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.
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)
The way you're deleting all of my edits is not at all acceptable. You've destroyed an entire day's work, and the article looks worse than ever. I'm going to have to do it all over again. Your vertical images don't work at all for this subject. Let's discuss this further before you do anything more. It's extremely frustrating. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:23, 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)
What you're doing is not "working together". It's deleting information based on reliable sources, without prior discussion, and trashing other editors' work.
Please reconsider using exclusively the type of galleries you are using; packed galleries are simpler and more flexible, and more easily modified, and doesn't waste space. See other architectural style and arts articles where they're used.
Deleting sourced text because you don't agree with it isn't "working together."
Deleting text because it's based on Larousse is not acceptable; it's the best French source, Subscription is free, you just need to register. There's a place in the article for more than one point of view.
Virtually all of your citations are to one source; it's a good source, but an article like this needs to be based on more than one source.
In short, please respect the work of other editors, and discuss changes. That will make this a much more pleasant experience. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: I have not deleted anything of the kind. All I have moved is pictures and headings. The Larousse does not give Norman Gothic its own heading and neither should we. There are plenty of other sources to add but I'm going through the basics first. The Multiple Images are very bad because they don't resize at all when you resize the page and policy is definitely against including them when pictures can go alongside or in gallery. GPinkerton (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: I'm also rather dubious that all those churches in Normandy fit under Early Gothic. Most are not 11th or early 12th century; most are late 12th or 13th, so I think those probably belong under High Gothic or later. GPinkerton (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
First, there is a section in Larousse on "Le Gothique en Normandie." Gothic architecture from Normandy was not just from the "late 12th and 13th century" Lessay Abbey had rib vaults in 1098, just after Durham Cathedral. There were also rib vaults in Bsyeux Cathedral (1060-1070), ribs in the domes of Quimperle, at Moissac Abbey. They were importing stone and craftsmen from Normandy to use in English cathedrals. I really don't understand why the article talks at length about the influence of Islamic architecture and leaves out Norman architecture.
Second, I think he problem you're having with multiple images is the format you're using. If you use packed galleries, you shouldn't have any problems, they adjust themselves depending on the format of the the screen and other factors. They're used in most of the articles on architecture styles. Putting images on the right side causes more problems than it resolves, and greatly limits the possible number of images. It's an especially poor format for subjects with a lot of variety, like cathedral facades, where you want to compare them side by side. ::::Also, the captions should always have dates; that is one of the big problems with the galleries remaining from previous article, in addition to their rigid format.
My main request is, please discuss changes and respect the work of other editors. It's tiresome to have to argue about every edit. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about Rouen, Lisieux and Coutances, which are all a century later and do not qualify as early Gothic. Larousse's sections are:
1. Introduction
2. Le premier art gothique
3. Le style 1200
4. L'âge des grandes cathédrales
5. Le gothique rayonnant
6. Le xive s. jusque vers 1380
7. La fin du Moyen Âge
8. Le gothique international
The fact that it has a subsection (under L'ÂGE DES GRANDES CATHÉDRALES) about Gothic in Normandy signifies that Normandy's cathedrals were contemporary with the other churches of the "age of big cathedrals" to which it also devotes subsections, Chartres, Bourges, the spread of Gothic art, and the blossoming of Gothic sculpture. This strongly suggests 1.) Normandy's churches are notable here under High Gothic and the later 12th century: Fécamp, Lisieux, and Saint-Etienne de Caen's apse are all the same age as Chartres or 2.) are significant because they were innovative, not because they were in Normandy. We don't need to have a section for every region and kingdom; we should treat stylistically and chronologically not regionally. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Problems with images in early sections
