-
Cathedral of Cajamarca, Peru
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Architecture of cathedrals and great churches is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
have been copied and pasted to the new page at Talk:Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France --Amandajm 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to apologise to anyone who is irritated by my thousand small changes. Firstly, I'm still getting the hang of how to edit. The pictures are a mystery to me. I've got nice ones of my own and still can't work out how to upload them! Also, my server has dropped out repeatedly . When I make lots of adjustments in one hit, I lose them and have to do it again. So just have patience while Granma sorts it out, OK?!
--Amandajm 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone a better photo ? This one is bad and png.
This was one sentence:
(Wow.) In general, the language in this article is very long-winded and complex, no offense to its writer. It needs to be broken down and organized for readability. I made some changes (which hopefully didn't hurt the content) but more are needed. Deco 04:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With reference to the above comment
The matter that this comment refers to has now been moved to its own page better suited to the amount of detail that it goes into. See Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France
--Amandajm 01:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I put up a request here for more information about the use of paint and colour in medieval cathedrals. In England we are inured to plain stone, but I understand that medieval cathedrals were actually brightly coloured. I am no expert on this, and I hope someone is and can incorporate a suitable write-up into this. Djnjwd 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===See Amiens Cathedral===Tvbanfield (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This article Cathedral architecture should fully cover its subject, with sub-sections headed by those Main article:.. headings. Much of this present article ought to be integrated with, for example, Chevet, with a condensed version here. Shouldn't this information be presented stylistically and chronologically: Earliest cathedrals; Romanesque cathedrals; Gothic cathedrals; Renaissance and post-Renaissance cathedrals; Neo-Gothic cathedrals; Modern cathedrals. Regional character should be mentioned under each style. The article Cathedral diagram once again is able to make its points with groundplans. --Wetman 11:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to rework this article into a broad statement about cathedral architecture which explains why cathedrals are the way they are, what the styles are and how they differ regionally.
The article on the Eastern Ends/chevets etc is not, I feel, very useful to the general student who looks up this subject because they know little or nothing about it and would like to know more. I'm keeping the language simple.
For many people, their interest in architecture from the medieval through to 19th c revivals stems from the proximity or a visit to a cathedral or great church. That is why I am seeking to make this a 'beginners' page rather than a specialists.
--Amandajm 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wetman, I'm still working on it! I know it needs this and that! Any link that you'd like to make, I'd welcome!
Yes, I agree that it needs a link to the Eastern World. It wasn't me that retitled it Western Cathedral architecture, but now we've got the western, I'm prepred to go with that, while acknowledging the influence of the east upon the west. Which is there in my discussion of Byzantine in Italy.
Now, are you telling me that I have to turn around and write a detailed article about Byzantine churches as well? How about you do that one, while I'm doing this!
I haven't lost sight of the abbeys. I need to add something there. I have, in fact, mentioned Cluny as a specific influence. Is there an article on abbeys, or do I do that too?
As for my reference to books, yeah, I'll get around to that, when I've found out how to do it. Now, how is that, to encourage your confidence?!
Please assist me with the links to whatever extent you like.... I'm not terribly good at it.
--Amandajm 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't worked out how to drop in pictures yet! If anyone has good pics illustrtaing the article it would be wonderful to have them!
--Amandajm 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate what you mean by "the Western World"? Are Orthodox (Byzantine/Russian) cathedrals part of the Western World or the Eastern World? Is there any encyclopedic definition of the Western World? Or is it pure original research as I tend to think it is? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you've got a point. The problem is that the title changed from Cathedral architecture to Western cathedral architecture (I think that's how it went...)
Anyway, I turned it around in order to get the word 'Cathedral' first, because that's what people will look up! You dont want them having to make several hops in order to find info on Cathedrals.
So then, what? I ended up with Cathedrals of the western world with the the thought that western European culture and architectural style has spread and predominates in Australia, New Zealand, North America and South Africa.
How do you suggest that it should be fixed?
You might notice that I have completely omitted Scandinavia, about which I know very little and Belgium and Holland, which i know a bit better.
This could all get very cumbersome!
Can YOU write an article on orthodox cathedrals? Could it encompass all of eastern Europe including the biits which are predominantly Catholic?
--Amandajm 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the question by Ghirlandajo as to whether this article constitutes original research, here's a quotation from the Wikipedia Guidelines-
"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
This article is in its entirity "source-based research".
--Amandajm 09:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Explain it to me, what does original research mean?
Do I go on trying to sort out an article which could possibly be useful to someone if it was arranged with sequence and some clarity, or do we just leave it as a wordy dissertation on the development of the eastern end. Yes, it's scholarly. Yes, it's source has been cited. No, it isn't very useful to anyone who doesn't have a fairly in depth knowledge of the subject to start with. No, it's not the answer to an article on cathedral architecture, western or otherwise.
Can I suggest, as politely as I can, that rather than chopping bits out of a work in progress, you make positive suggestions about how they might be improved?
--Amandajm 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see comment about in Title with regard to "original research" and "source-based research."
