pointed arch" but some peeople pefer a fancier name if they can find one. I don't like "facade" for a medieval building (regrdlss of whether it has an unnecessarily Frnch spelling when adopted into English,). I use "West front", in most instance.
A section on epointed arch is abolutely essntial to this article.
The pointed arch is the structural principle, th engineering innovation, and the feature behind ever single building in this article.
This is the one thing that every student of Gothic architecture needs to know about and understand.
I hadn't noticed that you had been further editting until just now.
Can you please just leave the article alone until I have finished with it?
Understand that it has been missing the vital information for several years now.
Now that I am on to it, can you just let me get it fixed?
I willtake some of your edits into account, but just let me get on with it. I am not going to do it all in one hit. I need to do some simpler stuff here and there to get my brain around it.
You have read my list of problems. Now please be gracious!
THE primary feature of Gothic architecture is The pointed arch.
The dumbing down of this, the most significant fact withing the entire article, yet again, is making me feel rather irritated!
This is the very reason why I am trying to fix the article.
The pointed arch is is not "A" feature, as you have just written it. It is the absolutely crucial element of structural engineeringd and visual design.
Without the Pointed arch you do not have Gothic.
Now, just leave the thin walls, windows buttresses etc, until later down the article. I will get there.
Yes, the charater of the great cathedrals is important.
But I am going to say again, the article is about Gothis architecture as a whole, not about cathedrals, specifically.
This is not a direct quotation. It is a summary. It was written specifically to get the point across to you, but then I considered that it ought to go into the article itself, in order to make the point clear to any other person who might not understand it.
My copy of Bannister Fletcher is rather old, and I suppose has been since revised, but I doubt if this has been lost-
The term Gothic ......is now, by common consent, given to th Mediaeival Architecture of the 12th to the Early 16th century in Europe.....It is mainly distinguished by the introduction and general use of the pointed arch... B.F. 17th edition, p.367.
The Gothic style, or "Style ogivale" as it is called in France......distinguished by pointed arches and geometric traceried windows. BF. p. 524
You are complaining about me deleting something that was referenced.
What you don't seem to have noticed is that the points that you had made had simply been placed in a paragrap further down, where theyoccur in a statement about Style rather than constructional elements.
The first important example of Gothic religious architecture is considered to be the Basilica of Saint-Denis, near Paris, whose choir was reconstructed between 1140 and 1144, drawing together the developing Gothic architectural featues and creating a style that emphasised, internally, verticality in the structural members, and the atmosphere created by the play of light through stained glass windows
Can you please understand that I am not randomly deleting stuff. I will find a use for the OED reference. The information in a dictionary is essentially a very brief summary. I haven't finished with the intro yet. So could you please exercise some patience. Amandajm (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR (talk), I have just looked at you OED reference. It does not mention "higher structures", "thinner walls" or "light".
I am dropping out for a bit to sort this computer out.
In general, the OED, most of which has not been revised for nearly 150 years, is a very low-grade reference for art history. In the past I've pointed out glaring mistakes, which they have cheerfully more-or-less accepted, promising to correct when their full revision reaches that point (in c. 20 years). Its reputation as infallible is pretty wide of the mark. A senior British Museum curator just laughed at the idea it was a good source for art history terminology. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johnbod. I agree with you in general about OED, but the same list of primary features (pointed arch, rib vault, flying buttress etc.) is also found in the Heilbrunn outline of art history on the site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in their definition of Gothic and its primary features. I'm not sure that it's wise to reduce Gothic architecture to just the pointed arch. Cordially, ####
Present state of introduction- what is wrong with it?
Gothic architecture is an architectural style that flourished in Europe from the mid-12th century until the 16th century. during the High and Late Middle Ages, It was most famously used in the Gothic cathedral, but also was featured in palaces, castles and other prominent structures. It evolved from Romanesque architecture and was succeeded by Renaissance architecture. It originated in France, and was known during the period as Opus Francigenum ("French work") with the term Gothic first appearing during the later part of the Renaissance.
You have slightly reworded the existent leading statement, and split it up by inserting the sentence in bold.
What are the problems?
1. This information is already contained in the intro, a little further down.
2 '"It originated in France". It was developing simultaneously in England.
3. "most famously used in cathedrals". Wikipedia does not encourage "famous" and I would think the "most famously" . The sentence that is a little further down "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and churches of Europe" seems to have it covered pretty well. Why repeat the information?
4 "but also was featured in palaces, castles and other prominent structure". Please don't us the word "featured" unless the thing that you are describing really is a "feature". This was a style, and a method of construction. You could say "A feature of the west front of Notre Dame Cathedral is the Gallery of Kings."
The defining feature of Gothic architecture is the pointed arch. It is the primary engineering innovation and the characteristic design component. The use of the pointed arch in turn led to the development of other characteristic features, including the rib vault, the flying buttress, and elaborate tracery. Combined, these elements permitted much higher structures and thinner walls and large stained glass windows, which filled the buildings with light. [1]
This is dealt with in the section describing Saint Denis. It doesn't need to appear twice. If you get out of my hair for a bit, I am intending to add a well-referenced statement.
The first important example of Gothic religious architecture is considered to be the Basilica of Saint-Denis, near Paris, whose choir was reconstructed between 1140 and 1144, drawing together the developing Gothic architectural featues and creating a style that emphasised, internally, verticality in the structural members, and the atmosphere created by the play of light through stained glass windows.[2
I observe you removed one word here, and inserted a statement into the first paragraph.
SiefkinDR (talk), Can you please have a few manners, and just let me get on with this, without continually having to deviate to give you reasons and explantions?
Sorry, go ahead with your edits. My primary concern is that the article read like a Wikipedia article, not like an academic article. I will wait until you finish. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the nature of a Wikipedia article is that it does not duplicate, at length, material that is found elsewhere, or would be better located in a separate article. For this reason, the hree sections on the development of Gothic, in French Cathedrals, specifically, is superfluous to this article.
Some of what one may perceive as too "academic" are additions that were not made by me, and will be looked at in due course.
"The plan of the Gothic cathedral was based on the model of the ancient Roman basilica, which was a combined public market and courthouse; which was also the basis of the plan of the Romanesque cathedral.2
This sentence leads the section on Plan. It is plainly incorrect. By the year 1150, the architects were not looking to Ancient Rome as a basis for their structures. They were developing out of the Romanesque. There was a 700 year tradition of building large churches to the basilica form. So to imply a direct association with the Roman basilica is misleading.
This is the sort of reason why I am doing an overhaul.
I have just removed the entire History section because it was entirely about France. And went into French Gothic architecture to a detailed extent tat is certainly appropriate for the Main article on that subject, but not for the Genral article.
Basically, a history of Gothic architecture that fails to mention Durham Cathedral and Wells Cathedral is not an adequate history of the earliest stages of Gothic.
This was a difficult thing to do, as I do not want to offend anybody. But lets get it right.
Yes, he references were cited, and all that. But that doesn't mean it was the right place for that information.
You're doing a great job with with your editing, it's useful and comprehensive and the article is much improved. The additional images are a very good idea, particularly those explaining the details of construction, and add a great deal, and the organization makes sense.
I have just a couple of minor quibbles.
Is Wells really the first Gothic cathedral? French sources like Olivier Mignon give credit for that to Sens Cathedral, which was built between 1135-1140. I think that Sens should be mentioned as well.
The article says that that Gothic architecture "May have been influenced" by Islamic architecture, but that also means it may not have been. The article doesn't give enough convincing proof or explanation. The images of bridges and other pointed arches with the article don't have an obvious connection with the rib vault and other key Gothic features. I'd suggest you leave that out until there's more compelling evidence.
Lastly, it would be great to have dates with captions whenever possible.
Again, congratulations and thank you for your good work. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re Sens and Wells. Sens is essentially the first substantially Gothic cathedral in France. But it maintains parts of the earlier Roamanesque structure. It also maintains many characteristics of Romanesque architecture. It is barely more Gothic than St Etienne, Caen, except that it employs pointed Gothic arches much of the time.
Wells, on the other hand, in unquestionably Gothic. It was begun in the Gothic era, and maintains the pointed arch, structurally, throughout.
The Classical form of column used in so many French Cathedrals is abandoned in favour of clustered piers, and accompanying fluted mouldings of the arches at both arcade and gallery level.
The Romanesue pattern of paired openings under an arch, maintained at the gallery level in most early french Gothic cathedrals has gone in faour of a row of lancet arches with very rich mouldings.
The Gothic west front uses a number of innovative forms, including trefoil arches over the niches.
Altogether, it is an immensely creative building which pushed Gothic concepts to new heights.
Re the influence of Islamic architecture- it goes without question that Islamic architecture influenced buildings such as Monreale Cathedral.
The section needs a little more work.
What I am currently doing is hunting out suitable pictures for the galleries.
I can't lways find what I want. And, as a designer, I like a gallery to look as if the pictures go together well. IF the sizes, shapes and colours are jarring, then I search for another alternative.
The aim is to select and arrange pictures that I can conveniently refer to in the text.
The pictures are important, to give readers/student a clear concept of what is meant by the terms, and descriptions.
Hope you are keeping well! Amandajm (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will drop pics of Sens into the first relevant gallery. Amandajm (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR (talk), I have left you a message above to say that I am getting back to this, and would include some more info at your suggestion. Please just leave me to do it.
NOTE: Please don't ever use the word "features" when the word "has" will do. as in "Sens Cathedral features a Gothic choir." No! "Sens Cathedral has a Gothic choir."
You can say "Sens Cathedral features a light and sound show for Christmas!" Amandajm (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that sections relating exclusively to cathedrals, their evolution, characteristics, &c., especially the Gothic_architecture#Plan,_elevation_and_parts_of_a_Gothic_Cathedral section be split into a separate page called Gothic Churches or perhaps more specifically Gothic Cathedrals. Gothic Cathedrals presently redirects to this general and over-long article. The content of the current page is almost double its rightful size and its middle is bloated with information and detailed plans that relate not the Gothic as a whole but only to mediaeval European ecclesiastical architecture, a subject well worthy of its own article: these sections are distinct enough to make their own page, since various churches and cathedrals and their typologies are already amply covered in the discussions of the various styles and sub-types. GPinkerton (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: As above: leaving the rest of the article and discussion of the history, the main typologies, and general principles of the Gothic, which are identical in secular and ecclesiastical fields. The article is double the size it should be. GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, GPinkerton The article is indeed twice the size that it should be, and it will be radically reduced in the near future. One of the reasons why I haven't split the stuff off yet is that I am picking bits out of it a I go, and don't want to miss anything. Amandajm (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton (talk) The most relevant type of building to be discussed in an article on the development of Gothic architecture is the cathedral. I could cut the information on cathedrals, but it would be a bit like writing an article on Renaissance sculpture and forgetting Michelangelo's David, or writing an article on World War II and not mentioning Hitler. Amandajm (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: No one is asking you to "cut" anything". I am proposing that the detailed discussion of Gothic ecclesiastical architecture (churches not officially episcopal sees are just as relevant and just as Gothic) be moved to a page befitting its notability and scope. No-one would propose having both WWII and Hitler's life-story all on the same Wikipedia page and not all information relating to David needs to appear under Renaissance sculpture; indeed, most material covered under David should not appear there. This proposal to split the page is not a task delegated to you; this discussion is supposed to reach consensus before any radical changes are made. The information is all relevant, if often poorly sourced, but Church Gothic deserves page of its own where the various kirks, abbeys and cathedrals can be discussed without diluting discussion of the formal qualities, history, and architectonic developments of Gothic per se, whether sacred or profane. Since the plans of cathedrals are relevant to Gothic churches in general but have nothing whatever to do with all the other uses of Gothic architecture, it is under their own head that they should appear. GPinkerton (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal of this proposal is not obvious at the moment. For the general reader in English, medieval Gothic architecture pretty much is church architecture, and it is entirely proper that the basic title should largely concentrate on that. This is a popular article and we should aim to give the readers what most will be looking for. I'm ok with waiting to hear Amandajm's proposal. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: The appeal is the desperate need for the over-long, over-broad article to be split in half. Why should there be innumerable pages detailing every aspect and sub-type of each provincial Gothic style, and a separate page for guildhalls, cloth halls, vernacular Gothic, carpenter Gothics, Gothic art, and so on, but not have a separate page for Gothic ecclesiastical architecture, let alone a separate page for Gothic cathedrals? What on earth is the rationale for disgorging all possible information on Church Gothic on this general page alone, but largely excluding secular and domestic architecture? You said: "For the general reader in English, medieval Gothic architecture pretty much is church architecture, and it is entirely proper that the basic title should largely concentrate on that." Why should Wikipedia reflect the prejudices of a "general reader in English"? The purpose is to provide accurate, verifiable information, reflecting reliable verifiable sources and their content, not to arbitrarily decide Gothic architecture is exclusively about cathedrals based on what someone might know about the subject before reading the article. Some of the churches here described as "cathedrals" are not cathedrals at all, would not appear in a Gothic Cathedrals page, but would appear in a Gothic Churches, as could all the cathedrals. Where is the reliable source that says "medieval Gothic architecture pretty much is church architecture"? If users are looking for Gothic Churches, (or Gothic Cathedrals), I suggest they be allowed to go to an article of that name, rather than be redirected to the general article of an architectural style, spanning some eight centuries, that was never exclusively, or even predominantly, ecclesiastical. At present, Amandajm has made more edits on this page than almost everyone else put together, over a decade and more, and is treating the subject as birthright, despite the article's shortcomings in the understanding of the subject and its presentation here. GPinkerton (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make no apology for trying to cater to the expectations of the "general reader in English" - not their "prejudices" as most won't have any. That is exactly what we are supposed to do. An article this popular (1800 views avge pd over the last 5 years) will have relatively few readers who think they know much about the subject, and will probably include schoolchildren doing homework or projects. Survivals of non-church medieval Gothic architecture are extremely thin on the ground in English-speaking countries. It was originally just about true that Gothic "was never exclusively, or even predominantly, ecclesiastical", but in terms of British survivals it is not. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: If the page will have relatively few readers who think they know much about the subject, and will probably include schoolchildren doing homework or projects what reason is there not to have a clear and concise article on the history and uses of Gothic architecture, and another on the detailed specifics of Gothic churches? The purpose is to inform, not to regurgitate what editors expect others already to know. Combining 800+ years of a general-purpose architectural style with a detailed exposition on the churches of mediaeval Catholic Europe is completely unreasonable and confusing, though I'm not sure why the appeal to school children's homework trumps Wikipedia's need for verifiabilty, reliable sources and article length policy. "Survivals of non-church medieval Gothic architecture are extremely thin on the ground in English-speaking countries. It was originally just about true that Gothic "was never exclusively, or even predominantly, ecclesiastical", but in terms of British survivals it is not." This is really problematic. 1.) Where are the reliable sources that say so? 2.) Why does surviving to the present day have any bearing on the matter? This is the general article, about style not one about existing buildings. 3.) What on earth has surviving buildings in English-speaking countries have to do with anything whatsoever?! We don't insist that buildings under Classical architecture be existing buildings in English-speaking countries? Why would we? Or else why "British survivals"? Where is the inherent link between speaking English in a modern country and the architectural style. Please clarify, and explain how your views are supported by any reliable sources anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I'd like to hear from you about this, when you have time. GPinkerton (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that my splitting proposal has been deleted altogether by Amandajm. This is not acceptable. @Amandajm: It is not for you to decide when to remove a proposal to split the page. Please avoid POV-pushing and abuse like this. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? She must have put it back, because there it is at the top. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the tag on the article page does not link to this section, as it should. Three editors (me, amanda, Siefkin) have now specifically opposed this proposed split in the Rfc section below. I'm sure we would all agree with some reduction of size by splitting-off, but not this. It's improper to have an Rfc and split proposal, launched within hours of each other by the same editor, both going on at the same time. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Yes, really. She didn't put it back; I had to do so when I noticed it had gone. You're reading this page differently to me. I read the words: "I do think the article is too long and good part of the text should be spun off to other articles." as being supportive of the idea that the article is too long and much of it needs rehoming elsewhere. You'll notice too that by now all my contributions to the article have been blanked. From you Johnbod, I'm still interested in your concerns about surviving Gothic architecture in the English-speaking world expressed above; what are they and why should they govern the content of the article? GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re reversals GPinkerton (talk) The term "ogee" or "ogive" Is used in English architecture specifically to denote an arch which has an S bend, and is of the Flamboyant form. The two references are both in the French language, and neither applies in English Architectural text book, in general. It is not particularly detrimental to the article, but it is a little confusing to any English speaking student to come across a word in a given topic. Amandajm (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: as I mentioned on your comment on my talk page, what you say is not the case and neither of the references I have provided is in French. Ogees and ogives are different things, and you appear to have confused them. GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton (talk)
There is a banner at the top of the page informing you that the article is undergoing a serious revision. Can you just do me the courtesy of keeping off the page until I remove the "inuse" banner. And as for you proposal to split the articl, It will be done, in time, but certainly not at the point at which you have suggested. Go and READ the total hash that you have made of the first section of the body of Sistine Chapel ceiling and get out of my hair for a while. Amandajm (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Discussion banner
I have removed it for now because I am writing, researching, and finding pinks and refs.
I don't want to waste mind time in long discussions on the talk page, when I could be working on the article.
@Amandajm: Wikipedia is not your personal project and you do not make the decisions. Wikipedia works by consensus and verifiable reliable sources. Talk pages are here to achieve consensus and not for you to claim sole authority based on your misremembered architectural vocabulary. Consensus is not a "waste of time" and you are not the arbiter of whether the article will be split or no or when other editors may make contributions. You suggested I rewrite the article on the Sistine Chapel, and for part of it, I did. With actual references and real objective information. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common courtesy to let a person get on with what they are doing. What you have done at the Sistine Chapel article is to add a mish-mash of referenced material, some of it being quotations from 150 years back expressing ideas no longer prevalent. You have dates, but no coherence. Go and read the article, as if you were a student trying to get some information out of it. I'm busy. I am absolutely certain that at this point in time, you can find a great deal to criticise here. But I haven't finished. Amandajm (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: You have been editing this page since 2006. When do you think you'll be finished? When do you think other editors might be able to contribute and clean up the morass? That is just common courtesy. GPinkerton (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You will see there was a gap of many years, until quite recently. Your tone is completely uncalled for. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article haphazardly refers to cathedrals all over the place, and then describes in detail numerous churches that are not cathedrals when purporting to discuss Gothic cathedrals, relying on them to demonstrate points relating specifically to mediaeval ecclesiastical Gothic architecture. For instance the Basilica of Saint-Denis is not a cathedral, neither is Sainte Chapelle. Southwell and Ripon cathedrals are not mediaeval cathedrals (they became bishoprics only in the late 19th century), Florence's Santa Croce and Santa Maria Novella are not cathedrals, neither is the Basilica of Saint Anthony of Padua, the Abbey of Saint-Étienne in Caen ("Abbaye aux Hommes"), Ulm Minster, Westminster Abbey, &c., yet all are discussed under the heading "Cathedral". This is as misleading as it is unnecessary. GPinkerton (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why, in quite a number of places, you will find the words "and great churches" or "and abbey churches" or "and large town churches". In point of fact, many large abbey churches are indistinguishable from cathedrals, architecturally. Which is why, at the Reformation, churches some were simply upgraded. Question, when you write a large document, Pinkerton, do you entirely edit the whole thing as you go? Or do you come back and work over it? I will check any points that you make, like this one, and make sure that the wording meets that requirement. Now, go and sort out the whole narrative of how Michelangelo cam to paint the Sisteine Chapel ceiling, so that when someone, other than you, reads it, they actually understand what happened. Amandajm (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Incidentally you rudely removed the inuse banner while I was working on the article? Why do it? THis is not the first time that I have asked you today to butt out while i am writing. Amandajm (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Pinkerton, You weren't removing a template that had been "left behind" You had been told I was still working on it. You had bee requested to desist. I was putting together a gallery, and searching through hundreds of images. Could you possibly show a few manners? Amandajm (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained before Wikipedia is not your personal blog and you do not decide what and when others may contribute. In fact, you wrote that you had removed the template, had not done so, and I removed it for you. You have failed to justify why you believe the discussion of multiple types of churches deserves the inaccurate heading "cathedral", which is the point I am making here. Your sorry diatribe on Michelangelo has been part-rectified, and if you want to write a personal reflection of what the Vatican means to you in place of accurate historical information Wikipedia readers require, do it elsewhere. That would be manners. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton (talk) I have just done a rough check over this. Understand that there is some material here added by other writer in the past, and some of it has stayed put, and not yet been reviewed and editted. So the expression is not mine. What I am going to tell you is that my brief check has indicated to me that in almost every instance, I have referred to "Cathedrals and great churches" or "cathedrals and abbey churches", and very rarely just to "cathedrals". So anyone who takes the trouble to read the text of any section that has been written by me will surely not find it too confusing. Please stop wasting my time! I removed the "inuse" banner yesterday, and put it back today. Amandajm (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: You claimed to have removed it today: [[2]] Your attempted point about the Reformation is absurd and has no bearing on the matter. The modern cathedrals I mentioned were not "upgraded" at the Reformation, nor because of it. Your assertion "many large abbey churches are indistinguishable from cathedrals, architecturally" is completely backwards and wrong-headed. In fact, architecturally, cathedrals are indistinguishable from large churches. Nothing about architecture distinguishes cathedrals from churches; neither could it. The discussion of architecture has to do only with churches; that is why it is called "ecclesiastical architecture" and not "episcopal architecture" or "cathedral architecture". GPinkerton (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton (talk), You are perfectly right about the two abbey churches that you mentioned. They were both elevated to Cathedral status in the 19th century. In England, in fact cathedral and abbey churches are in general very similar, architecturally. But contrary to what you have said here, they are both (in general) very different from other large churches. St Mary's Redcliffe, Bristol, St John the Baptist, Halifax; St Peter Mancroft, Norwich, etc, do not resemble cathedrals. Even though they are among the largest and grandest parish churches in the country. 23:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: I dispute that they do not resemble cathedrals, but this is beside the point. Manchester Cathedral was built as a parish church, but resembles a cathedral, which it now is. Of course, Halifax Minster is a parish church, and there is no reason to exclude Parish churches, like Ulm Minster, or royal chapels, like Westminster and Saint-Denis, from discussion of Gothic. There is reason not to call them cathedrals and good reason for a new article discussing Gothic ecclesiastical architecture in detail under its own head - Gothic churches. Abbeys, parish churches, and cathedrals would all be covered. GPinkerton (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is twice the size any article ought to be. It furthermore harps on excessively on ecclesiastical Gothic - misleadingly titled "cathedrals" - to the exclusion of other types and uses of this type of architecture. This discussion deserves a new page, under Gothic Churches, which would also discuss those Gothic churches that are deemed cathedrals. I have requested the split, but the article also has numerous other issues and faults. It is primarily the doing of two editors, whose edits and additions dwarf the content added by anyone else, and the article, which is a popular one, and its talk page, require attention from other editors for balance and objectivity. GPinkerton (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There is an experienced editor work in the article, as diligently as I can,.... It still has issues. Now the problem about "harping on" (I quote) about ecclesiastical architecture in this context, is that the "cathedrals and and great abbey churches" as they are generally referred to in the article (along with some reference to other "large town churches" etc) are the sources of much of the architectural development. Now, I happen to know that there exists a very good article on Castles. (Well, it was good. I haven't looked to see if it has been maintained) That article has a link to this one. I also :know that there are a number of articles that deal specifically with regional Gothic architecture. For example- every different style of Spanish Gothic has its own article. This means that the part of the article that can be dispensed with is the section that looks at the individual buildings and development within all the different countries where Gothic architecture is found. There also existes an article on Gothic secular and domestic architecture which was formed in parallel to the article Romanesque secular and domestic architecture. So ther is information in this article which can be conveniently reduced to a sentence or two, and a link. Since people in general, and art students in particular, associate the Gothic style primarily with church and cathedral architecture..... ...and since it was at abbey churches, and at cathedrals the the pointed arch, the ribbed vault, the flying buttress, and stained glass windows were developed, then I suggest that we just leave the "harping on" (as Pinkerton calls it) about church architecture, right where it is. I feel the need to say this really loudly as the point keeps getting lost-I AM STILL WORKING ON IT! so could we just keep the criticism down , because it s wasting my time dealing with it. Suggestions are good, and yes, I even respond positively to GPinkerton (talk) 's suggestions and act positively towards them, even when they are rudely delivered. Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: It is not your job alone to work on it. Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise, not your blog. It is not for you to decide who edits what or when. Two basic errors exist in this attempt at logic of yours: 1.) "Since people in general, and art students in particular, associate the Gothic style primarily with church and cathedral architecture" Wikipedia exists to reflect reliable sources, not the prejudices of art students in particular or people in general. Unless you can find reliable sources to justify this assertion, there is no reason to include it in Wikipedia, still less in this article. 2.) "since it was at abbey churches, and at cathedrals the the pointed arch, the ribbed vault, the flying buttress, and stained glass windows were developed" Everyone knows Gothic developed principally at Saint-Denis. Saint-Denis is not, and has never been, a cathedral. Where on earth did your get the idea that your beliefs should be reflected in the content of Wikipedia articles? GPinkerton (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just out of my head-
Pointed arch: Monreale Cathedral; Autun Cathedral, and Durham Cathedral, where it was used for the first time in a high vault.
Ribbed vaults: once again, Monreale and Durham Cathedrals, and the Abbey church at Caen.
Flying buttresses: would you believe Durham Cathedral, where they cannot be seen because they are screened by the roof over the clerestory,...... and Notre Dame de Paris, where they predate the rebuilding of the clerestory at Abbey St Denis. The flying buttresses at Sens Cathedral would predate those at St Denis.
..and this is why I wrote "since it was at abbey churches and cathedrals...." that these things were developed.
And Gothic piers were first used at Wells Cathedral, which also produced the first example of really sophisticated Gothic fluting, and the first truly Gothic foliage carving that broke free from Romanesque form and Classical models. And just in case you want to argue about it, the church at Wells has been a cathedral, on and off, since the 7th century.
Just to explain....It was at St Denis that the various elements (some of them at least) were pulled together and made into a choir that had a distinctively "Gothic" look about it.
Durham is solidly Romanesque. Monreale and Autun also look Romanesque, despite the pointed arches. But the remaining ambulatory at St Denis looks like French Gothic.
However, although it is feted as the first truly Gothic building, it is also argued that the honour goes to Sens Cathedral.... which has been drawn to my attention with an appropriate reference, and I have made a note to incorporate that into the article.
This is irrelevant. Wherever claims are made, they must be cited. So, produce the reliable source that supports your opinion that Gothic architecture is mostly about cathedrals, or abbeys, or even stonework. Then explain why a separate article for Gothic churches is not a reasonable way of reducing the size of the article, which is twice as long as it ought to be. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For anybody who happens to wander into this private dispute: both of them agree the article is much too long (feeling that rather more strongly than I do myself). Neither has really explained properly how they would like to remedy that. GPinkerton's agressive tone (also found at other talk pages) is not helping. Personally I feel it would be better if he let Amandajm finish her changes & then we can see where that has left us. Heaven knows there are plenty of other major articles that could do with a going over. If two editors rub each other up the wrong way it is rarely helpful if they try to work on the same page at the same time. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: This is not a private dispute. It's a request for comment explicitly to involve other editors in the page's editing. As mentioned elsewhere, Amandajm began editing this page in 2006 and shows no sign of "finishing". Or of adding proper citations, or desisting from deleting whole swathes of sourced material on her arbitrary whim alone. I cannot be expected to wait until another editor decides I'm allowed to edit "her" page, and neither should anyone else. From you, I would like some explanation of why you oppose the creation of the Gothic churches page, rather than simply denigrating me unreasonably. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be reading the page history correctly. The page more than doubled in size in the period 2016-18, in the decade-long period when Amandajm was entirely absent, but two other editors doing large numbers of edits. References were not insisted on in 2006, & these were added in the later campaign, but not ideally chosen or used. At the moment the problem this page has is too many editors rather than too few. You have now added an Rfc template, and proposed a split via another template, without setting up a talk section to match - this is inappropriate so please drop one of these. If & when you set up a proper section, I'll expand on my reasons for opposing beyond what I've said above. You say "Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise" but show no capacity for collaborative editing - a look at your other contributions shows rows like this breaking out wherever you go. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I have made plenty of good collaborative contributions, you obviously have failed to locate them, and moreover, I have created sections on this talk page for both the split and the unrelated RfC, despite your assertions, and precisely because I want to collaborate. Your refusal to do so reflects on you not me. To this very page, I have added useful and referenced material, as I have ever done. I agree that the page has too many editors at present; I would like to be allowed to make some edits without them being baselessly reverted. References may not have been insisted on then, but the article has been edited thousands of times since. I am trying to improve the page and bring it closer to the reliable sources; you are insisting on some very strange (and unsourced) notions about surviving buildings and the English-speaking world; neither have you expressed any cogent reason why discussion of Gothic churches does not merit its own article. GPinkerton (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Reasons
1. The buildings in which the primary Gothic architectural developments took place i.e the pointed arch, ribbed vault, flying buttresses, traceried windows, and extensive use of stained glass, were ecclesiastical buildings, not secular ones. The styles that developed in the important abbey churches and cathedrals crried over to secular architecture, not the other way round.
@Amandajm:Where is your reliable source that says this, a claim on which you appearto be resting a lot. GPinkerton (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. If Gothic church buildings are carved off this article and turned into a separate article, then the following material will need to be duplicated- The intro, the source of the word "Gothic", the history, the geography, the religious background, all the information about the primary architectural elements- i.e. pointed arch, ribbed vault, flying buttress.
@Amandajm: You appear to have have misunderstood. I propose to create a page discussing the plan and architecture of Gothic churches, and leave this page for discussion of the Gothic style in general. GPinkerton (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. What would that leave behind in the article?
@Amandajm: Everything not directly and solely related to the plan and evolution of Gothic churches. It's really quite simple. GPinkerton (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question about the length, There is material there which I had written as notes, and was creating text out of. That has to go. I also had spare pics here and there- now deleted. There are a few bits that need editing down and simplifying. There are sections on individual regions- it is good to have them together for comparison- but not easy to do so, unless the text is written in a comparative manner. So instead of having the details of every different country separately, I have included information about the diferent regional variations under the headings e'g Towers and spires includes info aver a wide range. There is an article about List of regional characteristics of Romanesque churches. It would be possible, and quite easy, to create a matching article- List of regional characteristics of Gothic churches. To this end, I have already cut about 30,000 bytes off the article and either sent the info home to where it belongs, or deleted it because it repeated what was already well dealt with on other pages. Regarding the secular architecture- as you have observed, there is already an article. And there is already a Castles article. I think that some information on both these topics needs to be included here with the link to the main article in both cases. Re my notes on stylistic characteristics. They might make a handy little List of elements of Gothic architectural styles. Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think that Amandjam has added a lot of great content, but I do think the article is too long and good part of the text should be spun off to other articles.
-
Second, I think there are some issues of style; much of the article now reads like an academic textbook, not a Wikipedia article. It's hard to read for people who aren't already familiar with the subject. It needs to give the important information first; what is Gothic, who did it, when, where, why. There's too much detail, and hard to find what you need. It should be written for people who have only a slight knowledge of the style and want to know more.
−
Third, Lack of citations is still a big problem. The first large section is entirely to a single source, and this section is entirely favouring English Gothic. Many sections have no sources at all.
−
Lsstly, unfortunately there's an ownership issue. While Amanjam is doing good work, she should acknowledge that this is a cooperative project, and that other editors can, and will, change things. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty rich coming from you, Siefkin! You had the article largely to yourself (with Vami) for a period of 18 months, in 2018/19 adding 188,000 bytes! If the article is too long you are largely responsible. You have nearly twice as many edits here as Amanda. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as yet on the underlying issue here, but must note that the request here is far from neutral, as RFCs are supposed to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton (talk), I want it to be known that you are a bloody-minded, officious bully, who knows how to lift text from other sources, mainly a Dictionary, (and reference it) and who is good at writing insulting material to other editors, but has no talent for writing articles.
Pinkerton, as you have observed, I have been around since 2006, but I have had a five year break.
I think it is time to take another one.
But before I go, I am going to make the point here that Wikipedia is for its users. It is for the students who are doing their homework. It is potentially, a good encyclopedic source.
It is not a repository of information arbitrarily assembled from cited sources, regardless of how well sourced they may be.
You seem to imagine that you are doing a very valuable service to Wikipedia by having identified the fact that an elderly, retired college lecturer and museum educator, wrote a paragraph of Personal Research on an aspect of Michelangelo's work not previously explored by other experts.
Now, why would I have done that? Could it just be that I have expertise?
You imagine that Wikipedia needs you, because you can track miscreants and 'bring them to order. You know how to hound, and to harass.
Wikipedia needs your skills like Hogwarts needs Dolores Umbridge. (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amandajm: This is surely pure fantasy - even persecution complex. What on earth makes you think that I "track miscreants"? Is this like that time you baselessly accused me of sock-puppetry? What has anyone's age or retirement plans to do with anything? Original Research is not allowed, and that's not my decision. I have not harassed and I have not hounded anyone. Any student doing their homework should not be consulting Wikipedia, in my view, and if they do then it's doubly important that what is read is verifiable and sourced, not an unsourced opinion piece of "personal research". Certainly citing Wikipedia is an instant fail at any level of education. Valuable service to Wikipedia is contributing sourced, relevant, encylopaedic information, as I often do, not reverting others' edits and replacing them with unsourced opinions. Wikipedia is here for everyone to edit, and you shouldn't feel discouraged. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR (talk), You appear to be a well-intentioned twit!
I am going to tell you again that it was your failure to comprehend the significance of the pointed arch that has been sending students down the wrong track, and had them persistently giving only the ribbed vault and flying buttress as the primary indicators of Gothic, even though thousands of Gothic buildings do not have either of them.
You do not catch on fast. You cannot tell the difference between a Lancet Gothic chapter house and Flowing Decorated Gothic Lady Chapel.
Moreover, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, even when it is pointed out to you, and you have just written the information that tells you what to look for.
If you were just a little quicker at comprehending and acting upon the information you are given, when it is placed on the talk page of the article you are working on, you would do better.
I have incorporated material sourced by ‘’you’’ into what I have been writing.
If you learn to do the same, you will contribute twice as well.
I echo Phil Bridger's comment above about this RfC not really having a neutral question, making it rather difficult to respond to. However...