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 agree; each gallery should be horizontal, but I don't think all the images need to be in galleries. A few should appear full size alongside the text. I also disagree that packed galleries are better than traditional ones, especially as they reduce the space available for captions, which makes the words run over a stupid number of lines and take up huge amounts of space with unnecessary white space. I don't know what the problem is with the traditional galleries used all over Wikipedia. Packed galleries are especially bad when you try to shoehorn portrait and landscape images of wildly different sizes together and it's completely unnecessary. I agree that there should be dates but I have had to remove a number of dates from captions for being egregiously wrong, applying to the building rather than the parts pictured, which are often of very different periods. GPinkerton (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Request for comments: Proposal to remove section "Early development of Gothic architecture
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)
Revising section on structural elements
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)
Remember that the structural discussion and detail should be related only to Gothic. The principles of rib vaulting, for instance, are not unique or even new to Gothic architecture, and users would be best served just being to directed to the relevant article. I would be be more in favour of merging together those sections that repeat themselves. Can you be specific about what images you'd like to go with which text? GPinkerton (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
For instance: I would say that sections 4.4 to 6.2 and then 9 (in the contents page) could be merged into a more coherent treatment dealing with the evolution of the structural elements, considered separately, all the way from Romanesque and Islamic architecture all the way down to the latest Late Gothic styles. I think that would be a massive improvement. It would be something like: arches (round->pointed), flying buttresses (simple->complex), windows (round arch->lancet->plate tracery->bar tracery->perpendicular), vaulting (groin->rib->lierne->fan), west and east ends (early->high->late), &c., each with their own gallery and each with a representative larger image that the sources say was especially influential. (This is why I chose the illustrations in the history section: Canterbury's chancel was the model for subsequent churches in the British Isles, Chartres was the model for High Gothic churches in France, Strasburg's west front was the model for rayonnant in Germany (and Cyprus), Prague's east end the model for flamboyant in central Europe, and so on.) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I will be writing only about Gothic elements. I can't tell you yet what images will be needed, since they depend entirely upon the text. Please give me a little time, I just started the section this morning. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: have had to remove one of your edits which suggested ribbed vaults were invented by Gothic architects and that Islamic architecture only used pointed arches decoratively, which is completely false. GPinkerton (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you show me a picture of an Islamic rib vault that was used for structural purposes? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR:rib vault in the Great Mosque of Cordoba, 962-965. Are you kidding? Not only are they numerous Islamic examples, there are also plenty of Romanesque and Byzantine ones going back centuries.https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1025456GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This kind of vault has nothing to do, except the name, with a Gothic rib vault. It's a crossed arch vault, used under domes. They were used in Normandy as well, for the same purpose. The dome rests on pendatives, the ribs do not go downward outside the vault to the columns and pillars, as in Gothic rib vaults. It doesn't transmit the weight outwards, like Gothic rib vaults, making possible thinner walls. The weight goes directly downward onto the pendatives and the walls. That's a fundamental distinction, It's interesting, but its not the inspiration ancestor of the Gothic rib vault. This was explained in the article on Rib Vaults (or was until you also changed that).
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)
Read the article I linked. The weight is carried on the ribs and the pendentives. The article on rib vaults had no citations that backed this idea, so I had to change it, especially as it is obviously untrue. GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The weight supported by a Gothic rib vault is transferred by the ribs outside the vault to the columns and pillars below, and to the buttresses outside. That's the fundamental difference between a crossed arch vault and a rib vault. Please don't use insulting language like "obviously untrue." Please try to show some respect for other editors. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:42, 22 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)
Proposal to remove "Transition from Romanesque to Gothic architecture"
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)
1.) Please stop forcing these packed galleries on the article. They are awful, generate huge amounts of wasted space, and force the images together in a grossly unnatural way. No other editor supports them, and several have opposed on this very page.
2.) The galleries should come after the text. It is not normal or attractive to put them before. Please stop changing it.
3.) You appear to have added the same gallery twice. I will go ahead an remove the duplication.
I'm afraid I disagree with you, as I've told you several times before. There's no consensus to use the images the way you've used them. Packed galleries are used in most of the architecture articles, and were used here until the recent rather catastrophic remake several months ago. They're not awful. They don't waste space, the pictures are larger, and they're easier to edit. Putting images in the margins really wastes space, and greatly limits the number of possible images;. They also make more sense at the beginning of the text, rather than after, since they should be chosen specifically to support the text. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:31, 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)
Proposal to move or reduce influences section
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)
I don't particularly agree it is too long - certainly it should not just be eliminated. It could be floated off, and what's here kept to one paragraph per influence. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Summarizing each "influence" here with a link to a "Socio-political contexts of Gothic architecture" article strikes me as a good idea. On a related note, the "Oriental Influences" subheading here made me cringe. It's not the 1960s. That subheading needs to be reworded. Peter Draper, whose article that subsection is based on, doesn't use that extremely outdated term. It needs to be purged from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.81 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No the influences and evolution of the style is of primary importance and should be treated first. See above for my suggestions on how the article should be arranged. GPinkerton (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod's suggestion. The whole can be moved to a separate article, and a shorter version, with one paragraph per section, can take its place. Although I fear that in the end it might end up being just as long. Also agree entirely with removing the heading "Oriental influences." I presume this would be replaced with "Islamic influences", or something else? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Some of the possible influences are Syriac Christian, no? Since E. Said has made younger academics squeamish about the O word, and "Eastern" might suggest Slavic etc, we'd better say "Near Eastern" I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, "Near East" has been replaced with "Middle East" in American English. I'm just throwing that out there. I still use the former in my lectures, though I may reconsider that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.81 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"According to Wikipedia" is not a phrase that can come before an authoritative statement. Near East means a wholly different place than does Middle East, and the (incorrect) use of Americans should have no bearing on this article, which is written in English. And no, SiefkinDR, moving to a different article is what deserves to happen to the extraneous morass of information relating to churches alone. Not the fundamental history of Gothic architecture itself, which so obviously belongs on this page it's hard to describe how wrong the POV fork you're proposing is. And no, "Islamic" is not a synonym for "Oriental". "Islamicate" I could live with. GPinkerton (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"Islamicate"??? Is that in the dictionary? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: Yes, and if you knew a little more about the subject you would understand that, and much else. "Islamicate" is a very common term. See here.GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see the Grove Dictionary of Art and Architecture (2009) on on the word "Islamicate" : "Imperfect and even misleading though it may be, the word “Islamic” is preferable to [...] a neologism such as Hodgson’s “Islamicate” (to refer to civilization, where “Islamic” is limited to the religion), which has not been widely accepted." Also, GPinkerton, I see you're back to your habit of sarcasm and insulting other editors. Please try to maintain a civil tone with other editors. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Rise and fall of a great article
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: Thanks for your comment! We certainly agree that the article is in a parlous state at present, that the multiple image template (the one where the image box spills over) is a crime, and that the children's model of the rib vault should be banished! I'm less clear on what you mean about bad angles and "plenty of shades", could you elaborate? Your comment made me look into the history and I quite agree that the article had a lot fewer issues just a few months ago, before its sections were hacked away and the whole text refocused on cathedrals, which I had not realized had happened so recently. Could you also expand on what you mean about the stained glass? What in particular was shocking?
I will continue to work on the images' presentation (the multiple image template needs to be replaced with galleries), but I'd appreciate your input on which should be included and which not; an awful lot have been added recently (a few by me latterly) and many others have been removed. It might also be good to look at some of the points raised elsewhere on this talk page give an indication of where you agree or disagree. GPinkerton (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you about the current state of the article; it's very poor, both in content and in graphics. It's very repetitive, there's no consistency in the graphics, and it's written like a university architecture textbook, not a Wikipedia article. You have to go through a long series of sections on possible influences before you arrive at any architecture. And it's very largely unsourced, or single sourced. It needs considerable shortening, and elimination of duplication, and of course more sources.
As for galleries, I think packed galleries are the best solution. They're simple, flexible, and they're used in nearly all of the other architecture articles. They adjust to different screens, they don't waste space, and they can be easily edited. The current galleries also needs better captions on the images, with links and dates, as in other architecture articles.
