Talk:Vault (architecture)

message: OK, I completely revamped the article. But now I'm tired and I have to go to sleep. I promise I'll come back soon and fix the links. Doops 04:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is developing a personal "blog" style that is not encyclopedia material. --Wetman 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamp of article

message: Realigned indentations'
* I created a List of architectural vaults so I'm happy.  As for merging, that depends on Wikipedia policy/guidelines. First, merge those architectural vault that, after some research, you determine probably could not be expanded beyond a stub.  Second, merge those architectural vault that could be expanded beyond a stub but have not had activity for a while if that is consistent with Wikipedia policy/guidelines.  In the merge, don't lose any of the information already posted.  Given enough research, many of the architectural vaults could be sustained as their own article.  As I see the end goal, each architectural vault should have its own article and Vault (architecture should incorporate elements of each of these articles to give an overall picture of vaults in architecture.-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus isn't a vote. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposals

message: *Strongly opposed to merger - Article is self sustaining.-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been suggested that [[barrel vault]] be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

message: *Opposed to merger - Article has four footnotes and shows recent expansion activity. -- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC
*oppose merge page is now in decent shape to stand on its own. Anlace 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been suggested that [[fan vault]] be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

message: *Opposed to merger - Article has seven footnotes and shows recent expansion activity. -- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been suggested that [[groin vault]] be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

message: *In favor of merger if you feel the need.-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been suggested that [[Lierne (vault)]] be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

message: *In favor of merger if consistent with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. -- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been suggested that other vault articles with less than 1000 characters be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

message: *Opposed - Its important to know what we are voting on before giving approval. -- Jreferee 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has been suggested that other vault articles not specifically covered by the above five vote categories be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

message: Clearly we'll need some diagrams to explain the stresses, reactions and thrusts.
I've added some images I drew up for the groin article - feel free to junk them if you like - I can change them too - I'm proposing adding similar explanatory diagrams for all the vault articles, so a debate about the 'look' of them would be good now rather than after I've worked out how to construct a star vault! Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanatory diagrams

message: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:04:25 -0600 
To: "Russ McGinn"  
From: "McGuire Gibson"   
Subject: Re: Nippur 
Dear Mr. McGinn:
At this point, I could not tell you which of the many arches in 
Mesopotamia is supposed to be the oldest. i can say that in 1910, the 
chronology was different that what we think it is today.  In general, 
chronology has been shortened, so that was would have been dated at 
4,000 would be much later today.  Exactly what was found under the 
Nippur ziggurat in the 1880s and how it should be dated are not on 
secure enough grounds to be stated with any certainly.  That digging 
was done with tunnels by people who were not very good excavators, 
and their records are not exactly precise.
You might want to check out the publications of Ernst Heinrich, a 
German architectural historian, who dealt with such matters and who 
lived until a decade or so ago.  His account would be more reliable.
McGuire Gibson
McGuire Gibson
Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
--Mcginnly | Natter 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Email from Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology

message: I added a sentence "Unlike the Pantheon dome, the upper portions of which were made of concrete, Byzantine domes were made of brick, which were lighter and thinner, but which more vulnerable to the forces exterted onto them." 
Did not really know where to put it though, since that important bit of info was not really discussed in the article. Same for Gothic vaults, which were combination of stone (ribs) and brick infill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brosi (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  material 

message: I added a sentence "Unlike the Pantheon dome, the upper portions of which were made of concrete, Byzantine domes were made of brick, which were lighter and thinner, but which more vulnerable to the forces exterted onto them." 
Did not really know where to put it though, since that important bit of info was not really discussed in the article. Same for Gothic vaults, which were combination of stone (ribs) and brick infill.
Church of the Saints Sergius and Bacchus, by the way looks like ribs, but in fact is a brick umbrella vault (or at least I am pretty sure) will have to check.
Brosi 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  material 

message: And another thing to add are baroque vaults etc. Baltasar Neumann's plaster shell vaults - built on wood frame, are of course the ultimate.Brosi 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  baroque vaults 

message: Sentence like "The diagram (fig. 4) shows the outlines" where there is no fig. 4. makes this seem to come from a paper of some sort. I could work it over a bit, but perhaps later.Brosi 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Brosi - it's something of a work in progress this one. The original article, still intact above, left quite a bit to be desired, so as a starting point I wikified the 1911 encyclopedia britannica article - the fig 4. relates to that article - it's sourced in the reference section and you can view the pages - when I get round to it i'm going to upload some of the diagrams. There are bigger hish to fry with the article though as you point out - the ancient history section is (i think) nearly totally obsolete, or if not then some of the claims regarding dates are to be questioned. My field of interest is architecture, not ancient history, so I left a few posts on various wikiprojects asking for confirmations or sources and to date, have received limited replies. Feel free to edit as you see fit. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs cleaning too 

message: I think the history material should be moved else where and this article should concentrate on descriptions of the different kinds of vaults and the elements of their construction. Besides, most of the historical information is out of date. Sincerely,  Mattisse 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article content is historical rather than summary article on Vaults 

message: "In earlier times, particularly in Chaldaea and Egypt where timber was scarce, other means of support had to be contrived. Apparently only in Roman times was centering  regularly employed. From the Roman Architectural Revolution onwards, vaults along with arches and domes, became a regular and technically demanding architectural form for shaping interior large spaces."
* 1st sentence needs a citation
* 2nd sentence is false
* 3rd sentence is fluff 
* domes are listed later in the article as a type of vault
WCCasey (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable material moved here from the article 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Voûte de l'église Saint-Séverin à Paris.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 7, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Voûte de l'église Saint-Séverin à Paris.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon