Talk:Architecture of cathedrals and great churches

message: have been copied and pasted to the new page at Talk:Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France
--Amandajm 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about the page in its original form 

message: I have to apologise to anyone who is irritated by my thousand small changes. Firstly, I'm still getting the hang of how to edit. The pictures are a mystery to me. I've got nice ones of my own and still can't work out how to upload them! 
Also, my server has dropped out repeatedly . When I make lots of adjustments in one hit, I lose them and have to do it again.
So just have patience while Granma sorts it out, OK?!
--Amandajm 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bits and Pieces 

message: This was one sentence:
:In the still greater movement in the 12th century, when the episcopacy, supported by the emancipated communes, undertook the erection of cathedrals of greater dimensions and the reconstruction of others, in some cases they utilized the old foundations, as in Chartres, Coutances and Auxerre cathedrals, while in others (as at Le Mans) they extended the eastern termination, much in the same way as in many of the early examples in England, with this important difference, that when the apsidal east end was given up (about the middle of the 12th century) in favour of the square east end in England, the French, on the other hand, developed it by doubling the choir aisles and adding to the number of extra chapels; thus in Canterbury, Norwich and Gloucester, there were only three apsidal chapels in the chevet, whereas in Noyon (1150), Soissons (1190), Reims (1212), Tours, Seez, Bayeux (1230), Clermont (1275), Senlis, Limoges, Albi and Narbonne cathedrals there were five; in Amiens, Le Mans and Beauvais, there were seven apsidal chapels, and in Chartres cathedral nine.
(Wow.) In general, the language in this article is very long-winded and complex, no offense to its writer. It needs to be broken down and organized for readability. I made some changes (which hopefully didn't hurt the content) but more are needed. Deco 04:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity 

message: Can I put up a request here for more information about the use of paint and colour in medieval cathedrals. In England we are inured to plain stone, but I understand that medieval cathedrals were actually brightly coloured. I am no expert on this, and I hope someone is and can incorporate a suitable write-up into this. Djnjwd 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of colours in cathedrals 

message: This article Cathedral architecture should fully cover its subject, with sub-sections headed by those Main article:.. headings. Much of this present article ought to be integrated with, for example, Chevet, with a condensed version here. Shouldn't this information be presented stylistically and chronologically: Earliest cathedrals; Romanesque cathedrals; Gothic cathedrals; Renaissance and post-Renaissance cathedrals; Neo-Gothic cathedrals; Modern cathedrals. Regional character should be mentioned under each style. The article Cathedral diagram once again is able to make its points with groundplans. --Wetman 11:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trunk article? 

message: I'm currently trying to rework this article into a broad statement about cathedral architecture which explains why cathedrals are the way they are, what the styles are and how they differ regionally. 
The article on the Eastern Ends/chevets etc is not, I feel, very useful to the general student who looks up this subject because they know little or nothing about it and would like to know more. I'm keeping the language simple. 
For many people, their interest in architecture from the medieval through to 19th c revivals stems from the proximity or a visit to a cathedral or great church. That is why I am seeking to make this a 'beginners' page rather than a specialists. 
--Amandajm 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article has been retitled Cathedral architecture of the Western World, it needs a link to whatever article fully describes Metropolitan church architecture in the Eastern world: is Byzantine architecture the correlative? Christian architecture, unlinked here, covers c.1180 forward. "But in practice, the cathedral was generally the largest building in any region": the writer of this sentence may have been unaware of the comparable importance of abbeys: no comparison between a cathedral and an abbey church has been made in this article. The complete lack of any reference to any book in the history of architecture undercuts reader confidence. --Wetman 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covering the subject broadly 

message: I haven't worked out how to drop in pictures yet! If anyone has good pics illustrtaing the article it would be wonderful to have them!
--Amandajm 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: Could you please elaborate what you mean by "the Western World"? Are Orthodox (Byzantine/Russian) cathedrals part of the Western World or the Eastern World? Is there any encyclopedic definition of the Western World? Or is it pure original research as I tend to think it is? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Explain it to me, what does original research mean? 
Do I go on trying to sort out an article which could possibly be useful to someone if it was arranged with sequence and some clarity, or do we just leave it as a wordy dissertation on the development of the eastern end. 
Yes, it's scholarly. Yes, it's source has been cited. No, it isn't very useful to anyone who doesn't have a fairly in depth knowledge of the subject to start with. No, it's not the answer to an article on cathedral architecture, western or otherwise. 
Can I suggest, as politely as I can, that rather than chopping bits out of a work in progress, you make positive suggestions about how they might be improved? 
--Amandajm 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: I'll have to remove the following passage: "The greatest buildings of this period include Notre Dame, Paris; Chartres Cathedral, Rouen Cathedral in France, Stasburg Cathedral, Cologne Cathedral in Germany, St Stephen's Vienna in Austria, Florence Cathedral in Italy, Burgos Cathedral in Spain, Salisbury Cathedral, Canterbury Cathedral and Lincoln Cathedral in England." The assortment is arbitrary and records no factual information, only a judgement. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PEACOCK]] 

message: Is everyone happy, or do we do something better with it? 
NOW what we need is a really good article on the Cathedrals of all the countries that haven't been written into this one. 
I think it's over to you, Ghirlandajo! --Amandajm 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have too much on my plate as it is. I like the new title better than the previous one, however. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it is a good idea to redirect Cathedral architecture to here. Does anyone else agree? Remy B 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok! The title's changed again 

message: I took out the link to baths because it went specifically to the town of Bath, which does have a Roman bath, but doesn't really illustrate the point. 
--Amandajm 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Yes, of course. It's in France. 
--Amandajm 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strasbourg or Strassburg?  