Personally I rather like the image of the model of rib vault, which I confess I put there, It used at the museum of Historic Monuments in Paris to illustrate in three dimensions how a rib vault actually works, and it's designed for non-specialists. But if people don't like it it can go.
Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:02, 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.
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)
@Pauli133: Could it be the same book from 1967 in a newer edition or printing? GPinkerton (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It could very well be, though I didn't see anything about that happening in my search results. If it is, we just need to update the ref with the new year and ISBN, and call it good. pauli133 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't really help further, huge amounts of this article was compiled without regard for citations or the formatting thereof. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A WP search picks up "Martindale, Andrew (1993). Gothic Art. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-2-87811-058-6" from this article! Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
But i can't now see his 1967 - did you just change the year? The page nuimbers may well be different. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
So! As it turns out, the article with the cites not matching the book was actually High Gothic, and I'm not sure why I asked here, or how I missed that the book I was after is... here. Thanks for finding it, the other article is updated. I would like to get a consistent bibliography throughout the whole set of Gothic Architecture articles, though... pauli133 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Problem solved - sort of. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, it's my fault. The original English version published in London is from 1967. I couldn't find that here, so I'm using the French translation by the same publisher, published in Paris in 1993. The page numbers are from the French version. I should have made that clear.SiefkinDR (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Editing courtesy
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)
You can preview your changes before adding them to the mainspace. That way you wouldn't make so many errors for everyone to see. You can also use the spell checker that is built into your browser. It's not necessary to remove all images of buildings outside the medieval Kingdom of France either, and yet .... GPinkerton (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of section Early development of Gothic architecture
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 have many times (see above) made plain my view on this: the entire "Transition from Romanesque to Gothic architecture" section should be excised and whatever is worth keeping integrated, properly sourced, into the "History", "Structural elements", or "Influences" sections, as appropriate. GPinkerton (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Different image of Chartres: question about Metz
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)
@SiefkinDR: The reason the Chartres image is there is because it shows a direct like-for-like comparison of two styles and because Chartres is a classic example of what 19th-century French art historians were pleased to call High Gothic (a deeply problematic and self-congratulatory characterization). The reason Metz is there is because the source cited says: "After Toul, great churches in this style [High Gothic] were built all over the (Holy) Roman Empire, first in Trier (Liebfrauenkirche, 1228), followed by Marburg (Elisabethkirche, 1235) and Metz (c.1235)." What on earth does it matter when the cathedral was finished? The fact is that it was one of the most influential Gothic buildings in the High Gothic style in Germany. I see that you have replaced the image of Chartres (whose towers are High Gothic and Flamboyant, contrary to your claim) with one of Rheims but not bothered to change the caption, so it now entirely mislabelled. Again, use of the preview button, or even the visual editor, might encourage you to avoid such repeated blunders. It is the clerestory of Metz which is considered Rayonnant, not the whole building. If dates are to be included in the captions, then they should be dates of the specific parts of the building referred to, and they must be reliably sourced. Copying random dates or "facts" from other Wikipedia articles is extremely poor practice. GPinkerton (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm sorry to see you're back to your old style of discourse with other editors. I was hoping for a little more civility and a spirit of cooperation. This is not a battle. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Proposal to combine sections Height, Vertical Influence, and Towers and Spires
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)
I suggest taking the entire "Architectural character" section and the "Evolving styles" section and merging them with the "Structural elements" and the "Sculpture and decoration" sections. GPinkerton (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That would be far too long. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I don't think so, most of the (almost wholly unsourced) stuff lower down is just duplicating stuff higher up, doesn't belong in this article, or could be deleted forvarious other reasons. Of course, as you know, I have long since proposed splitting the article. GPinkerton (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with GPinkerton that a large part of the text in the later sections duplicates what's up above. I'm testing this out, as mentioned above, by bringing into the section on towers and spires usable parts of the later sections, but since those later sections are unsourced there's not much useful there. and I think it will be of reasonable length. The galleries can be limited to images which are discussed in the text, which will make them considerably smaller and more focused. I don't think it will necessarily be too long. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
What to do with "Evolving Styles"?
