Talk:Dome

message: The first oval dome may be St. Gereon's Basilica in Cologne, Germany. The oval cupola was completed in 1227, well before the Renaissance or Baroque.
* St. Gereon's Basilica
* Pic: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:K%C3%B6ln_st_gereon_kuppel_dekagon.jpg
:: just stumbled upon this by coincidence. Defenitely NOT! St Gereon is a decagon and not an oval. And the 'dome' is a centralized rib vault. With a bit of generosity one could call it an umbrella dome, but even that is slightly far feched due to the decagonal plan...This being said: of course you can find the description "dome" all over the web - but then, not everything you can find online is true. However, there are oval domes in the middle ages, maybe even earlier. Random example: transept of the abbey church in Solignac. But "oval dome" seems to me rather descriptive than a real distinct dome type (I mean there is no category for "flat dome" or "steep dome". not even for "round dome".
--92.212.34.48 (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not write the above comment, but the technical definitions for "dome" that I have found leave a lot to be desired. Only the most vague, "centralized vault" definitions cover everything conventionally identified as a dome and, as a result, I have taken an agnostic attitude in the article by accepting as a dome anything that a reliable academic source has labeled as one. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oval domes 

message: I merged saucer dome and incorporated more pics, but this article needs sections on history and construction techniques. Now it is much better --Tysto 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: I think cupola is not an exact synonym, but represents a subset of architectural domes, sometimes meaning a small or ornamental dome.  It's still a good candidate for merging, especially since both articles are currently headed by a photo of the same dome!  —Michael Z. 2006-08-10 17:27 Z
:I'm thinking the same. At least the difference between a dome and a cupola should be specified better in the article. German Wikipedia has Kuppel and both "Dome" and "Cupola" link to it. --Hartz (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not, a cupola and a dome are not the same thing at all, and cupola's are seldom domed shaped. Both dome and cupola can be used and often are independent of the other Pour example: :Image:Belton Roof.gif. Neither is the image illustrating bith pages a domed cupola :Image:StPetersDomePD.jpg Giano (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have seen it used that way, as another word for the "intrados" or inner side of a dome. It is also used to refer to a small domed lantern. One of the frustrating aspects of this topic is the lack of a single standardized terminology across all of the sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from cupola? 

message: An edit was made which changed 'Jerusalem, Israel' to 'Jerusalem, Occupied Palestinian Territories'.  I've since changed the reference to only 'Jerusalem' in order to forestall a potential edit war, after having read part of Talk:Jerusalem. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Jerusalem 

message: This section recently added needs to be tweaked to make it more encyclopedic. Can any of this be rephrased as a report of what has been said in print? --Wetman (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what domes represent in buildings of worship 

message: The image sizes on this page need to be specified, or some of the images removed. Giano (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: This article could really use a section on pre-Roman/non-European examples of domes in structures. The intro briefly mentions their use in the ancient Middle East without giving any examples. Certainly, the Treasury of Atreus should be mentioned, as well as more recent Native American dwellings like the Wigwam and Igloo. 
Also, a pet peeve: I hate when topics of prehistory are written as if we have complete knowledge of the past. I changed the wording in the intro which states Nero's Golden House is the earliest domestic dome even though the same intro acknowledges domes extend back into prehistory. It is extremely likely that primitive peoples used domed dwellings well before Nero (see Wigwam above). AmateurEditor (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primitive and prehistoric dwellings 

message: This article deserves at least a B on quality scale. It has been expanded nicely! Dr. Persi (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On behalf of everyone who has contributed, Thanks! AmateurEditor (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: There was an instance in the article (that I changed) where Hagia Sophia and Hagia Irene were translated as Divine Wisdom and Divine Peace. I've only ever heard of the Greek word hagia meaning "holy/sacred" when preceding an inanimate object or abstract concept, and the title "Saint" when referring to canonized individuals.  "Divine" doesn't really mean the same thing, and it's definitely not the typical translation.  107.3.44.127 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hagia" 

message: I want to change the references system currently used in the article to one used on some featured level articles (such as this one and this one). It makes recording and later finding page numbers easier and separates notes, citations, and bibliography in a neat way. I am aware that Wikipedia discourages making this kind of change when a reference system has already been established for an article, but I think the advantages for others to check references in any upcoming class evaluation alone justifies it. I just want to be sure that there are no objections to me doing this when I can. It will will take a while to complete. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References change 

