Talk:Strasbourg Cathedral

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tallest church 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Work on [[:fr]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: See move above - and below :-) .--Matthead 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: 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 . That was reverted, but then a user with only two edits changed it to 30 km . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How far can you see from the observation level? 3, 30, or 300 km? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victor Hugo quotation: « Prodige du gigantesque et du délicat »  

message: 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: . 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:          . --Mathew5000 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of the astronomical clock 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Construction started in 1176? or 1190? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Height 

message: Anybody here to assist me a little? --RCS (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of the article 

message: After a quite comical exchange with a thoroughly well-meaning Wikicolleague, I feel necessary to repeat this:
#The tower of Strasbourg's cathedral was achieved in 1439 and hasn't changed one bit since in height, aspect and consistence.
#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)
#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)
#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)
thread_title:  Strasbourg's cathedral is, indeed, the highest still standing medieval structure in the world 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081117142110/http://cathedrale-strasbourg.fr/files/art_histoire/Les_grandes_dates_de_lhistoire_de_la_Cath%EF%BF%BDdrale.pdf to http://www.cathedrale-strasbourg.fr/files/art_histoire/Les_grandes_dates_de_lhistoire_de_la_Cath%EF%BF%BDdrale.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918124152/http://notre.republique.free.fr/histkoufra.htm to http://notre.republique.free.fr/histkoufra.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001053027/http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1988/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19881009_bimillenario-strasburgo_fr.html to http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1988/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19881009_bimillenario-strasburgo_fr.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dombaumeisterev.de/?dom=strassburger-muenster
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408162937/http://www.cathedrale-strasbourg.fr/Croix_Mission.aspx to http://www.cathedrale-strasbourg.fr/Croix_Mission.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102101050/http://decouverte.orgue.free.fr/orgues/stcathed.htm to http://decouverte.orgue.free.fr/orgues/stcathed.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511174627/http://decouverte.orgue.free.fr/orgues/stcathec.htm to http://decouverte.orgue.free.fr/orgues/stcathec.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402121608/http://decouverte.orgue.free.fr/orgues/stcathcr.htm to http://decouverte.orgue.free.fr/orgues/stcathcr.htm
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) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Expansion of article   

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If it's technically possible. I'm not sure it is. Bien à toi, --Edelseider (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Well, yes, why not? Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gustave Klotz 

message: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Courtesy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to move image of apse-chevet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Shall we upload this one? The licence is correct: CC BY-SA 4.0 --Edelseider (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  You can go ahead and upload it, I am not jealous! :) --Edelseider (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:   Et voilà. --Edelseider (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  Wow!  Thanks very much, you're a wizard.  SiefkinDR (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Plan of the cathedral? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested  improvements  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging infoboxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks.  I wish I could have done a little better, but templates are tough. cordially,  SiefkinDR (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you, . 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)
thread_title:  Completion date: 1439, not 1488 

message: 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)
replies: text: What are you on, ? 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)
thread_title:  Tallest building