Talk:Strasbourg Cathedral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I looked at the German page on Notre Dame de Strasbourg, inserted it into google translator and then attempted to make the sentences that sounded correct in English (through either grammar or my previous knowledge of the cathedral from visitting Strasbourg) into the new basis of information about the Cathedral. If someone is a better translator it would be nice if they would take the information I left out and maybe make what I put sound better. user:grenavitar

Tallest church[edit]

A section of this article claims that this was the world's tallest church for a period after it had lost the title as the world's tallest building:

it was the world's tallest building from 1625 to 1847. It remained the tallest church in the world until 1880

However, the page World's tallest freestanding structure on land states that the building that took the title of world's tallest building in 1847 was St. Nikolai's church. How could St. Nikolai's church be taller than Strasbourg Cathedral in 1847, yet Strasbourg Cathedral still managed to remain the tallest church in the world until 1880? That makes no sense. Is it possible that it was supposed to say "it remained the tallest cathedral in the world until 1880" rather than church? Salmon 13:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work on fr[edit]

There has been a lot of work on the French version of this page... any help incorporating it (pictures on commons, etc) would be great. Especially the stuff about the astronical clock. However, their page is still a work in progress as they say. gren グレン 08:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in 1625?[edit]

The article contradicts itself a little bit right now; at first it says the Cathedral was the world's tallest building from 1625 to 1847; later on it says it was the world's tallest from the completion of the north tower in 1439 until 1847. I believe the first is correct. There is some discussion of this on the German Talk page which I don't fully comprehend, but seems to refer to a tower in Tallinn. Seems to be St Olav Tallinn, which apparently was the tallest building in the world between 1549 and 1625 "when the spire burnt down after a lightning strike".
Actually I now see that this is explained at World's_tallest_structures#Tallest_structures_in_world_history: Lincoln Cathedral in England was tallest at 160 m until 1549, then St Olav in Tallinn from 1549 to 1625, and then Notre-Dame de Strasbourg. So I will change the article accordingly.--Mathew5000

Name of article[edit]

Based on the English-language index page of the Official Site, the name in English is just "Strasbourg Cathedral", not "Notre-Dame de Strasbourg" or "Our Lady's Cathedral". --Mathew5000 09:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See move above - and below :-) .--Matthead 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Strasbourg Cathedral[edit]

The article should be named Strasbourg Cathedral, as with most other cathedrals, and given on english version of official website [1]. Personally, I prefer Straßburger Münster though, as it was built under that name, and it is not part of the Catholic Church in France due to the history of Alsace.--Matthead 21:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. We don't have naming conventions for churches. I don't think there is a consensus on the naming, see Category:Cathedrals in France and Category:Cathedrals in Italy. Naming conventions for churches would be a good idea (but not easy). Kusma (討論) 21:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; although actual data might convince me otherwise. I doubt Münster is predominant English usage, especially since 1918; Cologne Cathedral is normally so called. The present title, on the other hand, leaves out the claim to notability. Septentrionalis 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Oppose Cathedrals like other Catholic Churches are dedicated to patron. The great majority are commonly known by this patron rather than by the city name. St. John Lateran is not known as Rome Cathedral. There are some exceptions of course, such as Chartres. What about "Cathedral of Notre Dame, Strasbourg?" If you are trying to avoid the French, that may be unrealistic, as the church is best known as N.D. de Stras. I noticed one the site referenced, The "Welcome to Strassburg Cathedral" changed with each language but the name, Cathedrale de N.D. de Strassburg remained the same on the left regardless of the language. This suggests to me that the "Strassburg Cathedral" is the familiar term, and N.D. de Strass. is the proper term. --Vaquero100 06:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Lateran, which is so known, is an exception; several churches can claim to be the Cathedral of the Roman See. Also, it is general policy to use the familiar term; because it is familiar, and will be searched for and linked to. Septentrionalis 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The criterion per WP:NAME is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Some English speakers are going to look at the title "Notre-Dame de Strasbourg" and say "wtf is that" (even if they had been vaguely aware of an important cathedral in Strasbourg they might not recognize its French name). An article titled "Strasbourg Cathedral", however, makes its subject-matter instantly apparent to any English-speaker. Google searches using the lr=lang_en parameter support "Strasbourg Cathedral" as most common in English by far:
notre-dame-de-strasbourg 532 hits
notre-dame-de-strasbourg-cathedral 133 hits
notre-dame-cathedral-strasbourg 735 hits
notre-dame-cathedral-of-strasbourg 213 hits
notre-dame-of-strasbourg 1,080 hits
strasbourg-cathedral 28,000 hits
cathedral-of-strasbourg 669 hits
strassburg-cathedral 157 hits
strasburg-cathedral 526 hits
straßburger-münster 99 hits
our-lady-of-strasbourg 234 hits
As noted above, the official site uses "the Strasbourg Cathedral" in English (even though the French name is present on every page of the site as part of the logo). The Official Web Site of the Strasbourg Tourist Office refers to it in English as just "The Cathedral" or "The cathedral of Strasbourg". In Wikipedia, the article Strasbourg cathedral bombing plot is not called Notre-Dame de Strasbourg bombing plot (right now there's not even a redirect). --Mathew5000 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually something weird about those Google results; if you ask for the results to be shown, searching on strasbourg-cathedral will produce only 758 hits, not 28,000. That's in comparison to 381 for notre-dame-of-strasbourg, 129 for notre-dame-de-strasbourg, 228 for notre-dame-cathedral-strasbourg, and 109 for notre-dame-cathedral-of-strasbourg. --Mathew5000 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How far can you see from the observation level? 3, 30, or 300 km?[edit]