Amandajm - you've been here for long enough to know that, however you feel about other editors, personal attacks are not permitted. They will not help bring this dispute to resolution; they lower the tone of the discussion, and put people off editing. Your comments above towards GPinkteron and SiefkinDR are unambiguous personal attacks; much as I appreciate your skills and knowledge, they don't get you a free pass on our civility policy. If you insult someone like that again you risk having your account blocked from editing - keep this dispute focussed on the content, leave personal comments out of it. GirthSummit (blether) 12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty one-sided, User:Girth Summit. If you read even just this section, let along the stuff from recent days higher up, you will see who has repeatedly been making personal attacks. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, thanks for drawing my attention to that. I confess that the well-intentioned twit stood out as being an outright insult - not profane, but it's literally name-calling. I'll read through the whole discussion over the last few days... GirthSummit (blether) 13:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Amandajm, GPinkerton, SiefkinDR I've just read through the entire page since Amandajm first indicated that they intended to do a major re-write. While I can't find any other personal attacks as obvious as the ones in Amandajm's message above, I can see that the discussion has become quite heated, with people on both sides saying less-than-generous things about one another. I can't understand why anyone would start a split discussion while someone is in the middle of doing a major rewrite - Amandajm agreed that the article was too long, and said that she was going to do something about that as she went along. She's been working on the article solidly for a month or so - what's the rush to split it? Why not just let her get on with it, and see what you think when she's finished? There are plenty of other articles to work on in the mean time. GirthSummit (blether) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Amandjam calling me "A well-intentioned twit" is fairly typical of some of her recent comments. Tact is not her strong point. I take it as a compliment, since she at least admits I'm well-intentioned. I agree with her that churches and cathedrals should not be separated from the article on Gothic Architecture. They're the heart of it. I don't mind waiting until she is finished with her version. But it needs to be written as a Wikipedia article, not an academic essay, and hopefully she'll stop calling me names. Cordially, the Well-intentioned SiefkinDR (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have separate articles for Ancient Greek temple and Ancient Greek architecture though doubtless everyone would agree that in art history and public imagination temples were the "heart" of Greek architecture, I don't see anyone arguing that a major genre of building be denied its own article and subsumed entirely into a general overview page in that instance, so why should the centuries of mediaeval Christian architecture all across Europe should be treated differently? GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet have an opinion on the RfC but will be taking an interest to help establish a consensus. I have updated the templates at the head of this talk page. One gives details of the {{section sizes}}, which may help in understanding the current size and structure of the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, I actually think this whole discussion, including the proposed split, may now be moot. If I interpret Amandajm's latest post here, echoed on her talk page under a section entitled 'over and out', she has quit. In this edit, she appears to have undone all the work she did on the article, putting it back to some historic version which was ~65kB smaller than the one we were discussing. I think this is a massive shame, she is obviously highly knowledgeable and productive, and the article was improving thanks to her efforts. GirthSummit (blether) 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: That is indeed be a shame, and much more extreme than was warranted - I'm saddened and regretful. I'm also insulted that I was accused of "lifting text from other sources"; I have never plagarized anything, neither would I. I appear to be "an officious bully" because of my desire that the encyclopaedia be referenced and not a subjective opinion piece. As regards the article's length, I still suggest it covers minutiae of churches to a level that easily merits its own article and which swamps the article and excludes discussion of much else relevant to the Gothic architectural style in general - its historical background, its regional variation, chronology, &c and dwells on forms exclusively of churches. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, do you think there's any urgency to make that decision? I appreciate that you're not happy at the way you've been characterised - I wouldn't be either. We're living through a trying time though, a lot of people are stressed and not behaving optimally. Under the circumstances, and in the interests of editor retention, burying the hatchet, turning the other cheek, and generally all-round being nice to each other, I wonder whether you'd be willing to withdraw the split request for now, and see whether Amandajm would be willing to resume her work. If she is, let's just leave it for a few weeks until she's done - it's not like she's going to make a total bollocks of it, and there's no deadline. Once she's finished, we could reconvene and discuss whether a split is necessary. I'm worried here that people (not specifically you) are more worried about 'winning' than what is in the best interests of our readers - it looks to me that Amanda was making improvements that they would benefit from, I don't want to lose that. GirthSummit (blether) 18:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I think there is more urgency on this page than many of the less well-visited ones but I take the point that it's not an emergency. I too do not like to see the whole work undone; my split proposal only suggests moving a lot of the more detailed treatment to its own article, (with page numbers fixed) not blanking everything Amanda has done; that material would have made a good start to a new article and I would like it rescued. (And not merely because my own history section was lost just recently, but I don't really know to go about this.) I'm not wholly sure abandoning the split proposal would help matters; it's not that that has inflamed things, and I think the idea has merit, but if there's no consensus then nothing doing. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the article to the form it was in earlier today (10th April); no reason to throw away the material, there's work to be done on what's there. I'll have a go at the references, though the Banister Fletcher tome might be a problem. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is directed to nobody in particular, but reading back through this conversation, I fear that I expressed myself poorly in my post above. Re-reading my comment it's not like she's going to make a total bollocks of it, and then my suggestin that 'we' reconvene to discuss her edits, I realise that it might sound incredibly patronising if read in a certain way. For the record, what I was trying to say was this: there is no rush to split the article; nobody should have any concerns that Amandajm is going to leave it in a worse state than it is now - quite the contrary - so there's no need to interrupt her; waiting until she is finished to discuss any future action would seem to me to be the best course of action. GirthSummit (blether) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the article should be retitled - it isn’t Gothic architecture in general. Gothic churches seems about right for the significant content here, and is a worthy cultural theme and historical thread to have. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree with Markbasett that the article needs to be retitled. This is the main article on Gothic architecture and its elements. There is a new separate article, Gothic cathedrals and churches, which looks specifically at the history and art of Gothic cathedrals and churches. Some parts on the history might be moved to the cathedrals and churches article, but I think this article is the right place for describing in detail Gothic architectural features, such as pointed arches, vaults and buttresses, and including military, university and civil Gothic architecture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the many suggestions made in this and other recent sections did not I think include a rename, & there will be very little support for one. We have to have an article called "Gothic architecture" and this is it. I am just letting this article mellow down for now, seeing if editors return, other new articles appear etc etc. At some point I will return with thoughts on where we are. I'll just say I was pleased to see your new article is getting better views than I would have expected. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes frequent reference to Sir Banister Fletcher (junior)'s reference but without specifying so much as a volume or a chapter, let alone a page number. To complicate this, there are now (since 2019), more than twenty editions of the work. I have the most recent one available to me, but this (the 21st ed.) is the only one to have been wholly rewritten since old imperial stalwart's death 70 years ago. There appears to be significant changes to the field over the years, and I am at a loss to try to track down any of the vague allusions to it in the references - there are more than a hundred chapters! GPinkerton (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Separate articles on Gothic Cathedrals and Architecture?[edit]
As the article continues to grow in length and complexity, I'm beginning to agree with others that having a separate article on the Gothic Cathedral is a good idea. The existing article on Gothic architecture can focus on the history and evolution of the style in different countries, without going into great technical detail. It would also include more about university, civil and military architecture, and the relationship between growing wealth and population and the appearance of the style. Readers who want to know the basics of the history will be able to find it quickly, without having to go through long sections of technical detail. Those who want the technical detail will it more easily in the article on Gothic Cathedral.
Basically, the plan of Gothic Architecture would be:
-Characteristics (briefly)
-Brief historical and economic context
-History and survey of major examples, both religious and civil by country.
-Sections on military and University architecture.
The new article on the Gothic Cathedral would focus primarily on the architectural elements, and how they evolved, by period. It would be the place for a more detailed technical explanation, with lots of illustrations, also linking out to related technical articles, and a timeline of major cathedrals.
I think the division of the current article into two articles makes good sense, both for readers who mainly want the historical context and for those who want the technical details. The alternative is an extremely long and complicated article that will be frustrating for readers. What do others think?
@SiefkinDR: This is precisely what I have proposed above! with the exception (I'm sure you'll agree) that the new page ought be headed "Gothic churches" and not "Gothic cathedrals". "Cathedral" is not an architectural term or genre of building, and much of Gothic ecclesiastical architecture was, obviously, nothing to do with a bishop. Many English "mediaeval cathedrals", for example, were not episcopal sees until the Early Modern period and we not built to be cathedrals, yet are as big and Gothic as mediaeval civilization could afford. GPinkerton (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without supporting or opposing a split at this point, shouldn't such an article be called Ecclesiastical Gothic Architecture, if that's would the focus would be (as opposed to the buildings themselves)? GirthSummit (blether) 11:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about Gothic cathedrals and churches? Or "Architecture of Gothic churches and cathedrals"? I think most people associate Gothic primarily with cathedrals. I'm afraid that a lot of people don't know what Ecclesiastical means and wouldn't find it in a search. Plus I can't spell it. SiefkinDR (talk)
@SiefkinDR:@Girth Summit: All cathedrals are churches but most churches are not cathedrals. As with Greek temples I think the simplest, broadest, shortest term is best. "Ecclesiastical Gothic architecture" could redirect there, as could "Gothic cathedrals". Presently, "Gothic church" redirects to this page. As I've pointed out earlier, many of the most famous and important large Gothic churches are not or were not built to be, cathedrals. Westminster Abbey, Saint-Denis, and Sainte-Chapelle are all not cathedrals. GPinkerton (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I'd recommend a trip to Beverley Minster to anyone. You can wander from early English through dec and into perp as you walk from east to west (on your way to the pub), and it's not a cathedral either. GirthSummit (blether) 17:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: Quite so! I think we should use "church" so as to keep it to the actual liturgical church buildings themselves, rather than anything and everything made by The Church (ecclesia) in the late Middle Ages. So, for instance, practical ecclesiastical buildings that are not the actual church bit - monastic refectories, bishop's palaces, and so on - would probably come mostly into the secular side of things, with halls, bridges, colleges, and the rest. GPinkerton (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, well, I wouldn't lose any sleep about what it was called. I do think though that we should wait a while to see whether Amanda returns - the building's not on fire, there's no need to rush into anything. GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's no rush. I believe Amanda has returned, she's certainly writing angry messages to me. Okay, let's say we go with "Gothic Churches" or "Gothic Churches and Cathedrals" or "Architecture of Gothic Churches and Cathedrals". What sections of the Gothic architecture article could migrate from Gothic Architecture to here? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR, I don't quite understand that - Amanda hasn't edited since yesterday. Are you talking about emails? GirthSummit (blether) 18:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She sends messages to my user page SiefkinDR (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR, her last edit there was on the 8th of April,unless I'm missing something? GirthSummit (blether) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: To start with section No.s 7 and 8. (on the contents box). They only deal with churches (largely, though not wholly, with cathedrals) and the stuff about vertical emphasis and architectural character of big churches is not pertinent to Gothic as a whole. A few other subsections could go along too. GPinkerton (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "stuff about vertical emphasis and architectural character of big churches" seems highly "pertinent to Gothic as a whole" to me, though it is not written that way at present. That is why yanking out random bits that seem too long will just lead to two inadequate articles. The various differing suggestions as to what would be taken off to a new article, "Gothic Churches" or whatever, will clearly not lead to a coherent treatment of that subject without a great deal of additional work, which I don't see anybody offering to do. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: You "don't see anybody offering to do" it? Why do you think I started this conversation? I can produce a coherent treatment. That is why I am proposing this coherent treatment idea. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was (if you read what I said) talking about a coherent treatment of "Gothic Churches" or whatever. There has been no talk of that above. Don't let's go into why I think you started this. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I don't know how I could have been more explicit in my previous comment, please read it again, slower ... Are you opposing the split because you don't want to do it or because you don't want me to do it? GPinkerton (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to start an article on "Gothic Cathedrals and Churches" (Or "Gothic cathedrals and churches" if that's stylistically better) ) using text, images and citations condensed from French Gothic architecture and English Gothic architecture, plus text on other countries and from other sources, It may not be necessary to split anything off of "Gothic architecture". I believe that article is written for a particular audience, primarily architecture students. This would be written for a more general audience, with much less of the technical aspects and would focus more on history. Opinions and suggestions are of course welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I have started a draft article here, with material from this page that I think is too much for the main Gothic architecture page (which is where I think the main historical and developmental analysis should go). I think the overall stylistic history and periodization should remain mostly on this main page, since it was international (and mediaeval nations don't map exactly on to modern ones) and the styles spanned civil and religious architecture. I can't stress enough that even though the illustrative examples are often cathedrals, a cathedral is not a type of building. GPinkerton (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I read your draft article, and it's full of good and interesting material, but it's not exactly what I had in mind. I'd like to write an article for those who are not specialists or students of architecture, that gives the general facts and history, without getting too deep into technical terms. It would try to explain why Gothic cathedrals and abbeys were important landmarks of European history and culture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: The draft as it stands is just the material copied from "Gothic architecture" that relates purely to big Gothic churches and which is a mess in terms of text and references; a lot can be more concise and so make room for the important stuff of what went into the building and furnishing and use of Gothic churches, and needs to be prefaced with a lot more material on historical background and developments. I didn't write almost any of it. I'd welcome some collaborative edits on what material you think should appear there: add away! Again though, focusing on just cathedrals and abbeys misses more than half the picture; where are the smaller but much more numerous and no less Gothic churches discussed? As I mentioned elsewhere, the church furnishings (rood screens, altars, choir stalls, fonts, reliquaries) in the Gothic style are very important - these were the objects people came to church to use and the ones that caused the biggest politico-religious conflict (and resultant change to the fabric of Gothic churches) in the Reformation, Revolution, and after - but nowhere appear on the overall "Gothic architecture" page, since they all have to do with Gothic churches alone and are not strictly architectural. Ecclesiastical Gothic is about more than cathedrals or architecture; it's the whole package of what a Gothic church was and was used for. I think some of what you say about landmark buildings in history and culture could go into improving the Architecture of cathedrals and great churches article or else as-yet un-written articles on Medieval cathedrals, Medieval monasteries, &c. for the more general medieval history of church-buildings, their social role, institutions, political powers, &c., and with the purely Gothic discussion kept at Gothic churches. As with cathedral, an abbey is not a type of building but an institution, and their constructions did not differ significantly from priories, canonries, collegiate churches, chantries, &c. GPinkerton (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting topic, and a lot can be done with it. As you say, it's not only about architecture; it includes history and decorative arts, even music. all that goes into make Gothic cathedrals and churches special. It includes the role of Cathedral art and sculpture in teaching the illiterate about Christianity. I don't want it to read like an architecture textbook; it's for non-specialists who are curious. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: Incidentally, I think the idea that all the ecclesiastical details were there to educate the illiterate is rather overplayed. To control - with things like the Hellmouth and Last Judgement which have an obviously didactic purpose - is probable, but the illustration of Biblical episodes in stained glass and reliefs was probably done for the satisfaction of those that paid for the work and who could actually understand the Bible or the church services, neither of which was in a widely understood language in most of Europe. Even then, much of the decoration was so far off the ground or far away from the ordinary congregants or hidden behind screens and things that it was unlikely to be of help in understanding anything. But at present the role of mediaeval mystery plays and mummeries goes entirely unmentioned, and it is from these that western mediaeval folk usually got their understanding not just of Biblical stories, but of other popular narratives as well, since they were performed in vernacular speech. The changing fortunes of stained glass, like other Gothic church features like rood screens and reliquary chapels in the Reformation and after needs to be discussed, probably at "Gothic churches", since the story was the same for churches large and small, but varied from place to place and time to time. The same goes for the "improvements" to Gothic churches made in the Gothic Revival and Romantic periods GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a prototype of an article called Gothic cathedrals and churches. As noted above, it's less about architure and focuses more history, art and the other functions of the cathedrals. I'm using the same montage I created for "Gothic architecture". If the new article works, I can make a new montage for Gothic Architecture. Opinions and suggestions welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I think you've rather jumped the gun in creating a whole new article without establishing a consensus on the proposal to split this page. Why didn't you use a draft or consult anyone beforehand? GPinkerton (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a real necessity to split the Gothic architecture page. The new article is about history and art and functions of Gothic Cathedrals, with less of the details about how they're built. Some of the text from the architecture article might eventually move over, but I think the two are really on different subjects. The Gothic architecture article is written for architecture students. The Gothic cathedral article is for general readers. I think that the two articles can compliment each other. Don't you think that would work? SiefkinDR (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: If the new page is "about history and art and functions of Gothic Cathedrals" why have you named it "Gothic cathedrals and churches", and why have you begun to speak about abbeys and non-episcopal churches? This would make it very difficult for the page I propose - Gothic churches. Also, Medieval cathedrals might be better for the purposes you propose; a substantial treatment of Gothic cathedrals would be a desideratum there. In any event I strongly suggest moving the new page to Gothic cathedrals, leaving out all the other churches, which I think you don't propose to discuss. GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could simply be called Gothic Cathedrals, but it needs to also include Abbeys. That's why I added "churches". SiefkinDR (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you including abbeys? Are you including priories? What about friaries? Will be describing actual abbeys, or just the churches within them? see what I mean? If the page Gothic churches will cover both parish churches, abbeys, and cathedrals, why would an extra page just dealing with cathedrals and abbey churches be appropriate? If your page will deal with history and social role of monasteries, how will it fit the brief of dealing with cathedrals, whose organization, social function, &c. was thoroughly different to the many types of monasteries? GPinkerton (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good questions, and will have to be dealt with as the article goes along. I mentioned Abbeys in particular because they played a key part in the development of the style. There are already more complete articles on monasteries and churches. This article won't go into great detail about their social role and history. I know, it's a very complicated subject. This article is just a look at one aspect of it, that will be understandable to non-specialist readers. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new article now in development, Gothic cathedrals and churches, includes examples of most types of Christian religious architecture, including cathedrals, chapels and abbeys. The focus is history and art. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new montage, since I moved my old montage to Gothic cathedrals and churches, where I think it fits better. I've tried to represent different aspects and periods of the architecture with images. Please let me know if there are any problems or questions. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like the old one, it's bad and pointless - there is plenty of room at the top for all these to be individually. I don't know why you do these. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, you're not in a good mood today. All the architecture style articles use a montage. I don't know a better way to show the various aspects of a long article, so readers get an idea of what they'll find. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, all the architecture style articles do not use a montage, just the ones you done, & a few other like Indian ones (for some reason Indian editors love the things). I've complained about them often before, and dismantled a few. They are never a good idea, especially when followed by acres of imageless text. One picture at a decent size is far more useful than a bunch of postage stamps - especially illustrating things like Gothic cathedrals. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true, I didn't do the montage for Italian Renaissance. Your lead for that article, by the way, is really excellent, a good model for other articles. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the "Description and scope" section be eliminated. It simply repeats what's already in the lead, and offers no new information. Any thoughts on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd para repeats, but the 1st doesn't, and should be worked into the lead, which needs something like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the present organization, you have to read through five sections before you finally get to a description of Gothic architecture. I would propose that we:
Merge "Transition" into "History".