message: This article goes largely against WP:Style. I seem I had spent some time to put it to rules stated there, but I seem that good nonna Amandajm reverted it. Be ready to have a large revision of format here soon, but also to check WP:Style rules before trying to revert my attempts of standardization. Bye and good work. --Attilios 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a variety of alternative styles for Tables of Contents available in :Category:TOC templates.  It's probably better to look thorough those and see if one of them would be suitable and restore the use of sub-headings etc which makes editing easier if nothing else.  David Underdown 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper user of boldface and italics

message: Hi Attilios! The reason why non-standard bold face has been used in place of sub-titles is because it prevent the Table of Contents from being a million mmiles long. It was suggested as a strategy by another Wiki editor who also knows about style. 
For example, every one of the Cathedrals for which there is only a 3 line description could have its own subheading, but that would immediately add a dozen new articles to an already long list. 
--Amandajm 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a variety of alternative styles for Tables of Contents available in :Category:TOC templates.  It's probably better to look thorough those and see if one of them would be suitable and restore the use of sub-headings etc which makes editing easier if nothing else.  David Underdown 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh no not this again!

message: Note The article was removed from FA candidacy by its author. The article seeks to cover a vast amount of info in a compact space. To achieve this, and make useful comparisons between buildings of five regions, much useful info is in point form. Remove the points and you lose the comparison. I preferred to have the most useful article that I could write than one that fitted FA criteria to the letter but lost out on content.
--Amandajm 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC note

message: Some very good work here.  Just wondering if there is a separate article yet that looks further east than Vienna?  If so, there should be a link from this article.  If not, perhaps it's another project...Corlyon 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't! I wish there was. I would like an article similar to this, but it would have to look at the distinctly different architectural character produced in Orthodox and Catholic churches. I will attempt it, when I get up enough courage, but it's not actually my area. --Amandajm 07:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK so what about Eastern Europe?

message: It should be noted that Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford was also not built as a cathedral (although as a priory church it is arguably more within that general tradition).  Also, at that point in the article we are merely saying that great size is not a necessary attribute of the funtion of a cathedral, we have not yet moved on to a discussion of the style of architecture commonly associated with cathedrals.  I think it's worth mentioning at least one other "small" cathedral as it shows that Christ church is not entirely a one off.  David Underdown 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of other small cathedrals 

message: It's not a cathedral. and it has never been completed. 
But this article is about Cathedral architecture. For that reason, an number of buildings are included which fall into the cathedral style architecturally speaking, even though they are not the seat of a bishop. For the same reason, buildings are generally avoided here which were designed as Parish churches but have been elevated to cathedral status. 
There is another article called Cathedral which deals with the function of the building, but does not describe the architecture in a detailed way.
--Amandajm 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sagrada Familia

message: My initial feeling upon coming to this article is that the introduction takes too long to get to the subject matter; that is, it's occupied for too long with material more appropriate to the definition of cathedral in general, rather than its stated subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have addressed this. Amandajm (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really impressive that you addressed this so promptly. I might still suggest that the first sentence go something like "The cathedral architecture of Western Europe developed from" (etc.), and then backtrack to provide the overview. I won't belabor my reasoning, as it pretty much accords with Wikipedia:Lead section, to which I refer by convenience and not because I'm a slavish rule-follower. (OK, maybe I am; but only if I agree that they're good rules.) I see that you're an experienced editor, and I'm coming new to the article, so this is entirely impressionistic on my part. I have a couple of new articles I'm about to post within the next couple of days that I'd like you to take a look at; I'll leave a note at your use talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction too leisurely 

message: I think the term "great churches" may be a little vague. How about "Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbeys"? (Except I think that an abbey is actually more than the church building). PiCo (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abbey churches"?  Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that whilst there were a few very important and influential abbey churches, like St Denis and St Nicaise, there were also an awful lot of minor abbeys/monasteries/convents etc with very ordinary little churches which you would presumably not want to include in this section. And what about Collegiate Churches? Some of those (Mantes la Jolie springs to mind) were of very major importance, culturally and architecturally. Also, for anyone with a background in architectural history, rather than an interest in recent church administration, the term 'basilica' simply refers to any building, however insignificant, with arcaded side aisles and a higher nave with a clerestory. The administrative use of the term to denote a church of 'more than usual importance' is largely a measure of Papal patronage rather than architectural merit and only really became widespread (outside Rome) in the Counter-Reformation. If it's any help, art historians generally talk in terms of "Cathedrals and great churches" on the grounds that the slight ambiguity is less awful than the various alternatives. StuartLondon (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: ps. Sorry for not getting those comments in sooner - in  the middle of moving house... StuartLondon (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name suggestion 