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)
Notable Examples section
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)
"Notable" is certainly the wrong word, since there are zillions of those (using the WP meaning). "Leading", "representative" or something would be better. I don't especially mind having a greatest hits list, though it could be lower, & the space used for more text pics. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
If it's anywhere it should be at the end, but I really don't see the need. Who is to decide what are the most notable examples? It should be a separate article. There already is a list of Gothic cathedrals, and for a number of countries. We can have links to lists of individual countries, at the end. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please look at List of Gothic cathedrals in Europe. This seems to cover the topic, with illustrations, so you can find the cathedral you want from the pictures. I'd suggest that, rather than adding a new list, we have a link to this article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Tolbooth steeple?
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)
I agree, but at least it is vertical. If it just goes there will be a huge stretch with no images, which is crazy for this of all articles. That ghastly multiple image should be broken up & distributed around. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
How is it not an important example of Gothic architecture? Is there a problem with using 17th-century Gothic architecture to illustrate the article on Gothic architecture? I agree with the multiple image being a horrorshow though. GPinkerton (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"originated in 12th-century northern France and England" yeaaah of course.
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.
It was also called maniera tedesca, so obviously it was German too I suppose ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The term "maniera tedesca" is the same (and comtemporary) to "gothic architecture" and historically we all know it was Renaissance propaganda from Italy, to show contempt toward everything that wasn't Greek or Roman and to associate that type of achitecture with the "barbaric" Goths that "destroyed" civilisation.
It has nothing to do with the latin Opus Francigenum with was contemporary to the era in the middle ages, and which implied the region of origin of this type of architectural developments. I think it's possible to find better arguments that this kind of false equivalences. It's not like I argued no early developments came from England, just that it clearly can't be put as an equal origin considering the amount of influence from what was from the kingdom of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.72.102 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Inexplicable revert
@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)
Regarding Durham Cathedral (appearing in your edit summary for this article), it is considered as Romanesque architecture. Dismissing books on architecture written 40 years ago is not reasonable. The classic books on "The Buildings of England" by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner are examples par excellence. Pevsner's later 1985 book "The Cathedrals of England," coauthored by Priscilla Metcalf, is another. Mathsci (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mathsci: Yes but removing a sourced statement and replacing it with a less useful source which purports to say a different thing and is decades older is not justified; newer scholarship replaces old and argumentum ex silentio is fallacious, we can't decide something didn't happen and override the sourced statements based on what a much older source doesn't say. GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the lead now is fine, and reflects a consensus of sources, both old and new. Most sources I've seen agree that Gothic originated in the Ile de France at Saint-Denis, that the first Gothic cathedral was Sens Cathedral, and that the style was then imported into England at Canterbury by William of Sens. Durham had early rib vaults in one part of the cathedral, but they were defective and all had be replaced. UNESCO does not accept the claim of Durham Cathedral that it was the first Gothic cathedral. Please, let's stop rehashing this over and over and move on. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: The beginning of Gothic architecture and the "first Gothic cathedral" are wholly different things. Removing the well attested fact that the Gothic architectural features of places outwith France predate St-Denis and Sens is very much not reflects a consensus of sources, both old and new which 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)
@Qualcomm250: Same question. How is an old article from the previous century more "well-sourced" that the unimpeachable existing citation from the previous decade? Apart from that it's flagrantly untrue. GPinkerton (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I agree with SiefkinDR's careful statements about both Canterbury and Durham. It's not true that 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)
@Mathsci: It very much is the case that newer scholarship replaces old, and a new edition counts as new scholarship. This is undeniably true in archaeology. As well as that, the new Co. Durham edition comes out in 2021 apparently, so until then its relevance is limited. On top of all this, the new (older) citation added does not support the sentence it purports to support. Norman architecture is never mentioned, so this violates both WP:V and WP:SYNTH. GPinkerton (talk) 20:09, 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)
SiefkinDR, what you think is the consensus has been stated already, but that is as nothing compared with the expertise of of the historians Marc Carel Schurr [de] and Robert E. Bjork (the editor of the Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages) whose work together states quite unequivocally of Gothic architecture 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.. 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)