Move "Influences" further down. It's extremely subjective, debatable, and not directly relevant to the topic.
Move "Structural elements" and "plan and elevation" up. They're what the article is all about. They should probably go before history. What do you all think?
They should not go before history. The influences are part of the history. General description can come thereafter. GPinkerton (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Siefkin that a fairly compact "general description"-type section should come before a rather long "history" section. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation and sourcing of history section[edit]
I would like to consolidate the history text in the article a little more, since it's now scattered about, and of course to add more citations. Comments and suggestions very welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this are the same as before; that the history part should be the main focus, with a chronological/stylistic treatment of the history the style throughout Europe and the Mediterranean separated out from the more intricate details of churches, their windows, different vaults, &c. GPinkerton (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the purpose I have in mind for Gothic cathedrals and churches, to concentrate only on the history and the art. I think this article can have a little more history, but should focus (with much less detail) on the important architectural elements. Now it has a great deal of repetition, and a lot more technical details that can be moved off to separate articles.
As far as history is concerned, why don't we merge your article and mine on Gothic cathedrals and churches? There seems to be a lot of overlap. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Gothic churches page is just a draft right now and the material there is either copied from this article or isn't ready for inclusion just yet, but the idea that the more technical side should overflow to a separate article is a sound one. GPinkerton (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One point to raise is the periodization. In the History section I added, I had them treated together, but now it's more split apart. I think we should make it clear that the different periods are international styles that co-existed in many countries. I also think we should categorize them by 1st, middle, 2nd, and 3rd Pointed as that works across Europe. GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Another way of consolidating the article would be to remove the dreadful images in the centre and move them over to the sides where they belong. Some of them are useful, like the tracery one and the ribbed vaults, but the rest are ugly as sin. GPinkerton (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the history section and periods, the French and English use different time periods and titles, and have somewhat different characteristics for each period, and the Italians are somewhere else, so I think that needs to be recognised.
Concerning images, which images are you describing as dreadful? For images, Personally I prefer to have them in horizontal packed galleries, so you can have a larger number. Images on the side are limited to one per section, and depending upon the size of the screen, the images can spill into other sections.
I see just now that you deleted the French time periods. They really are different than the English ones, and they need to be included. Thanks. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with the images? It's not possible to have both vertical and borizontal galleries on the same page. The vertical images destroy the horizontal galleries. Vertical galleries are limited to one image per section, and don't work at all when you need multiple images per section, as in this article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: They are not really different. The Larousse (not the most academic source) has just slightly rounded up dates, that's all. The source cited deals with the whole style, not just England. (or really the British Isles). The horizontal galleries are terrible. The images should go on the sides where they belong. Moreover, you can actually see the images at an appropriate size. Please don't add more. The images were there to illustrate the text and should appear next to the text. I will restore the ones for the history section. GPinkerton (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the images to the sides and again removed the duplicate periodization. The periodization shown is for all Europe and includes the traditional French and English stylistic classifications. Please don't change it again. The Larousse does not say periodizations are different and neither the Dictionary of the Middles Ages nor the Dictionary of Architecture say their classifications are for England only. Quite the opposite. The history section deals with Europe outside France and England anyway, with Strasburg and Prague mentioned. The Larousse also does not justify a separate heading for "Norman Gothic" either. Please agree to remove the horizontal galleries or at least not add any more. They break up the text horribly and they look awful on my screen and doubtless others'. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I notice also that there is now a lot of overlap between the Structural elements and Evolving styles sections. I propose not adding any more images of these things and sorting out the text so that each item is treated in one place and the pictures go next to it.
I will also remove some 13th century examples from Normandy from the early Gothic section since there is no place for them there. GPinkerton (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an unsourced section on "Importance of Churches" as only very tangentially relevant and equally applicable to other mediaeval churches and Gothic architecture ≠ churches and architecture is > ecclesiastical architecture. GPinkerton (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way you're deleting all of my edits is not at all acceptable. You've destroyed an entire day's work, and the article looks worse than ever. I'm going to have to do it all over again. Your vertical images don't work at all for this subject. Let's discuss this further before you do anything more. It's extremely frustrating. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I'm not deleting all your edits. I'm just changing it so it fits the sources. The horizontal galleries do not work here. The Larousse source does not justify having a separate section for Norman Gothic, it doesn't justify having two identical periodizations, and it doesn't justify adding a random gallery of a 13th century church under Early Gothic I moved the gallery to Coutances Cathedral. Please don't just do it again; let's work to improve the text rather than just adding huge numbers of pictures of your favourite French churches. There are plenty of pictures as it is. GPinkerton (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing is not "working together". It's deleting information based on reliable sources, without prior discussion, and trashing other editors' work.
Please reconsider using exclusively the type of galleries you are using; packed galleries are simpler and more flexible, and more easily modified, and doesn't waste space. See other architectural style and arts articles where they're used.
Deleting sourced text because you don't agree with it isn't "working together."
Deleting text because it's based on Larousse is not acceptable; it's the best French source, Subscription is free, you just need to register. There's a place in the article for more than one point of view.
Virtually all of your citations are to one source; it's a good source, but an article like this needs to be based on more than one source.
In short, please respect the work of other editors, and discuss changes. That will make this a much more pleasant experience. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I have not deleted anything of the kind. All I have moved is pictures and headings. The Larousse does not give Norman Gothic its own heading and neither should we. There are plenty of other sources to add but I'm going through the basics first. The Multiple Images are very bad because they don't resize at all when you resize the page and policy is definitely against including them when pictures can go alongside or in gallery. GPinkerton (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I'm also rather dubious that all those churches in Normandy fit under Early Gothic. Most are not 11th or early 12th century; most are late 12th or 13th, so I think those probably belong under High Gothic or later. GPinkerton (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is a section in Larousse on "Le Gothique en Normandie." Gothic architecture from Normandy was not just from the "late 12th and 13th century" Lessay Abbey had rib vaults in 1098, just after Durham Cathedral. There were also rib vaults in Bsyeux Cathedral (1060-1070), ribs in the domes of Quimperle, at Moissac Abbey. They were importing stone and craftsmen from Normandy to use in English cathedrals. I really don't understand why the article talks at length about the influence of Islamic architecture and leaves out Norman architecture.
Second, I think he problem you're having with multiple images is the format you're using. If you use packed galleries, you shouldn't have any problems, they adjust themselves depending on the format of the the screen and other factors. They're used in most of the articles on architecture styles. Putting images on the right side causes more problems than it resolves, and greatly limits the possible number of images. It's an especially poor format for subjects with a lot of variety, like cathedral facades, where you want to compare them side by side. ::::Also, the captions should always have dates; that is one of the big problems with the galleries remaining from previous article, in addition to their rigid format.
My main request is, please discuss changes and respect the work of other editors. It's tiresome to have to argue about every edit. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Rouen, Lisieux and Coutances, which are all a century later and do not qualify as early Gothic. Larousse's sections are:
1. Introduction
2. Le premier art gothique
3. Le style 1200
4. L'âge des grandes cathédrales
5. Le gothique rayonnant
6. Le xive s. jusque vers 1380
7. La fin du Moyen Âge
8. Le gothique international
The fact that it has a subsection (under L'ÂGE DES GRANDES CATHÉDRALES) about Gothic in Normandy signifies that Normandy's cathedrals were contemporary with the other churches of the "age of big cathedrals" to which it also devotes subsections, Chartres, Bourges, the spread of Gothic art, and the blossoming of Gothic sculpture. This strongly suggests 1.) Normandy's churches are notable here under High Gothic and the later 12th century: Fécamp, Lisieux, and Saint-Etienne de Caen's apse are all the same age as Chartres or 2.) are significant because they were innovative, not because they were in Normandy. We don't need to have a section for every region and kingdom; we should treat stylistically and chronologically not regionally. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article, when I read it, was fantastic. I printed a version of it and enjoyed reading each section. I just came back to it and I realized that its content has been completely revolutionized. I do not think I have ever read an article on Wikipedia in the past 15 years that changed so much in such a short time.
When I printed this article it had a great layout and it contained great images. I see a great deal of effort has been put into ruining the look of the article by publishing lousy images like "High Gothic tower (right) Flamboyant Gothic tower (left) Chartres Cathedral", "Rayonnant Gothic west front
Strasbourg Cathedral (1276–)" and "Perpendicular Gothic east end, Henry VII Chapel (c. 1503–12)". They are ostentatiously ugly with bad angles and plenty of shades.
The layout is to say the least horrendous with images spanning too far to the right, stacks of images on top of each other with text to the right of them and inconsistency in terms of box styles with images outside and inside boxes in multiple sizes.
I am upset at the vandals that completely ruined a perfectly fine-looking article with quite decent information. It looks like the butchering started with Amandajm on the 10th of March of 2020 and it went on since then. I was going to make updates that I normally mark on paper but after seeing what happened to this article I certainly do not have the energy nor the ambition to completely redesign and reorganize this article to bring it to the glory I found it when I read it. I was under the impression an article can evolve and improve little by little but this does not seem to be the case. It's a completely different animal that has been dismembered and reconstructed.
As a fan of Gothic architecture, it is painful for me to see that happened to this article. I cannot believe garbage images like "The dynamics of a rib vault, with outward and downward pressure from ribs balanced by columns and buttresses. The pieces in the model can stand by themselves, without cement. (National Museum of French Monuments, Paris)" has been uploaded. Seeing the "Stained glass windows" section after 70% of the article is to say the least shocking.
I hope some hero out there who is an expert on the subject saves this article and brings it back to the Gothic glory it should represent.
@ICE77: Thanks for your comment! We certainly agree that the article is in a parlous state at present, that the multiple image template (the one where the image box spills over) is a crime, and that the children's model of the rib vault should be banished! I'm less clear on what you mean about bad angles and "plenty of shades", could you elaborate? Your comment made me look into the history and I quite agree that the article had a lot fewer issues just a few months ago, before its sections were hacked away and the whole text refocused on cathedrals, which I had not realized had happened so recently. Could you also expand on what you mean about the stained glass? What in particular was shocking?
I will continue to work on the images' presentation (the multiple image template needs to be replaced with galleries), but I'd appreciate your input on which should be included and which not; an awful lot have been added recently (a few by me latterly) and many others have been removed. It might also be good to look at some of the points raised elsewhere on this talk page give an indication of where you agree or disagree. GPinkerton (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the current state of the article; it's very poor, both in content and in graphics. It's very repetitive, there's no consistency in the graphics, and it's written like a university architecture textbook, not a Wikipedia article. You have to go through a long series of sections on possible influences before you arrive at any architecture. And it's very largely unsourced, or single sourced. It needs considerable shortening, and elimination of duplication, and of course more sources.
As for galleries, I think packed galleries are the best solution. They're simple, flexible, and they're used in nearly all of the other architecture articles. They adjust to different screens, they don't waste space, and they can be easily edited. The current galleries also needs better captions on the images, with links and dates, as in other architecture articles.
Personally I rather like the image of the model of rib vault, which I confess I put there, It used at the museum of Historic Monuments in Paris to illustrate in three dimensions how a rib vault actually works, and it's designed for non-specialists. But if people don't like it it can go.
GPinkerton, by "bad angles and plenty of shades" I mean many photos have the worst angle and lighting possible. They are just taken without any consideration for the delivery of a good-quality photograph.
By "Seeing the "Stained glass windows" section after 70% of the article is to say the least shocking" I mean that after reading 70% of the article stained glass windows finally make their appearance which is shocking to me since they are a major feature of Gothic architecture.
Thank you (GPinkerton and SiefkinDR) for sharing some of my views of how disappointing is this article has become. I hope this article can be morphed to reacquired the glory it once possessed.
I think there needs to be a consistent system for placing images. The two different kinds of galleries, one horizontal and one vertical, are very confusing and conflict with each other. I strongly urge the use off packed galleries, used in many other architecture articles. They are very flexible and allow a maximum number of images, which is what you need in this article. You can't have one single image representing an entire period of architecture.
Also, I strongly recommend putting the links and dates into image captions. Many people who come to Wikipedia look first at the pictures, find the building they're looking for, and click on the link in the caption. I's very commonly done that way in architecture articles. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; each gallery should be horizontal, but I don't think all the images need to be in galleries. A few should appear full size alongside the text. I also disagree that packed galleries are better than traditional ones, especially as they reduce the space available for captions, which makes the words run over a stupid number of lines and take up huge amounts of space with unnecessary white space. I don't know what the problem is with the traditional galleries used all over Wikipedia. Packed galleries are especially bad when you try to shoehorn portrait and landscape images of wildly different sizes together and it's completely unnecessary. I agree that there should be dates but I have had to remove a number of dates from captions for being egregiously wrong, applying to the building rather than the parts pictured, which are often of very different periods. GPinkerton (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to start revising the section on structural elements, adding sourced text. I would also like to revise the images there, so that they match and support the text, and to put them into packed galleries, so they can be easily edited. I should end up shorter than it is now. Suggestions and comments welcome as it goes along. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the structural discussion and detail should be related only to Gothic. The principles of rib vaulting, for instance, are not unique or even new to Gothic architecture, and users would be best served just being to directed to the relevant article. I would be be more in favour of merging together those sections that repeat themselves. Can you be specific about what images you'd like to go with which text? GPinkerton (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For instance: I would say that sections 4.4 to 6.2 and then 9 (in the contents page) could be merged into a more coherent treatment dealing with the evolution of the structural elements, considered separately, all the way from Romanesque and Islamic architecture all the way down to the latest Late Gothic styles. I think that would be a massive improvement. It would be something like: arches (round->pointed), flying buttresses (simple->complex), windows (round arch->lancet->plate tracery->bar tracery->perpendicular), vaulting (groin->rib->lierne->fan), west and east ends (early->high->late), &c., each with their own gallery and each with a representative larger image that the sources say was especially influential. (This is why I chose the illustrations in the history section: Canterbury's chancel was the model for subsequent churches in the British Isles, Chartres was the model for High Gothic churches in France, Strasburg's west front was the model for rayonnant in Germany (and Cyprus), Prague's east end the model for flamboyant in central Europe, and so on.) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I will be writing only about Gothic elements. I can't tell you yet what images will be needed, since they depend entirely upon the text. Please give me a little time, I just started the section this morning. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: have had to remove one of your edits which suggested ribbed vaults were invented by Gothic architects and that Islamic architecture only used pointed arches decoratively, which is completely false. GPinkerton (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a picture of an Islamic rib vault that was used for structural purposes? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR:rib vault in the Great Mosque of Cordoba, 962-965. Are you kidding? Not only are they numerous Islamic examples, there are also plenty of Romanesque and Byzantine ones going back centuries.https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1025456GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of vault has nothing to do, except the name, with a Gothic rib vault. It's a crossed arch vault, used under domes. They were used in Normandy as well, for the same purpose. The dome rests on pendatives, the ribs do not go downward outside the vault to the columns and pillars, as in Gothic rib vaults. It doesn't transmit the weight outwards, like Gothic rib vaults, making possible thinner walls. The weight goes directly downward onto the pendatives and the walls. That's a fundamental distinction, It's interesting, but its not the inspiration ancestor of the Gothic rib vault. This was explained in the article on Rib Vaults (or was until you also changed that).
I also resent very much your language, and that you're saying that I'm putting false information onto Wikipedia. That's not the way you discuss an article with another editor. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article I linked. The weight is carried on the ribs and the pendentives. The article on rib vaults had no citations that backed this idea, so I had to change it, especially as it is obviously untrue. GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The weight supported by a Gothic rib vault is transferred by the ribs outside the vault to the columns and pillars below, and to the buttresses outside. That's the fundamental difference between a crossed arch vault and a rib vault. Please don't use insulting language like "obviously untrue." Please try to show some respect for other editors. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: sorry that's just not correct. There is no structural difference between rib vaults in Romanesque, Gothic, or any other architecture. Please read the paper I have shown you or the talk page of of the rib vault article where other editors gave already explained this to you. The vaults in the mosques at Cordoba and at Toledo are rib vaults. Rib vaults are not defined by, and do not require, flying buttresses. Neither flying buttresses nor rib vaults are unique to Gothic architecture and both precede the arrival of Gothic by millennia. The fundamental difference that you gave claimed to exist is a false one. This is not insult but fact. GPinkerton (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comments: Proposal to remove section "Early development of Gothic architecture[edit]
I would propose that we move the text in this section into other sections and delete that which is duplicative. It seems to me that all of this is found, with links and citation, in other sections. Comments Please? Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to remove "Transition from Romanesque to Gothic architecture"[edit]
I propose the removal of "Transition from Romanesque to Gothic architecture", which seems redundant, and to merge content into section on early Gothic. Any thoughts on this? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Please stop forcing these packed galleries on the article. They are awful, generate huge amounts of wasted space, and force the images together in a grossly unnatural way. No other editor supports them, and several have opposed on this very page.
2.) The galleries should come after the text. It is not normal or attractive to put them before. Please stop changing it.
3.) You appear to have added the same gallery twice. I will go ahead an remove the duplication.
I'm afraid I disagree with you, as I've told you several times before. There's no consensus to use the images the way you've used them. Packed galleries are used in most of the architecture articles, and were used here until the recent rather catastrophic remake several months ago. They're not awful. They don't waste space, the pictures are larger, and they're easier to edit. Putting images in the margins really wastes space, and greatly limits the number of possible images;. They also make more sense at the beginning of the text, rather than after, since they should be chosen specifically to support the text. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above on this talk page for exactly the consensus you deny! There is also most definitely no consensus for your constant campaign to force the packed galleries on this and all other articles. Putting your horrible packed galleries is what is wasting the space! A few illustrative images should be easily visible on the margins, the other images in the traditional gallery format at the foot of the text. There is no reason for your constantly messing with the layout and scattering spelling errors, unnecessary hyperlinks, ill-formatted and misinterpreted citations, and outright wrong pet theories about the uniqueness of rib vaults, Normandy, France, and who knows what else everywhere! Please, don't! Pay attention. GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to move or reduce influences section[edit]
I respectfully suggest that we move, eliminate or greatly reduce the "Influences" section, which I think is much too long and covers too much territory. The way the article is written now, you have to read a very long way into the article before you actually arrive at any Gothic architecture. That's OK for a textbook but not for a Wikipedia article. It isn't necessary for this article to describe the political, economic, geological and social history of Europe, plus the illustrated history of Islamic architecture, all of which is found in other articles. One option would be to move it to a separate article, "Influences upon Gothic Architecture." Another would be to limit it to one paragraph per influence. What do you think? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly agree it is too long - certainly it should not just be eliminated. It could be floated off, and what's here kept to one paragraph per influence. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing each "influence" here with a link to a "Socio-political contexts of Gothic architecture" article strikes me as a good idea. On a related note, the "Oriental Influences" subheading here made me cringe. It's not the 1960s. That subheading needs to be reworded. Peter Draper, whose article that subsection is based on, doesn't use that extremely outdated term. It needs to be purged from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.81 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No the influences and evolution of the style is of primary importance and should be treated first. See above for my suggestions on how the article should be arranged. GPinkerton (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod's suggestion. The whole can be moved to a separate article, and a shorter version, with one paragraph per section, can take its place. Although I fear that in the end it might end up being just as long. Also agree entirely with removing the heading "Oriental influences." I presume this would be replaced with "Islamic influences", or something else? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the possible influences are Syriac Christian, no? Since E. Said has made younger academics squeamish about the O word, and "Eastern" might suggest Slavic etc, we'd better say "Near Eastern" I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, "Near East" has been replaced with "Middle East" in American English. I'm just throwing that out there. I still use the former in my lectures, though I may reconsider that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.81 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Wikipedia" is not a phrase that can come before an authoritative statement. Near East means a wholly different place than does Middle East, and the (incorrect) use of Americans should have no bearing on this article, which is written in English. And no, SiefkinDR, moving to a different article is what deserves to happen to the extraneous morass of information relating to churches alone. Not the fundamental history of Gothic architecture itself, which so obviously belongs on this page it's hard to describe how wrong the POV fork you're proposing is. And no, "Islamic" is not a synonym for "Oriental". "Islamicate" I could live with. GPinkerton (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamicate"??? Is that in the dictionary? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: Yes, and if you knew a little more about the subject you would understand that, and much else. "Islamicate" is a very common term. See here.GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Grove Dictionary of Art and Architecture (2009) on on the word "Islamicate" : "Imperfect and even misleading though it may be, the word “Islamic” is preferable to [...] a neologism such as Hodgson’s “Islamicate” (to refer to civilization, where “Islamic” is limited to the religion), which has not been widely accepted." Also, GPinkerton, I see you're back to your habit of sarcasm and insulting other editors. Please try to maintain a civil tone with other editors. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've gained a few cites in this article for Martindale, 1993. We've got an entry in the bibliography for Martindale, 1967. I've tried to find the former, and all I see out there is Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception. I've got my doubts about the relevance of that work to gothic architecture.
So, question: is the year on the Martindale cites wrong, or is there another work being referenced? pauli133 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pauli133: Could it be the same book from 1967 in a newer edition or printing? GPinkerton (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could very well be, though I didn't see anything about that happening in my search results. If it is, we just need to update the ref with the new year and ISBN, and call it good. pauli133 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really help further, huge amounts of this article was compiled without regard for citations or the formatting thereof. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A WP search picks up "Martindale, Andrew (1993). Gothic Art. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-2-87811-058-6" from this article! Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But i can't now see his 1967 - did you just change the year? The page nuimbers may well be different. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So! As it turns out, the article with the cites not matching the book was actually High Gothic, and I'm not sure why I asked here, or how I missed that the book I was after is... here. Thanks for finding it, the other article is updated. I would like to get a consistent bibliography throughout the whole set of Gothic Architecture articles, though... pauli133 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved - sort of. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, it's my fault. The original English version published in London is from 1967. I couldn't find that here, so I'm using the French translation by the same publisher, published in Paris in 1993. The page numbers are from the French version. I should have made that clear.SiefkinDR (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pinkerton,
Could you please not delete my text and images within seconds of my putting them up? And please, its not necessary to put the kind of comments that you do. A little courtesy and civility will go a long way. Please. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can preview your changes before adding them to the mainspace. That way you wouldn't make so many errors for everyone to see. You can also use the spell checker that is built into your browser. It's not necessary to remove all images of buildings outside the medieval Kingdom of France either, and yet .... GPinkerton (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different image of Chartres: question about Metz[edit]
I would like to put a different image of Chartres in the section on High Gothic. Very little in the current image is actually High Gothic; one tower is Rayonnant and the other is half High Gothic and half Early Gothic. only the upper part of the facade and upper part of the tower is High Gothic. I plan to use an image of either Reims or Amiens, which are more typical, or an interior of Chartres with the transept rose window, which I believe would be even more characteristic.
Also, why do you consider Metz to be a good example of High Gothic? It wasn't finished until 1552. The article on the Cathedral says it's Rayonnant. There are better examples, aren't there?
Finally, what is your objection to including dates in captions? I think they're extremely useful. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: The reason the Chartres image is there is because it shows a direct like-for-like comparison of two styles and because Chartres is a classic example of what 19th-century French art historians were pleased to call High Gothic (a deeply problematic and self-congratulatory characterization). The reason Metz is there is because the source cited says: "After Toul, great churches in this style [High Gothic] were built all over the (Holy) Roman Empire, first in Trier (Liebfrauenkirche, 1228), followed by Marburg (Elisabethkirche, 1235) and Metz (c.1235)." What on earth does it matter when the cathedral was finished? The fact is that it was one of the most influential Gothic buildings in the High Gothic style in Germany. I see that you have replaced the image of Chartres (whose towers are High Gothic and Flamboyant, contrary to your claim) with one of Rheims but not bothered to change the caption, so it now entirely mislabelled. Again, use of the preview button, or even the visual editor, might encourage you to avoid such repeated blunders. It is the clerestory of Metz which is considered Rayonnant, not the whole building. If dates are to be included in the captions, then they should be dates of the specific parts of the building referred to, and they must be reliably sourced. Copying random dates or "facts" from other Wikipedia articles is extremely poor practice. GPinkerton (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I'm sorry to see you're back to your old style of discourse with other editors. I was hoping for a little more civility and a spirit of cooperation. This is not a battle. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of section Early development of Gothic architecture[edit]
I respectfully propose that we delete the section "Early Development of Gothic architecture." It's entirely redundant, since it only restates what's said in other sections. If there is anything valuable, it can be moved to other sections. Any thoughts on this? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have many times (see above) made plain my view on this: the entire "Transition from Romanesque to Gothic architecture" section should be excised and whatever is worth keeping integrated, properly sourced, into the "History", "Structural elements", or "Influences" sections, as appropriate. GPinkerton (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to combine sections Height, Vertical Influence, and Towers and Spires[edit]
I would like to combine the sections "Towers and Spires", "Height" and "Vertical Emphasis" since they cover much of the same territory. The galleries can also be merged and weeded out; doen't need so many images. Interior height can be dealt with in the section on elevations. Comments and suggestions of course welcome. Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk)
I suggest taking the entire "Architectural character" section and the "Evolving styles" section and merging them with the "Structural elements" and the "Sculpture and decoration" sections. GPinkerton (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be far too long. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I don't think so, most of the (almost wholly unsourced) stuff lower down is just duplicating stuff higher up, doesn't belong in this article, or could be deleted forvarious other reasons. Of course, as you know, I have long since proposed splitting the article. GPinkerton (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GPinkerton that a large part of the text in the later sections duplicates what's up above. I'm testing this out, as mentioned above, by bringing into the section on towers and spires usable parts of the later sections, but since those later sections are unsourced there's not much useful there. and I think it will be of reasonable length. The galleries can be limited to images which are discussed in the text, which will make them considerably smaller and more focused. I don't think it will necessarily be too long. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear fellow Gothic Architecture editors,
What shall we do with the section on "Evolving Styles?" What parts should be saved, merged into other sections, or simply deleted?
Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a "Notable Examples" section is needed, and it certainly shouldn't be in the middle of the article.. There are no criteria given for what is a notable example, so an unlimited number of links could be added, which would easily make this section longer than the rest of the article. This would make more sense as a separate article, though I believe there are already a number of separate lists by country. I propose it be deleted or moved to a separate article. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" is certainly the wrong word, since there are zillions of those (using the WP meaning). "Leading", "representative" or something would be better. I don't especially mind having a greatest hits list, though it could be lower, & the space used for more text pics. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's anywhere it should be at the end, but I really don't see the need. Who is to decide what are the most notable examples? It should be a separate article. There already is a list of Gothic cathedrals, and for a number of countries. We can have links to lists of individual countries, at the end. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at List of Gothic cathedrals in Europe. This seems to cover the topic, with illustrations, so you can find the cathedral you want from the pictures. I'd suggest that, rather than adding a new list, we have a link to this article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"originated in 12th-century northern France and England" yeaaah of course.[edit]
That's why it was called opus Francigenum, and why the first gothic building was built in Paris, the Abbey of Saint-Denis.
Putting France and England as the two origins of Gothic architecture is totally fallacious as Gothic architecture first developed in France (it's the general historical consensus), and no, the parts of France ruled by the french-speaking kings of England of Norman or Angevine origin weren't parts of England.
It's misleading and I can only guess such a bias exists because we are in the english-speaking part of the world.
It was also called maniera tedesca, so obviously it was German too I suppose ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "maniera tedesca" is the same (and comtemporary) to "gothic architecture" and historically we all know it was Renaissance propaganda from Italy, to show contempt toward everything that wasn't Greek or Roman and to associate that type of achitecture with the "barbaric" Goths that "destroyed" civilisation.
It has nothing to do with the latin Opus Francigenum with was contemporary to the era in the middle ages, and which implied the region of origin of this type of architectural developments. I think it's possible to find better arguments that this kind of false equivalences. It's not like I argued no early developments came from England, just that it clearly can't be put as an equal origin considering the amount of influence from what was from the kingdom of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.72.102 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is an image of the Tolbooth steeple doing in the lead of the article? It's from the 17th century, and is not an important example of Gothic architecture. I respectfully suggest it be deleted. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but at least it is vertical. If it just goes there will be a huge stretch with no images, which is crazy for this of all articles. That ghastly multiple image should be broken up & distributed around. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not an important example of Gothic architecture? Is there a problem with using 17th-century Gothic architecture to illustrate the article on Gothic architecture? I agree with the multiple image being a horrorshow though. GPinkerton (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: please explain how your belief about what is more correct can be said to be more important in deciding the content of the lead than is the judgement of the authors of the work cited as well as the chronological logic established by history moving in one direction in time only? Its beginnings can be traced back to England and northwest France in the first half of the 12th century. and The first strides toward a Gothic-style architecture were achieved almost simultaneously in England and France via a development of Norman Romanesque architecture. are unambiguous and some source from 40 years ago cannot overturn current academic consensus. GPinkerton (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Durham Cathedral (appearing in your edit summary for this article), it is considered as Romanesque architecture. Dismissing books on architecture written 40 years ago is not reasonable. The classic books on "The Buildings of England" by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner are examples par excellence. Pevsner's later 1985 book "The Cathedrals of England," coauthored by Priscilla Metcalf, is another. Mathsci (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: Yes but removing a sourced statement and replacing it with a less useful source which purports to say a different thing and is decades older is not justified; newer scholarship replaces old and argumentum ex silentio is fallacious, we can't decide something didn't happen and override the sourced statements based on what a much older source doesn't say. GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead now is fine, and reflects a consensus of sources, both old and new. Most sources I've seen agree that Gothic originated in the Ile de France at Saint-Denis, that the first Gothic cathedral was Sens Cathedral, and that the style was then imported into England at Canterbury by William of Sens. Durham had early rib vaults in one part of the cathedral, but they were defective and all had be replaced. UNESCO does not accept the claim of Durham Cathedral that it was the first Gothic cathedral. Please, let's stop rehashing this over and over and move on. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: The beginning of Gothic architecture and the "first Gothic cathedral" are wholly different things. Removing the well attested fact that the Gothic architectural features of places outwith France predate St-Denis and Sens is very much not reflects a consensus of sources, both old and new which is anyway a bizarre aim, since older sources cannot possibly take account of advances in archaeology and manuscript studies that have changed the academic consensus. Removing the only source from the lead to have been written in the last decade is completely unacceptable. This business of UNESCO and cathedrals is irrelevant. The entirely unambiguous statements that Its beginnings can be traced back to England and northwest France in the first half of the 12th century. and The first strides toward a Gothic-style architecture were achieved almost simultaneously in England and France via a development of Norman Romanesque architecture. cannot be ignored or gainsaid by "old" sources. Why would they be? GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qualcomm250: Same question. How is an old article from the previous century more "well-sourced" that the unimpeachable existing citation from the previous decade? Apart from that it's flagrantly untrue. GPinkerton (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree with SiefkinDR's careful statements about both Canterbury and Durham. It's not true that newer scholarship replaces old: in the case of the monumental Pevsner Architectural Guides, started by Nikolaus Pevsner, these are now in their third edition. The guide for County Durham, written by the expert Martin Roberts, was published by Yale University Press in 2020. Qualcomm250 has just reverted GPinkerton's edits: see WP:CONSENSUS. Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: It very much is the case that newer scholarship replaces old, and a new edition counts as new scholarship. This is undeniably true in archaeology. As well as that, the new Co. Durham edition comes out in 2021 apparently, so until then its relevance is limited. On top of all this, the new (older) citation added does not support the sentence it purports to support. Norman architecture is never mentioned, so this violates both WP:V and WP:SYNTH. GPinkerton (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Encylopaedia Britannica on-line on the subject: "This first phase lasted from the Gothic style’s inception in 1120–50 to about 1200. The combination of all the aforementioned structural elements into a coherent style first occurred in the Île-de-France (the region around Paris), where prosperous urban populations had sufficient wealth to build the great cathedrals that epitomize the Gothic style. The earliest surviving Gothic building was the abbey of Saint-Denis in Paris, begun in about 1140."
I suppose you will attack this as an unreliable source, as you have in the past, but there are many other sources that say the same thing. I think the consensus is that Gothic style appeared in France first and then England. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR, what you think is the consensus has been stated already, but that is as nothing compared with the expertise of of the historians Marc Carel Schurr [de] and Robert E. Bjork (the editor of the Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages) whose work together states quite unequivocally of Gothic architecture that: Its beginnings can be traced back to England and northwest France in the first half of the 12th century. and The first strides toward a Gothic-style architecture were achieved almost simultaneously in England and France via a development of Norman Romanesque architecture.. If you have sources of similar date an academic quality, as you say, that repudiate this assessment of 21st century consensus and prove instead that the assumptions made in the 19th century were correct after all and the century's worth of archaeology since then was all a waste of time,, then that consensus should not be difficult for you prove and you deletion from the lead will be easy for you to justify. Until that time, I suggest it is not business of Wikipedia to parrot the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but rather to follow reliable sources in which it is said that Gothic can be traced back to England and northwest France in the first half of the 12th century. GPinkerton (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since, as I expected, you dismiss Britannica as not reliable, how about the Victoria and Albert Museum, "The Gothic Style - an introduction: "The Gothic style first appeared in the early 12th century in northern France and rapidly spread beyond its origins in architecture to sculpture, textiles, and painting..." I believe they are generally considered a reliable source. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR that's a museum website. What about serious published material? GPinkerton (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are on the topic of serious published material, the source Mathsci added is exactly that. It is a recent (2009) work of serious scholarship, and adds to the existing consensus of sources. Qualcomm250 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No dude, it's an excellent but avowedly popularizing book first published in 1943, & I doubt it's been revised since before his death in 1983. Its coverage is very summarized. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite correct. From the new Thames & Hudson edition: "In a new preface and an illuminating postscript, the architect Michael Forsyth continues where Pevsner left off by bringing the review to the present day. In a consideration of recent buildings in Europe by modern masters such as James Stirling, Norman Foster and Frank Gehry, he identifies a natural evolution of architectural achievement. An Outline of European Architecture continues to be as stimulating and relevant as ever. Through his perceptive understanding of the heritage of past civilisations, and in the delineation of the buildings that continue to be recognized as the greatest symbols of artistic endeavour, Pevsner remains the essential guide and companion." The original essay was written while Pevsner was in an internment camp. He became main editor for History of Art at Penguin/Pelican. There have been two fairly long biographies of Pevsner. The original essay is available on archive.org, with several reviews of later versions. The 1960 Jubilee edition from Allen Lane received positive reviews by J. S. Ackerman from Princeton University.