The German-language wiki article says the view is "drei Kilometer", which is what this article used to say. Then an unregistered user changed it to 300 km [2]. That was reverted, but then a user with only two edits changed it to 30 km [3]. That figure is reasonable (a view of three km is not that impressive, hardly worth mentioning) but is it a guess, or is there a source that can be cited? 300 km is implausible; that would be like being able to see New York City from a tall building in Boston. If 30 km is correct we should let them know on the German wiki.--Mathew5000 08:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 km wouldn't be that implausible; it depends on what can be seen: far-away but high mountains can very well be seen from tall buildings at similar distances. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Hugo quotation: « Prodige du gigantesque et du délicat »[edit]

The article at present translates Hugo's description as "wonder of the grand and the delicate". I think in this case the word "gigantesque" really does mean gigantic. I prefer the quotation on this web page: "a gigantic and delicate marvel." Comments? --Mathew5000 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the astronomical clock[edit]

Are there any photos of the clock in the Commons? I don't see any. Looking around online, I found several good ones. Figures 22 and 23 in this pdf give a very clear view: [4]. That appears to be a pretty good paper done by students at the National University of Singapore. This German page has a few decent shots. There is a close-up of the gears at about.com as well as a shot of the face. There's also a few nice ones at Flickr: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. --Mathew5000 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the first couple of links. The photos were of the clock on the southern exterior of the transept. Dudesleeper 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no wonder they looked so different! Thanks. --Mathew5000 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 22 is not of Strasbourg's clock, it is of the model of the clock which is located at Sydney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.81.8.90 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-24.

Construction started in 1176? or 1190?[edit]

Right now, the history section of this article follows that of the French wiki (fr:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Strasbourg) in using the heading "Construction of the cathedral (1176–1439)". But did they really begin construction in 1176—the same year the old cathedral burnt down? That strikes me as unlikely for two reasons: (1) they would have needed a fair bit of time to draw up the plans for the new Gothic-style cathedral before beginning construction, not to mention time to raise money for it, and (2) the article says, translated from the French, that it was Bishop Heinrich von Hasenburg who made the decision to build a new cathedral, but according to this article, Heinrich didn't even become bishop until 1181. There are lots of sources on the Internet that give 1176 as the start date of construction of the current cathedral, but they might all be traceable back to an incorrect single source. There are a few web pages that give 1190 as the start date, which is more plausible. I asked about this on the French talk page (fr:Discuter:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Strasbourg#Heinrich von Hasenbourg) but nobody has responded. --Mathew5000 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the old one burned down, the "construction" of the new likely started with cleaning up the mess. It would be noteworthy if they would have left the place intentionally alone for some time, though, or considered building elsewhere. Surely they had no finished plans in 1176, but some ideas on how it might become bigger and nicer than the old one. As is took centuries anyway, a few years more or less are not that big difference. Heinrich v. Hasenburg might have been involved prior to becoming a bishop, too, and have made an official committment when in office.--Matthead 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