Since, as I expected, you dismiss Britannica as not reliable, how about the Victoria and Albert Museum, "The Gothic Style - an introduction: "The Gothic style first appeared in the early 12th century in northern France and rapidly spread beyond its origins in architecture to sculpture, textiles, and painting..." I believe they are generally considered a reliable source. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
SiefkinDR that's a museum website. What about serious published material? GPinkerton (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Since we are on the topic of serious published material, the source Mathsci added is exactly that. It is a recent (2009) work of serious scholarship, and adds to the existing consensus of sources. Qualcomm250 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No dude, it's an excellent but avowedly popularizing book first published in 1943, & I doubt it's been revised since before his death in 1983. Its coverage is very summarized. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Not quite correct. From the new Thames & Hudson edition: "In a new preface and an illuminating postscript, the architect Michael Forsyth continues where Pevsner left off by bringing the review to the present day. In a consideration of recent buildings in Europe by modern masters such as James Stirling, Norman Foster and Frank Gehry, he identifies a natural evolution of architectural achievement. An Outline of European Architecture continues to be as stimulating and relevant as ever. Through his perceptive understanding of the heritage of past civilisations, and in the delineation of the buildings that continue to be recognized as the greatest symbols of artistic endeavour, Pevsner remains the essential guide and companion." The original essay was written while Pevsner was in an internment camp. He became main editor for History of Art at Penguin/Pelican. There have been two fairly long biographies of Pevsner. The original essay is available on archive.org, with several reviews of later versions. The 1960 Jubilee edition from Allen Lane received positive reviews by J. S. Ackerman from Princeton University.
The opening lines of Pevsner's essay are often quoted: "A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture. Nearly everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human being to move in is a building; the term architecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal." Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The Outline is not an essay, my Penguin edition from the 1980s is about 1 1/2 inches thick (with lots of pictures). I know who Pevsner is, thanks very much. I imagine what archive.org have is the Preface (no, in fact it's 336 pages worth; my edition has 496) I can't quite see the relevance of the quote here. What you mean is that he was the series editor for the Pelican (now Yale) History of Art. If anyone had access to the Frankl volume of that on Gothic Architecture that would be a very nice source here (actually archive.org have that if you log in - 1962 though). I have over 20 of them, but not that one. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This comment was not aimed at you. In their blurb, Thames & Hudson describe the up-dated book as a "seminal essay". Not my choice. The Thames & Hudson edition was updated by Michael Forsyth. The 1940s paper book was short: the war-time editions had a Foreword and Introduction, not a Preface. Yes, Pevsner is the standard reference for architecture (also mentioned above for the Pevsner Architectural Guides with their new publisher Yale University Press). During his lifetime, students (including me) could attend Pevsner's Cambridge weekly lectures on the History of Art in semi-darkness lit only by slides and punctuated by taps on his walking stick.
Johnbod, I can give you access to Paul Frankl's "Gothic Architecture" (2001 Yale University Press edition, revised by Paul Crossley) by email through my user talk page. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, GPinkerton, you say Encylopaedia Britannica and the Victoria and Albert Museum are reliable sources that the Gothic style originated in Ile-de-France. How about Watkin, David (1986). A History of Western Architecture? It's a textbook in English and French architecture courses, and says that Gothic architecture emerged first in Northern France. Or Julien Chapuis in the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History on the site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art? He writes "The new architectural grammar was first coherently articulated in the ambulatory (chevet) of the royal abbey church of Saint-Denis, north of Paris, built under Abbot Suger between 1140 and 1144." These are fairly serious sources, no? I think the "inexplicable revert" you speak of is actually fairly explicable. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 18:41, 2 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)
Excessive big pictures
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 Bannertalk 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The size of the pictures is not excessive; it is suitable for the subject and is used in many other architecture articles. It allows seeing detail and comparing multiple images and does not require enlarging every picture. I oppose making the images smaller. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk)
Just one double-click and you have the full picture with all the details. The Bannertalk 19:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
And how many of our readers know that? The Banner, you are one of a tiny handful of editors who go around complaining about too many/large images on visual topics, but there is not consensus behind you. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The work of ridiculous, ignorant dingbats.