message: Awesome. Absolutely awesome. 
I have never complimented article on it's talk page like this. Also the usage of  Template:multiple image  is quite remarkable. I like it. i do not know, whether it might not happen, that there  someone would be objecting, that it's usage is not according manual of style. (But in that case I would drive for changing the manual instead ;) ). Really beautiful and informative. Reo + 09:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG, me too! This is fantastic encyclopedic creation! Why this articles isn't featured? --WhiteWriter speaks 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliment 

message: duplicate notice at Church architecture
 Some of this material may be suitable for this article, though I guess it is already covered - please check.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal from another article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327015344/http://www.cathedral.org:80/cathedral/index.shtml to http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613074100/http://speyer.de/de/tourist/sehenswert/dom to http://www.speyer.de/de/tourist/sehenswert/dom
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060610060207/http://torre.duomo.pisa.it/ to http://torre.duomo.pisa.it/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510151625/http://www.chartres-csm.org/us.html to http://www.chartres-csm.org/us.html
*Added  tag to http://www.cathedralestmichel.be/eng/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210000812/http://www.stephansdom.at/data/ to http://www.stephansdom.at/data
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615014815/http://www.architoledo.org/cathedral/mosaico.htm to http://www.architoledo.org/cathedral/mosaico.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In my opinion, listing the age of a cathedral is to show the age of the architecture, not to show when church history began in that location. It seems to me that quite a number of cathedrals' ages are written to make the buildings seem significantly older than they really are - I can exaggerate by saying "Built in AD 9, and only destroyed and rebuilt seventeen times since then" :) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, not least because parts of earlier fabrics, not to mention burials, fittings etc, typically remain in cathedrals that are mostly built later. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't say such things don't remain; I say such things can't reasonably be called "the cathedral". I guess I'm saying I gravitate towards treating the "mostly built later" date - the date of the most substantial visible parts of the building - as the true date,  and the historic completion date as a note under "history of this site". TooManyFingers (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the "mostly built" dates for the cathedrals at Canterbury or Cologne? Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of cathedrals listed on Wikipedia 

message: In 2020 a banner was placed at the top of this article. 
{{Multiple issues|
The article, as it stands now, was devised, created and written by one single Wikipedia contributor in 2006.  At that point in time, the policies on referencing were not as strictly applied as they are now.
The article was created because I saw a need for a large,and inclusive article that dealt with the subject of major church structures across the world. 
:1. The sources of major church architectural structures and features 
:2. The basic diversity of forms- longitudinal and centralised 
:3. The differences between cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches 
:4. Regional diversity 
:5. Historic styles  
The article achieves this. 
It was written by a person who is widely read in the subject, who has lectured in the subject, and who provided a list of texts. 
I suggest that you take into account the date at which this was written, and write into the leading banner, a Grandfather clause. 
For several years prior to 2020, I had taken a sabbatical, brought about by the extraordinary misogyny and rudeness of a typical "add a comma and save" type contributor, and the total failure of Wikipedia to take up the challenge of defending a female at that point in time. 
In 2020, I returned at the beginning of the Covid lockdown, to take up the challenge of the article Gothic architecture. I sat down with a large pile of texts on the subject, and was confronted by the continued interference of two individuals, both of whom had an interest, both of whom had strong opinions,  and both of whom were too ignorant of the subject in hand to be able to recognise the difference between an Englih Gothic building of  1200 and and English Gothic building of 1400.  
The havoc that was created by these two was beyond me. I retired, and Gothic architecture remains in a total schemozzle. 
The two enthusiasts decided between them, that there was too much emphasis on cathedrals in the Gothic architecture article, and they needed to carve off that part and make it separate. It was no good telling them that the Gothic style originated specifically for the creation of cathedrals and abbeys... and that any use of the style on a house, castle, palace or town hall as derivative.  They were insistent on chopping of the Cathedral part, instead of following the pattern of Romanesque architecture and creating a separate article on secular Gothic. 
My real expertise in this subject fell on deaf ears.   
Moreover, the leading paragraph of Sistine Chapel Ceiling (following the intro) has been reduced to nonsense by one of these contributors. . 
And I have no idea what state the article English Gothic architecture is in. I had a go at giving advice about the changes, without much success. 
If you want this present article thoroughly referenced in the style favoured by  2021, then you are going to have to find someone very knowledgeable to do it. 
Any ignorant person could easily go through this and delete everything that does not have a direct reference. 
Then you will be left with no article at all. 
:Amandajm (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning references etc.  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: :This article is assessed as B-class and #1 states: 
*1)- There are too many citation tags and 
*2)- Many section "no citation" tags
**These issues alone dictate an article reassessment. I have reassessed the article to C-class.
*The "See also" section includes three subsections and thirty entries. This could be looked at for possible trimming as it may exceed "a reasonable number"
*This article has an astounding 151 images. If "all" of the images are deemed important other ways of using them needs to be explored as explained at MOS:LAYIM. Wikipedia is not a  repository|. --  Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues