![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
GPinkerton ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( talk) 06:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
ICE77 ( talk) 01:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
You can let it that way I don't care, but you know I'm right. Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F04:8660:79EA:2556:EEB3:ED82 ( talk) 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@
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)
reflects a consensus of sources, both old and newwhich 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Banner talk 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
"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.
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.
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]
calm
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
GPinkerton ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( talk) 06:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
ICE77 ( talk) 01:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
You can let it that way I don't care, but you know I'm right. Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F04:8660:79EA:2556:EEB3:ED82 ( talk) 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@
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)
reflects a consensus of sources, both old and newwhich 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Banner talk 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
"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.
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.
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]
calm
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)