The height of the Cathedral seems to oscillate constantly on this site. Unless proven otherwise, it is 142m, not 144m. It is not because some site claims that it is 144m that it is true. If you doubt that it is 142m, ask the OEuvre Notre Dame, do not believe a site with no references.Schwilgue 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of the article[edit]

Anybody here to assist me a little? --RCS (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg's cathedral is, indeed, the highest still standing medieval structure in the world[edit]

After a quite comical exchange with a thoroughly well-meaning Wikicolleague, I feel necessary to repeat this:

  1. The tower of Strasbourg's cathedral was achieved in 1439 and hasn't changed one bit since in height, aspect and consistence.
  2. All higher church towers built in the Middle Ages have collapsed long ago (Lincoln Cathedral, Beauvais Cathedral, St. Mary's church, Stralsund, St. Olaf's church, Tallinn)
  3. All church towers built in the Middle Ages that are still standing are less high (St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna, Freiburg Minster and St. Martin's Church, Landshut come close)
  4. The highest structures built in the Middle Ages were church towers.

Thus, ergo, the tower of Strasbourg cathedral is the highest still standing medieval structure in the world. --Insert coins (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Strasbourg Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article[edit]

Dear fellow Strasbourg editors: I would like to expand the article to make it comparable in length and content to those of other major cathedrals, such as Amiens, Reims, Rouen, Chartres, Troyes, etc. The history section will remain about the same length, but new sections will be describing the different parts of the Cathedral, each with a gallery of images. These will be packed horizontal galleries, like the articles on the other cathedrals mentioned above, which doesn't interfere with the text above or below, and gives you the maximum number of images without wasting space, roughly like the articles mentioned above. As with the other articles, there will be separate sections on the stained glass, art, the organ, the bells, the clock, and other distinctive features. Comments and suggestions are of course welcome, Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. (I wouldn't say that Troyes is in the same league as Amiens, Reims, Rouen, Chartres, and Strasbourg, though.) --Edelseider (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Troyes isn't in the same league, but it has some nice things. Bourges Cathedral also has some really nice features.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. And don't forget Metz, Soissons, Clermont-Ferrand, Coutances, Laon, Le Mans, Albi... And also Tours, Orléans, Senlis, Sens, Toul, Angers... But never mind Notre-Dame de Paris! ;)o --Edelseider (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: your work is really appreciable and was well needed. But you over-reliance on Alain Villes is becoming a problem. The man has apparently never been in Strasbourg. This is not a statue of Saint Stephen, but of Saint Peter. The key is an unmistakable attribute. Villes has obviously never seen it! --Edelseider (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox[edit]

I agree that the infobox at the beginning should include some information about the religious aspects of the cathedral, but is it really necessary to have two separate boxes with two pictures, two maps and so much repetition? No other cathedral does that. I think the two boxes can fairly easily be consolidated into one. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my fault that there are two different templates with two different parameters available - infobox building, and infobox church. Some information such as the dedication, the denomination, the (number of) bells, the diocese and the bishop are essential for a church building, but irrelevant for any other kind of building. If you look closely at the content of the boxes, you will notice that there are not that many repetitions. The height of the spire, yes, but not the height of the dome, the total length, etc. This data is of the greatest importance concerning a building. Once the map is removed from the second box, this will appear even more clearly. And finally, "No other cathedral does that" only means that no other cathedral has been given so much editorial TLC, maybe. :) --Edelseider (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the map cannot be removed from the second infobox. But I removed some other lines. Now it looks better. --Edelseider (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this is tricky with the maps. Eventually I think wee should combine the two boxes, like other cathedrals. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's technically possible. I'm not sure it is. Bien à toi, --Edelseider (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be simpler to take an infox from a different cathedral, such as Amiens, and fill it in. Amiens is probably better, since it uses a map of France rather than map of the city, and not everybody reading the English Wikipedia knows where Strasbourg is. Some things can also probably be shortened; I think the list of architects could be put in a separate section, so it doesn't stretch out the infobox. What do you think? Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, why not? Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Klotz[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to do a small article on Gustave Klotz, since he doesn't have one. It can be translated from the French article. What do you think? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a very good idea. But I'll tell you what would be an even better idea: seriously to expand the article Soissons Cathedral. Now that's a cathedral about which one learns literally nothing here, especially not how large and architecturally important it is. Cordially, Edelseider (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea. I'll have to check and see if there are any books about it. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy[edit]

Courtesy toward other editors is an important part of Wikipedia. Please don't use expressions like "Don't change it again," it' not necessary or appreciated. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SiefkinDR:, you moved a picture to a wrong section and assumed you were right, and then, you changed that picture's title and again assumed that you were right. In both cases, you were dead wrong. Courtesy also means not to correct what was never incorrect in the first place. You actually made it appear as if I did not know what I was doing, although in that specific case, it's the opposite that is true. --Edelseider (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the picture, but put it back. My apologies, cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move image of apse-chevet[edit]

If you agree, I would like to move the picture of the chevet/apse from the Romanesque section to the section on the chevet. There are already a number of pictures of Romanesque features, but this is the only picture of the apse-chevet I could find in Wikimedia Commons. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you can also see it very well here, but this (superb) picture is already in use for the section on the crossing dome. Go ahead, then, I will find a replacement for that specific picture. Cordially, --Edelseider (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I have found a replacement picture: Commons:File:Figure 3 la tour de croisée en forme de mitre, dessin de la cathédrale en 1671, détail.jpg. :) --Edelseider (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of the cathedral?[edit]

Have you seen a plan of the cathedral anywhere that we can upload? All the other cathedral articles have them, but I can't seem to find one. There's a good one in the Villes book, but it's copyrighted. There might be one lurking in some old book or guidebook somewhere. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. I found this, but it's kind of small and doesn't label anything. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the proportions are wrong. In reality, the tower is higher than the facade on which it sits. I will look. Cordially, --Edelseider (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an image of the facade, we have some of those already, but the floor plan. Maybe there's a way to edit the image and keep just the floor plan. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: Shall we upload this one? The licence is correct: CC BY-SA 4.0 --Edelseider (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks very good. Do you want to upload it, or should I? I think it should go, as in most of the other cathedral articles, after the history and at beginning of the section on the interior. It could go at the top as well, but at the moment its rather overcrowded up there. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and upload it, I am not jealous! :) --Edelseider (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but I wasn't able to download the file into Commons. You're probably better at this sort of thing than me. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
here you are
@SiefkinDR: Et voilà. --Edelseider (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks very much, you're a wizard. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, no wizardry involved (although the upload software is called "Upload Wizard"), it's really very easy. I uploaded that very helpful image too, you've probably already seen it. ;) --Edelseider (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Crypt[edit]

Have you seen anywhere a good picture of the crypt? I apologise that stole the one from the top because I couldn't find any other. The picture of the arches doesn't actually show the crypt. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SiefkinDR: Nope, zis is ze best photograph. But you can...
  • ...enhance the luminosity here and it's good
    ...enhance the luminosity here and it's good
  • ...or use zis one, if you don't mind ze people
    ...or use zis one, if you don't mind ze people
  • Fird choice vould be zat one (again, enhance luminosity)
    Fird choice vould be zat one (again, enhance luminosity)
So, you see, ve are not total losers. Tcheers, --Edelseider (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that works nicely. Not too much more to do. A section on the bells, a section on the Cathedral-related collection at the city museum....the tapestries ... merging the inboxes at the beginning ...anythng else? Have a good week. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Mount of Olives, the Astronomical Clock, the altars...
Commons:Category:Sculpture of Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives, Strasbourg Cathedral
Commons:Category:Retable de saint Roch, saint Maurice et saint Nicolas de la Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Strasbourg
Commons:Retable de saint Pancrace, saint Nicolas et sainte Catherine de la Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Strasbourg
Commons:Autel de Saint-Laurent (Strasbourg)
Commons:Category:Retable du Saint-Sauveur (Notre-Dame de Strasbourg)
Commons:Category:Strasbourg Astronomical clock
In fact, never ask "anything else?" when writing about one of the most important monuments of Europe! ;) All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvements[edit]

There are a couple of things which I think can be improved:

in the 20th Century section, the first paragraph is in the present, rather than past tense, don't know why.

- The main problem, I think, is still double infobox. They not only duplicate the maps, but also run well down into the article, and cause a traffic jam of images in the Romanesque section. An infobox ideally shouldn't go further than the end of the table of contents. Some of the information, like the spire height, is given in both. I don't think it's necessary to have the floor count, or former names, or a list of all the architects. Those could be in separate sections at the bottom, if they're needed at all.

As to the map, I would suggest that it be a map of France, showing where Strasbourg is, rather than a map of the city, A country map is used in a lot of the English-language cathedral articles.

I'd suggest you look around at some of the other major Cathedral articles, and pick the different template that will give a maximum of information but not go past the end of table of contents. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SiefkinDR: Nobody owns this article, and you should feel free to make all the changes that you want! Once you are finished with overhauling, I will have another look and add some sources, if necessary. You have done a great job so far (with the caveat that you rely too much on a single and not always correct source, but this is precisely what I am addressing with my contributions). All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging infoboxes[edit]

You're right, it's incredibly difficult to merge two infoboxes. I've been trying all afternoon without any success at all. I've been looking at Reims and Metz as possible models, but they have problems too. There may be a better model somewhere. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox[edit]

I'm trying out a new infobox, based on that of Metz Cathedral, which combines both some architectural and religious information. It doesn't have a map, but links to a selection of maps. It also has a link to the homepage of the cathedral, and to the page about the cathedral on the official site of French Historic Monuments. It's main virtue is that it doesn't go below the table of contents, doesn't invade the following sections, and doesn't create a clutter of images. Please let me know if you see any problems with this. Close to finished now! SiefkinDR (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shrieking enthusiastically when I see that box, but I am not sobbing loudly, either, so let's keep it that way. You did a fine job!!!! --Edelseider (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wish I could have done a little better, but templates are tough. cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completion date: 1439, not 1488[edit]

@Yavorpenchev: you have persistently added the claim that 1488 should be seen as an alternative date for the completion of the spire. Your own sources, the ones that you have provided, don't say that at all. 1488 was the year when the top of the spire had to be repaired for the first time. A statue of Mary that had been placed there, was struck and destroyed by lightning. It was replaced by a simpler structure of the same height. That is all. Repair work is done all the time on buildings - it doesn't change the year of their completion. --Edelseider (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at one of the sources - it says it is considered that 1488 is the completion date due to the replacement of the statue with the fleuron. The source specifically states that, so you are incorrect. mezil (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: Une source ancienne évoque la dépose de la statue de la Vierge du sommet en 1488 ce qui permet de supposer que la flèche était terminée à cette date. Translated: An ancient source mentions the removal of the statue of the Virgin from the summit in 1488, which suggests that the spire was finished on that date. mezil (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That just means the spire was in place before 1488. The author isn't saying "we must consider this the point of the spire's completion". Seasider53 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author says the source considers this. The source says we might consider this as an alternative completion date, literally from the translation. mezil (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't very well written/translated, I grant you, but I do think you're misinterpeting the meaning. Seasider53 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I wanted to add more nuance to the completion date, but at the end of the day it's not worth arguing about it. 1439 appears to be the accepted date, it is what it is. :) mezil (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding my support for 1439. It seems clear to me that the work done in 1488 was a major repair. LynwoodF (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @LynwoodF:. One of the sources says explicitly: "Malgré l'hypothèse de l'éventuel achèvement tardif de la flèche (peu avant 1500), la date de 1439 semble la plus objective dans l'état actuel des connaissances." This should have been the last word on that issue. --Edelseider (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest building[edit]

I suggest someone delete this claim it was tallest in 19th Century, or provide proof. There is no reference, the height is substantially higher than the recorded spires, the height is impossible to varify, and it's been like this for 15 years of this site. 188.28.166.164 (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on, 188.28.166.16 (talk · contribs)? The height is impossible to verify? Of course it is possible to verify it - the procedure is called "measuring" and the result is called "measurement". This has been done many times over the last five centuries. I suggest you troll another article, if you feel the urge to do so.--Edelseider (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strasbourg_Cathedral&oldid=1210567759"