--Amandajm 09:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to remove the following passage: "The greatest buildings of this period include Notre Dame, Paris; Chartres Cathedral, Rouen Cathedral in France, Stasburg Cathedral, Cologne Cathedral in Germany, St Stephen's Vienna in Austria, Florence Cathedral in Italy, Burgos Cathedral in Spain, Salisbury Cathedral, Canterbury Cathedral and Lincoln Cathedral in England." The assortment is arbitrary and records no factual information, only a judgement. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather than removing it, why don't you phrase it so that the list of examples remains intact but doesn't use a judgemental word like "greatest'
--Amandajm 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at this again. Ghirl, if you think that this list is 'arbitrary' then you need to look at a lot of gothic cathedrals and do a great deal of reading and see which ones you would include among the greatest. I could probably find an author for each one of these who would say like Alec Clifton-Taylor "All things considered, Lincoln Cathedral is probably the finest of the English cathedrals." But quotations of that sort belong on the page for the specific cathedral, not on this very general page. There really is no doubt that these ARE among the finest cathedrals of Western Europe, so why quibble? They have been chosen because they are great and specifically or predominantly ( in the case of England) Gothic.
What is called for here is a list of examples, but these are NOT arbitrary examples, these are among the finest examples, and that's that! It's here for the benefit of a student who might want to follow a link and would best be directed to a really oustanding example such as Lincoln than a much rebuilt example like Southwark or a partly demolished example like Carlisle or a burnt-out large parish church like Coventry.
--Amandajm 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is everyone happy, or do we do something better with it?
NOW what we need is a really good article on the Cathedrals of all the countries that haven't been written into this one. I think it's over to you, Ghirlandajo! --Amandajm 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The spaces were inserted for reasons of layout. They only occur before headings, in order to keep a heading on a single line. Because this article has a great number of pics illustrating the points, it isn't easy to make the pic and the paragraph beside it exactly the same length. Sometimes this is of no account, but at other times weird things happen and a section heading may appear as
Latin Cross and Greek Cross
instead of
Latin Cross and Greek Cross
When you look only at the edit page, then the gaps seem meaningless, and deleting them is very easy.
But pleeease don't do it without a preview to see what you've actually DONE.
--Amandajm 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Also note that headings don't take capital letters (apart from the first one) that they wouldn't in ordinary text.
Best wishes Rich Farmbrough 22:58 10 June 2006 (GMT).
I took out the link to baths because it went specifically to the town of Bath, which does have a Roman bath, but doesn't really illustrate the point.
--Amandajm 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It's in France.
--Amandajm 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This article goes largely against WP:Style. I seem I had spent some time to put it to rules stated there, but I seem that good nonna Amandajm reverted it. Be ready to have a large revision of format here soon, but also to check WP:Style rules before trying to revert my attempts of standardization. Bye and good work. --Attilios 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Attilios! The reason why non-standard bold face has been used in place of sub-titles is because it prevent the Table of Contents from being a million mmiles long. It was suggested as a strategy by another Wiki editor who also knows about style.
For example, every one of the Cathedrals for which there is only a 3 line description could have its own subheading, but that would immediately add a dozen new articles to an already long list.
--Amandajm 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Note The article was removed from FA candidacy by its author. The article seeks to cover a vast amount of info in a compact space. To achieve this, and make useful comparisons between buildings of five regions, much useful info is in point form. Remove the points and you lose the comparison. I preferred to have the most useful article that I could write than one that fitted FA criteria to the letter but lost out on content. --Amandajm 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Some very good work here. Just wondering if there is a separate article yet that looks further east than Vienna? If so, there should be a link from this article. If not, perhaps it's another project...Corlyon 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford was also not built as a cathedral (although as a priory church it is arguably more within that general tradition). Also, at that point in the article we are merely saying that great size is not a necessary attribute of the funtion of a cathedral, we have not yet moved on to a discussion of the style of architecture commonly associated with cathedrals. I think it's worth mentioning at least one other "small" cathedral as it shows that Christ church is not entirely a one off. David Underdown 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a cathedral. and it has never been completed.
But this article is about Cathedral architecture. For that reason, an number of buildings are included which fall into the cathedral style architecturally speaking, even though they are not the seat of a bishop. For the same reason, buildings are generally avoided here which were designed as Parish churches but have been elevated to cathedral status.
There is another article called Cathedral which deals with the function of the building, but does not describe the architecture in a detailed way.
--Amandajm 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The article, as stated in the introduction, is primarily about architecture, rather than function. There is an article called Cathedral which deals with function, does not deal with architecture and excludes buildings that are basilicas etc. But this article is more flexible in its definition where function is concerned and includes buildings that fit the pattern of "cathedral architecture", such as St Peter's Basilica.
St John's was a Romanesque church, largely demolished and rebuilt to become the largest church in the Netherlands. It became a cathedral during the time of the Gothic rebuilding, which probably influenced its final size and style. It is beyond doubt of cathedral proportion and style. It certainly isn't what one would term a parish church.
I notice that the editor who deleted the info states a specific interest in churches. I would value your suggestions about any part of the description which you described as "dubious". Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The cathedrals of Prague, Warsaw and Moscow aren't generally in a different architectural category. "Western Europe" is a confusing term from the cold war. I propose we rename this article "Cathedral architecture in Europe". - SSJ ☎ 21:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
My initial feeling upon coming to this article is that the introduction takes too long to get to the subject matter; that is, it's occupied for too long with material more appropriate to the definition of cathedral in general, rather than its stated subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the term "great churches" may be a little vague. How about "Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbeys"? (Except I think that an abbey is actually more than the church building). PiCo (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In the Hebrew Wikipedia the article is simply called "Church architecture" (אדריכלות כנסיות). MathKnight 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. Absolutely awesome.
I have never complimented article on it's talk page like this. Also the usage of Template:multiple image
is quite remarkable. I like it. i do not know, whether it might not happen, that there someone would be objecting, that it's usage is not according manual of style. (But in that case I would drive for changing the manual instead ;) ). Really beautiful and informative. Reo + 09:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
duplicate notice at Church architecture [1] Some of this material may be suitable for this article, though I guess it is already covered - please check.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth considering using Template:gallery instead of multiple image:
eg
Multiple image:
Gallery:
It's a lot easier to maintain, and will automatically format to any screen resolution.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The current name of this article, 'Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches', does have multiple issues - as User:StuartLondon pointed out on this talk page on 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC). During the preparation of the as yet unpublished revision of 'Brabantine Gothic', amongst the most notable examples I encountered few basilicas but several collegiate churches. This is not surprising for the pre-Renaissance period. The summing-up article name precludes those: No reader would click on a link if his momentary interest would include collegiate churches; even if the link shows another text, the title of the destination would urge the reader to go back without looking further. The article 'Church architecture' exists, and there is a need for that broader subject. Even to the uninformed, 'Cathedrals and great churches (architecture)' or 'Architecture of cathedrals and great churches' does give a good idea of all that might belong in "our" article and excludes what does not. Alternatively, 'Architecture of ecclesiastical edifices' or 'Ecclesiastical edifices (architecture)' would indicate the same.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-16 08:13 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.cathedralestmichel.be/eng/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, listing the age of a cathedral is to show the age of the architecture, not to show when church history began in that location. It seems to me that quite a number of cathedrals' ages are written to make the buildings seem significantly older than they really are - I can exaggerate by saying "Built in AD 9, and only destroyed and rebuilt seventeen times since then" :) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
In 2020 a banner was placed at the top of this article.
((Multiple issues|
The article, as it stands now, was devised, created and written by one single Wikipedia contributor in 2006. At that point in time, the policies on referencing were not as strictly applied as they are now. The article was created because I saw a need for a large,and inclusive article that dealt with the subject of major church structures across the world.
The article achieves this. It was written by a person who is widely read in the subject, who has lectured in the subject, and who provided a list of texts.
I suggest that you take into account the date at which this was written, and write into the leading banner, a Grandfather clause.
For several years prior to 2020, I had taken a sabbatical, brought about by the extraordinary misogyny and rudeness of a typical "add a comma and save" type contributor, and the total failure of Wikipedia to take up the challenge of defending a female at that point in time. In 2020, I returned at the beginning of the Covid lockdown, to take up the challenge of the article Gothic architecture. I sat down with a large pile of texts on the subject, and was confronted by the continued interference of two individuals, both of whom had an interest, both of whom had strong opinions, and both of whom were too ignorant of the subject in hand to be able to recognise the difference between an Englih Gothic building of 1200 and and English Gothic building of 1400.
The havoc that was created by these two was beyond me. I retired, and Gothic architecture remains in a total schemozzle.
The two enthusiasts decided between them, that there was too much emphasis on cathedrals in the Gothic architecture article, and they needed to carve off that part and make it separate. It was no good telling them that the Gothic style originated specifically for the creation of cathedrals and abbeys... and that any use of the style on a house, castle, palace or town hall as derivative. They were insistent on chopping of the Cathedral part, instead of following the pattern of Romanesque architecture and creating a separate article on secular Gothic.
My real expertise in this subject fell on deaf ears.
Moreover, the leading paragraph of Sistine Chapel Ceiling (following the intro) has been reduced to nonsense by one of these contributors. . And I have no idea what state the article English Gothic architecture is in. I had a go at giving advice about the changes, without much success.
If you want this present article thoroughly referenced in the style favoured by 2021, then you are going to have to find someone very knowledgeable to do it. Any ignorant person could easily go through this and delete everything that does not have a direct reference. Then you will be left with no article at all.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 32 entries in nine subsections. Three links seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
ELCITE: Do not use ((cite web))
: Empty citation (help) or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Some of the current links include ones that are not needed giving no benefit to the article and some that can be included in the article with sources.
Per ELBURDEN I have moved those removed from the article here for any possible future discussion:
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
I removed several subsections that have been tagged since 2020. Reinclusion needs to be sourced. Also removed images in these subsections to trim gross overuse of images. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.
By "exist", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.I could not find sources for the tagged sections so cannot establish a reasonable expectation that there is not original research. However,
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution.[c]