The picture of Canterbury Cathedral that had become the lead picture to this article. When are you ridiculous ignorant, arrogant numbskulls going to learn to recognise what you are looking at?
You have selected and Seifkin and the other know-it-alls on this page have continued to accept as legitimate a lead image where at least 50% of what you can see in the image is either Norman or Transitional. It should not be used to demonstrate the appearance of Gothic architecture.
I am not coming at this as an outsider. I am, as some of you are well aware, the elderly College lecturer who you, in your arrogance and stupidity, continually reverted and eventually forced right off the page.
I am talking here to people to whom I have had to explain, and explain again, and yet again.... that when writing about Early English Gothic.... you MUST use Salisbury Cathedral as a prime example.
I am talking to people to whom I have had to explain that part of Lichfield Cathedral is Early English and pert of it is Decorated Gothic....... and they still manage to put the photo of the wrong part in the wrong place. If you cannot see the difference, then you should not be touching this page or the page on English Gothic architecture. .
You do not learn to see. And in the past year, since I have not contributed, you have learnt no more than you knew a year ago.
This article has been seriously sabotaged through ignorance and arrogance. I would not recommend it to any student. Go out and buy a book!
This vital part of the article is a garbled incoherent mess
"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.
No, you idiots! It is not a common characteristic. It is the defining characteristic.
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]
This sentence is grammatically incorrect and is unnecessary in this context.
In Gothic architecture, particularly in the later Gothic styles, they became the most visible and characteristic element, ...
Again, it is the defining element.
Use the expression "the pointed arch", not "they".
The statement is incorrect. The pointed arch became the most visible element from the outset. It was the defining characteristic.
....giving a sensation of verticality and pointing upward, like the spires.
red herring.
Gothic rib vaults covered the nave, and pointed arches were commonly used for the arcades, windows, doorways, in the tracery, ....
Explain. What have Gothic ribbed vaults got to do with pointed arches?
...and especially in the later Gothic styles decorating the façades.
What absolute rot! Pointed arches, once adopted for the window openings and arches, were immediately applied to facades. This "especially in later Gothic styles" indicates that the person who wrote this has no real understanding of what they are writing about. If you were my student, I would deduct points for that sort of waffle.
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]
Idiot! The major reason for the adoption of the pointed arch was because it served a number ofthe "practical purposes".
The earliest Gothic pointed arches were lancet lights or lancet windows, ....
This is nonsense. The first application were for arcades and vaults.
...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]
Incorrect information. The term "lancet window" is commonly applied to a simple narrow untraceried window. It is only applied to those, blade-shaped windows in the most restricted sense.
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]
If your definition of the lancet follows through, then that results in some highly impractical buildings.
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]
This description of the sculptural details, complete with French names not usually applied in English has no place here whatsoever. If you are not describing the stages that the pointed arch went through, then why describe the tarrididdle that might or might not ornament the top of a particular style of arch?
Every sentence of this section has a problem. The information may have come from reliable sources but it has been strung together by someone with only superficial understanding of the complex subject about which they are writing .
This does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. It would barely get a pass mark, and ought not be copied by any student who is looking for real information.
A classic example of constructive, amicable discussion from our colleague Amandajm. She has Some good points, but they might be more effective without the sarcasm, insults and name-calling. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Her main point is certainly right - the lead already says "The defining design element of Gothic architecture is the pointed or ogival arch", & I've changed the arch section to match, with defining characteristic. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, good point. 17:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Removing example of Giralda
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)
_(29702267642).jpg)