The opening lines of Pevsner's essay are often quoted: "A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture. Nearly everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human being to move in is a building; the term architecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal." Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Outline is not an essay, my Penguin edition from the 1980s is about 1 1/2 inches thick (with lots of pictures). I know who Pevsner is, thanks very much. I imagine what archive.org have is the Preface (no, in fact it's 336 pages worth; my edition has 496) I can't quite see the relevance of the quote here. What you mean is that he was the series editor for the Pelican (now Yale) History of Art. If anyone had access to the Frankl volume of that on Gothic Architecture that would be a very nice source here (actually archive.org have that if you log in - 1962 though). I have over 20 of them, but not that one. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was not aimed at you. In their blurb, Thames & Hudson describe the up-dated book as a "seminal essay". Not my choice. The Thames & Hudson edition was updated by Michael Forsyth. The 1940s paper book was short: the war-time editions had a Foreword and Introduction, not a Preface. Yes, Pevsner is the standard reference for architecture (also mentioned above for the Pevsner Architectural Guides with their new publisher Yale University Press). During his lifetime, students (including me) could attend Pevsner's Cambridge weekly lectures on the History of Art in semi-darkness lit only by slides and punctuated by taps on his walking stick.
Johnbod, I can give you access to Paul Frankl's "Gothic Architecture" (2001 Yale University Press edition, revised by Paul Crossley) by email through my user talk page. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, GPinkerton, you say Encylopaedia Britannica and the Victoria and Albert Museum are reliable sources that the Gothic style originated in Ile-de-France. How about Watkin, David (1986). A History of Western Architecture? It's a textbook in English and French architecture courses, and says that Gothic architecture emerged first in Northern France. Or Julien Chapuis in the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History on the site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art? He writes "The new architectural grammar was first coherently articulated in the ambulatory (chevet) of the royal abbey church of Saint-Denis, north of Paris, built under Abbot Suger between 1140 and 1144." These are fairly serious sources, no? I think the "inexplicable revert" you speak of is actually fairly explicable. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources contradict the material which was removed. Just because a one building might be the first instance of Gothic architecture it doesn't contradict the statement you have removed. Development of an architectural style is much more than the first building using elements of the style. I have not said the Britannica is unreliable, I have said that there are better sources and the silence of one source on the matter cannot be argued to be evidence against the more recent, more authoritative sources. GPinkerton (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures in used in this article are excessively big ones. These pictures should be reduced to standard sizes, to fit the need of the readers.
Downside of the excessively big pictures is that they cause white areas and tend to take over the screen, especially for people with smaller screens. The Bannertalk 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the pictures is not excessive; it is suitable for the subject and is used in many other architecture articles. It allows seeing detail and comparing multiple images and does not require enlarging every picture. I oppose making the images smaller. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk)
Just one double-click and you have the full picture with all the details. The Bannertalk 19:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how many of our readers know that? The Banner, you are one of a tiny handful of editors who go around complaining about too many/large images on visual topics, but there is not consensus behind you. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of Canterbury Cathedral that had become the lead picture to this article. When are you ridiculous ignorant, arrogant numbskulls going to learn to recognise what you are looking at?
You have selected and Seifkin and the other know-it-alls on this page have continued to accept as legitimate a lead image where at least 50% of what you can see in the image is either Norman or Transitional. It should not be used to demonstrate the appearance of Gothic architecture.
I am not coming at this as an outsider. I am, as some of you are well aware, the elderly College lecturer who you, in your arrogance and stupidity, continually reverted and eventually forced right off the page.
I am talking here to people to whom I have had to explain, and explain again, and yet again.... that when writing about Early English Gothic.... you MUST use Salisbury Cathedral as a prime example.
I am talking to people to whom I have had to explain that part of Lichfield Cathedral is Early English and pert of it is Decorated Gothic....... and they still manage to put the photo of the wrong part in the wrong place. If you cannot see the difference, then you should not be touching this page or the page on English Gothic architecture. .
You do not learn to see. And in the past year, since I have not contributed, you have learnt no more than you knew a year ago.
This article has been seriously sabotaged through ignorance and arrogance. I would not recommend it to any student. Go out and buy a book!
This vital part of the article is a garbled incoherent mess[edit]
"One of the common characteristics of the Gothic style is the pointed arch, which was widely used in both structure and decoration. The pointed arch did not originate in Gothic architecture; they had been employed for centuries in the Near East in pre-Islamic as well as Islamic architecture for arches, arcades, and ribbed vaults.[51] In Gothic architecture, particularly in the later Gothic styles, they became the most visible and characteristic element, giving a sensation of verticality and pointing upward, like the spires. Gothic rib vaults covered the nave, and pointed arches were commonly used for the arcades, windows, doorways, in the tracery, and especially in the later Gothic styles decorating the façades.[52] They were also sometimes used for more practical purposes, such as to bring transverse vaults to the same height as diagonal vaults, as in the nave and aisles of Durham Cathedral, built in 1093.[53] The earliest Gothic pointed arches were lancet lights or lancet windows, narrow windows terminating in a lancet arch, an arch with a radius longer than their breadth and resembling the blade of a lancet.[54][55] In the 12th century First Pointed phase of Gothic architecture, also called the Lancet style and before the introduction of tracery in the windows in later styles, lancet windows predominated Gothic building.[56] The Flamboyant Gothic style was particularly known for such lavish pointed details as the arc-en-accolade, where the pointed arch over a doorway was topped by a pointed sculptural ornament called a fleuron and by pointed pinnacles on either side. the arches of the doorway were further decorated with small cabbage-shaped sculptures called "chou-frisés".[57]"
One of the common characteristics of the Gothic style is the pointed arch, which was widely used in both structure and decoration.
No, you idiots! It is not a common characteristic. It is the defining characteristic.
The pointed arch did not originate in Gothic architecture; they had been employed for centuries in the Near East in pre-Islamic as well as Islamic architecture for arches, arcades, and ribbed vaults.[51]
This sentence is grammatically incorrect and is unnecessary in this context.
In Gothic architecture, particularly in the later Gothic styles, they became the most visible and characteristic element, ...
Again, it is the defining element.
Use the expression "the pointed arch", not "they".
The statement is incorrect. The pointed arch became the most visible element from the outset. It was the defining characteristic.
....giving a sensation of verticality and pointing upward, like the spires.
red herring.
Gothic rib vaults covered the nave, and pointed arches were commonly used for the arcades, windows, doorways, in the tracery, ....
Explain. What have Gothic ribbed vaults got to do with pointed arches?
...and especially in the later Gothic styles decorating the façades.
What absolute rot! Pointed arches, once adopted for the window openings and arches, were immediately applied to facades. This "especially in later Gothic styles" indicates that the person who wrote this has no real understanding of what they are writing about. If you were my student, I would deduct points for that sort of waffle.
They were also sometimes used for more practical purposes, such as to bring transverse vaults to the same height as diagonal vaults, as in the nave and aisles of Durham Cathedral, built in 1093.[53]
Idiot! The major reason for the adoption of the pointed arch was because it served a number ofthe "practical purposes".
The earliest Gothic pointed arches were lancet lights or lancet windows, ....
This is nonsense. The first application were for arcades and vaults.
...narrow windows terminating in a lancet arch, an arch with a radius longer than their breadth and resembling the blade of a lancet.[54][55]
Incorrect information. The term "lancet window" is commonly applied to a simple narrow untraceried window. It is only applied to those, blade-shaped windows in the most restricted sense.
In the 12th century First Pointed phase of Gothic architecture, also called the Lancet style and before the introduction of tracery in the windows in later styles, lancet windows predominated Gothic building.[56]
If your definition of the lancet follows through, then that results in some highly impractical buildings.
The Flamboyant Gothic style was particularly known for such lavish pointed details as the arc-en-accolade, where the pointed arch over a doorway was topped by a pointed sculptural ornament called a fleuron and by pointed pinnacles on either side. the arches of the doorway were further decorated with small cabbage-shaped sculptures called "chou-frisés".[57]
This description of the sculptural details, complete with French names not usually applied in English has no place here whatsoever. If you are not describing the stages that the pointed arch went through, then why describe the tarrididdle that might or might not ornament the top of a particular style of arch?
Every sentence of this section has a problem. The information may have come from reliable sources but it has been strung together by someone with only superficial understanding of the complex subject about which they are writing .
This does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. It would barely get a pass mark, and ought not be copied by any student who is looking for real information.
A classic example of constructive, amicable discussion from our colleague Amandajm. She has Some good points, but they might be more effective without the sarcasm, insults and name-calling. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her main point is certainly right - the lead already says "The defining design element of Gothic architecture is the pointed or ogival arch", & I've changed the arch section to match, with defining characteristic. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. 17:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Writings in Architecture[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ConnerSauve (article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lynn Chmaysani (article contribs).
Hopefully this is obvious, but just leaving a longer note here in case the usual edit summary isn't enough to explain this deletion. The inclusion of the Giralda in the "Towers and spires" section is surely irrelevant here as the tower is a former 12th-century Almohad minaret in the regional Islamic style with a Renaissance belfry added later (after 1558), which is easy to verify from sources at the Giralda article itself (e.g. this) or other reliable sources elsewhere, e.g. this (p.433), this (p.142), etc. The cathedral attached to it is Gothic, but the tower itself has no Gothic elements (or certainly none of note), as it did not undergo significant modification from its 12th century form until the mid-16th century. If there is some point to be made about the use of former minarets in Spanish churches here, this needs to be spelled out in the text to make the relevance clear; but as is, the text makes it sound like it's just another Gothic tower. There are other actual Gothic towers/spires in Spain that could be discussed instead, if desired. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
It seems two very large embedded lists], apparently a form of "Related topics" sections, has grown enormously.
The "Subvarieties" section and subsections contain 42 links
The "Notable examples" section and subsections (Main article: List of Gothic architecture) contains 173 links.
215 links goes far beyond any rational number considered controversial over how many links to articles and links to lists that should be put in any article. See: WP:NOTREPOSITORY. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any actual policy behind this? Nobody could describe this lengthy article as falling foul of "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ..." (my emphasis), so I'm not seeing WP:NOTREPOSITORY applying here. Have there been discussions or RFC's on this actual point. We have a lot of articles on "Subvarieties" of Gothic, & I'm not seeing why a link to each at the main article is excessive. Personally I'd rather trim the templated navboxes at the bottom. Perversely, the "Gothic" one has several links on architecture that the "Gothic architecture" doesn't have. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Sorry for the delay but health issues and an operation was an impediment. Thanks for your reply. I have not looked at the article history for any pass discussions other than what is currently shown. From a maintenance point of view there is nothing currently considered worthy of an RFC. Although becoming more common, this is usually considered a later resort in dispute resolution which has not occured. Besides, with 587 watchers a miniscule 2.5% involvement would likely be more than a normal RFC would garner.
From a C-class point of view any issue is negligible and the article does seem to have a "reasonable encyclopedic style". However, I would assume that a perpetual continued status quo would not be a worthy goal. There is likely a for more higher than normal chance that any attempt at a higher reassessment would be hampered by the bloated "Notable examples" section. Considering there is a "Main article inclusion of List of Gothic architecture, a very large but incomplete relisting, from that main article, might be considered inappropriate.
I did see that there was a "Notable Examples section" discussion above (4-6 August 2020) that would likely not be too arguable as to be consensus, at the time, for section deletion.
The "Notable examples" list has zero sourcing, and for certain red link sourcing should be required. The main article only has two references, and is plagued with unsourced red links.
I would question why there is such a lengthy and incomplete list, lacking sources so has no inclusion criteria (what criteria does a partial listing follow), and so find it a little bewildering why it could be considered as not falling under Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY. It seems to me a logical reason to have a "main article" is so only a small amount of prose (summary-only descriptions) after the main article link would be needed.
I did not look to see how many members of the link are also included in the approximately 208 images and drawings used on the article. That may also be an issue if the article is ever to be considered for promotion. I did see that the "main link" is also redundantly used in the "See also" section. Both of these sections are actually appendices so could be left out and neither are required for article promotion. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Hope you are better now. I'm on holiday abroad for the next few days, & will have to look on my return. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
_(29702267642).jpg)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ConnerSauve (article contribs).