message: Surprisingly, the following article copies the lede paragraphs of this article verbatim and without acknowledgement: "ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF STEEL DOME USING SOFTWARE" by Anuj Chandiwala, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel Institute of Technology, Gujarat, India. It's a good example of WP:CIRCULAR. I'm posting this here for future reference. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-cited use of this article's lede in an academic paper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dome. 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/20130116215900/http://www.rusarch.ru/zagraevsky1.htm to http://www.rusarch.ru/zagraevsky1.htm
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) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "...However, if a point load is applied on the apex of a parabolic dome, the bending stress becomes infinite...."
"Infinite" is a pretty high amount.  How can any structure of finite strength withstand an infinite force?
And "point load"? That could be anything down to a fly landing on the apex of a dome. Surely that doesn't create infinite stress.
More explanation is needed of this claim.
--23.119.204.117 (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "infinite" stress? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dome. 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/20131016100046/http://www.bma.arch.unige.it/PDF/CONSTRUCTION_HISTORY_2009/VOL1/Bagliani-Stefano_layouted.pdf to http://www.bma.arch.unige.it/PDF/CONSTRUCTION_HISTORY_2009/VOL1/Bagliani-Stefano_layouted.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305183445/http://www.galteh.ru/article_galvanotehnika.html to http://www.galteh.ru/article_galvanotehnika.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701204844/http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/churches.html to http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/churches.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728025931/http://www.skypalace.org/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia/articles/domes.shtml to http://www.skypalace.org/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia/articles/domes.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206133109/http://rincon.gps.caltech.edu/FIG10sym/pdf/Session%20VIII_Paper%205.pdf to http://rincon.gps.caltech.edu/FIG10sym/pdf/Session%20VIII_Paper%205.pdf
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) 05:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the claim that the "optimal shape" of a dome is a catenoid of revolution.  For a solid dome, it may not be super important, practically, to optimize the shape as it is for an arch, because the horizontal circular cross sections lend stability, meaning that the vertical stresses don't have to independently balance the gravitational force.  However, it is possible to calculate the shape a thin dome would need to have if there were no azimuthal compressive strength, only compressive strength in the vertical plane, (or if the dome were interrupted, with symmetrical cutouts with edges along radial lines), and the result of that calculation is a cross-section with a shape of the form of y = erfi(x) - erf(x) [some constants omitted].  erf is the error function, and erfi is the imaginary error function.  This is NOT a catenary, whose shape is of the form y = cosh(x).  I have not found a published source for this calculation, making it inadmissible OR, but best to remove incorrect claims about catenoids anyway.Rracecarr (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for stepping up on that and for not inserting your own conclusions. I hope you keep looking for a usable source. Maybe the better term here is "funicular", rather then "catenoid"? AmateurEditor (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence to that effect with sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optimal shape 

message: The section on Dome#Umbrella_dome, which seems to have been there for years, seems to conflate at least two types of ribbed or segmented domes. St Peter's and Hagia Sophia do not have gadrooned domes. The explanation is unclear - what does the italicised bit mean: "these are a type of dome divided at the base into curved segments, which follow the curve of the elevation."?  Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, doesn't it? I think the sources do as well, so we should find better ones and that should definitely be made more clear. I believe the italicised bit is an awkward way to try to distinguish vertical segments from horizontal ones. That is, to distinguish the curves of an umbrella dome from those of the dome equivalent to something like the Trefoil arch. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Want to give re-wording that a shot? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe at some point, but I'd need to research. Anyone with a clearer idea is welcome to have a go. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflation? 

message: The following sentence occurs, some emphasized:
:The ellipsoidal dome is a surface formed by the rotation around a vertical axis of a semi-ellipse. Like other "rotational domes" formed by the rotation of a curve around a vertical axis, ellipsoidal domes have circular bases and horizontal sections and are a type of "circular dome" for that reason.
Right off, the Joe and Rika Mansueto Library has an elliptical base, 240 feet by 120 feet, not circular. That's an elliptical base, of equation x2/120 + y2/60 = 1.
Input?
dino (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: dino, "ellipsoidal dome" is used to refer to a circular-base dome with a half-ellipse vertical section. The term for a dome with an elliptical-base would be "elliptical dome" or "oval dome", (the "oval dome" section mentions elliptical base domes). AmateurEditor (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: A sentence that may have problems