Talk:Gothic architecture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problems with this articel arfter revisions of 2018

The article has some serious problems. It was a functional article, and now is not.

I am going to list some of the problems.

1. The defining factor of Gothic architecture is the pointed arch. Not the flying buttress, not the ribbed vault, not the large windows, not the height, not the tracery, not the stained glass, not the facade or the twoers or the spires or the heavenly light, or anything else.

The defining chareacteristic of Gothic architecture is the ribbed vault. And on the grounds of that statement, I am revising this article.

I am going to sy again, that during my recent Sabbatical, I was alerted to the problem by students quoting this article and continually giving the flying buttress as the primary arhitectural feature!!

2. The problems started in the intro. I deleted part with the intention of rewriting, because pointed arch was mention as an "also".

Since then it has been rewriten and now states The architects of Gothic Cathedrals used the rib vault, flying buttress, and pointed Gothic arch which, combined together, made possible very tall structures and maximum light.

Order Order! Order! (as they say n the Houses of Parliament).

2.1.No. This article is not about Gothic cathedrals. It is about Gothic architecture (of which cathedrals are a major example)

2.2 No. First and foremost, before any List of feature is mentioned, the defining factor is the shape of the arch. It is both the key engineering element and the key decorative element.

2:3 No. The order- ribbed vault, flying buttress, pointed arch- is the wrong order under any circumstance.

3. There is a section called Influences. This is the key to understanding the development of Gothic architecture. This was at the top It is now at the bottom.

4. Three sections on the "History of the Development of the Gothic Style" exclusively in French cathedrals has taken the place of a general statement.

5. There was I believe.... unless I am delusional, a section specifically about the pointed arch.

This section used window s and window tracey to demonstrate the progression through different stylistic periods of Gothic. It has gone.

So where in this article does it tell the student, or the uninformed reader about the pointed arch and its importance to the big picture?

6. The emphasis on France. Yes, yes, the developent of Gothic in France is very important.But the development of Gothic in England at Durham, Wells, Salisbury and Peterborough (in partiular0 is also of great importance as it is almost contemporaneous with France and is extraordinarily different in character. Only at Westminster Abbey is it significantly derivative. The historic importance of Abbey Saint Denis cannot be overemphasised. But the rest of the development of Gothic in France needs to tajke its place in a section devoted to France, and the artice french Gothic architecture, rather than dominating the first three sections of the generic article on Gothic architecture as a whole.

My plan is to revert this to a stable state and make additions as per its present state, and deletions to sections that have grown out of proportion.

NOTE: The grouchy old woman is half blind, dyslexic and has a barely-functional keybord. When you orrect my numerous typos, please don't do it immediately... it stuffs up the business of writing a paragrpah or sectionif someone does minor edits every minute or so.

Amandajm (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Amanda This is how the article was at the start of 2017, if that's any use. It's now twice the size, and has had an astonishing number of edits. It's rather too long now (140k raw bytes) and it would be good to think of parts that can be split off. The referencing is better, though the number of French sources is regretable, and leads to a lack of balance. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've made an effort at a compromise, as you'll see in the changes, and a cite to the OED (not a French cite). Looking forward to comments. I also think that Johnbod's suggestion of new and separate article on the pointed arch is an excellent one. It's an opportunity to start that topic from scratch, and nobody (or hardly anybody} uses the term "Ogive". SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thre is an artcle calld Ogive as Siefkin points out. I believe that it was oncealld "Pointed arch" but some peeople pefer a fancier name if they can find one. I don't like "facade" for a medieval building (regrdlss of whether it has an unnecessarily Frnch spelling when adopted into English,). I use "West front", in most instance.

A section on epointed arch is abolutely essntial to this article.

The pointed arch is the structural principle, th engineering innovation, and the feature behind ever single building in this article.

This is the one thing that every student of Gothic architecture needs to know about and understand.

Amandajm (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR (talk)

I hadn't noticed that you had been further editting until just now.

Can you please just leave the article alone until I have finished with it?

Understand that it has been missing the vital information for several years now.

Now that I am on to it, can you just let me get it fixed?

I willtake some of your edits into account, but just let me get on with it. I am not going to do it all in one hit. I need to do some simpler stuff here and there to get my brain around it.

You have read my list of problems. Now please be gracious!

Amandajm (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR (talk), I have just looked at your edits.

You are still not getting it!

I am going to say it again.

THE primary feature of Gothic architecture is The pointed arch.

The dumbing down of this, the most significant fact withing the entire article, yet again, is making me feel rather irritated!

This is the very reason why I am trying to fix the article.

The pointed arch is is not "A" feature, as you have just written it. It is the absolutely crucial element of structural engineeringd and visual design.

Without the Pointed arch you do not have Gothic.

Now, just leave the thin walls, windows buttresses etc, until later down the article. I will get there.

Yes, the charater of the great cathedrals is important.

But I am going to say again, the article is about Gothis architecture as a whole, not about cathedrals, specifically.

Amandajm (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed

Could you please give a citation for the statement:

"The defining feature of Gothic architecture is the pointed arch. It is the primary engineering innovation and the characteristic design component."

Thank you! SiefkinDR (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a direct quotation. It is a summary. It was written specifically to get the point across to you, but then I considered that it ought to go into the article itself, in order to make the point clear to any other person who might not understand it.

My copy of Bannister Fletcher is rather old, and I suppose has been since revised, but I doubt if this has been lost-

The term Gothic ......is now, by common consent, given to th Mediaeival Architecture of the 12th to the Early 16th century in Europe.....It is mainly distinguished by the introduction and general use of the pointed arch... B.F. 17th edition, p.367.

The Gothic style, or "Style ogivale" as it is called in France......distinguished by pointed arches and geometric traceried windows. BF. p. 524

SiefkinDR (talk)

You are complaining about me deleting something that was referenced.

What you don't seem to have noticed is that the points that you had made had simply been placed in a paragrap further down, where theyoccur in a statement about Style rather than constructional elements.

The first important example of Gothic religious architecture is considered to be the Basilica of Saint-Denis, near Paris, whose choir was reconstructed between 1140 and 1144, drawing together the developing Gothic architectural featues and creating a style that emphasised, internally, verticality in the structural members, and the atmosphere created by the play of light through stained glass windows

Can you please understand that I am not randomly deleting stuff. I will find a use for the OED reference. The information in a dictionary is essentially a very brief summary. I haven't finished with the intro yet. So could you please exercise some patience. Amandajm (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR (talk), I have just looked at you OED reference. It does not mention "higher structures", "thinner walls" or "light".

I am dropping out for a bit to sort this computer out.

Amandajm (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• In general, the OED, most of which has not been revised for nearly 150 years, is a very low-grade reference for art history. In the past I've pointed out glaring mistakes, which they have cheerfully more-or-less accepted, promising to correct when their full revision reaches that point (in c. 20 years). Its reputation as infallible is pretty wide of the mark. A senior British Museum curator just laughed at the idea it was a good source for art history terminology. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod. I agree with you in general about OED, but the same list of primary features (pointed arch, rib vault, flying buttress etc.) is also found in the Heilbrunn outline of art history on the site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in their definition of Gothic and its primary features. I'm not sure that it's wise to reduce Gothic architecture to just the pointed arch. Cordially, ####

Let's work through this

Present state of introduction- what is wrong with it?

Gothic architecture is an architectural style that flourished in Europe from the mid-12th century until the 16th century. during the High and Late Middle Ages, It was most famously used in the Gothic cathedral, but also was featured in palaces, castles and other prominent structures. It evolved from Romanesque architecture and was succeeded by Renaissance architecture. It originated in France, and was known during the period as Opus Francigenum ("French work") with the term Gothic first appearing during the later part of the Renaissance.

You have slightly reworded the existent leading statement, and split it up by inserting the sentence in bold.

What are the problems?

1. This information is already contained in the intro, a little further down.

2 '"It originated in France". It was developing simultaneously in England.

3. "most famously used in cathedrals". Wikipedia does not encourage "famous" and I would think the "most famously" . The sentence that is a little further down "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and churches of Europe" seems to have it covered pretty well. Why repeat the information?

4 "but also was featured in palaces, castles and other prominent structure". Please don't us the word "featured" unless the thing that you are describing really is a "feature". This was a style, and a method of construction. You could say "A feature of the west front of Notre Dame Cathedral is the Gallery of Kings."

The defining feature of Gothic architecture is the pointed arch. It is the primary engineering innovation and the characteristic design component. The use of the pointed arch in turn led to the development of other characteristic features, including the rib vault, the flying buttress, and elaborate tracery. Combined, these elements permitted much higher structures and thinner walls and large stained glass windows, which filled the buildings with light. [1]

This is dealt with in the section describing Saint Denis. It doesn't need to appear twice. If you get out of my hair for a bit, I am intending to add a well-referenced statement.

The first important example of Gothic religious architecture is considered to be the Basilica of Saint-Denis, near Paris, whose choir was reconstructed between 1140 and 1144, drawing together the developing Gothic architectural featues and creating a style that emphasised, internally, verticality in the structural members, and the atmosphere created by the play of light through stained glass windows.[2

I observe you removed one word here, and inserted a statement into the first paragraph.

SiefkinDR (talk), Can you please have a few manners, and just let me get on with this, without continually having to deviate to give you reasons and explantions?

Amandajm (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, go ahead with your edits. My primary concern is that the article read like a Wikipedia article, not like an academic article. I will wait until you finish. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Part of the nature of a Wikipedia article is that it does not duplicate, at length, material that is found elsewhere, or would be better located in a separate article. For this reason, the hree sections on the development of Gothic, in French Cathedrals, specifically, is superfluous to this article.

Some of what one may perceive as too "academic" are additions that were not made by me, and will be looked at in due course.

Amandajm (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not right

"The plan of the Gothic cathedral was based on the model of the ancient Roman basilica, which was a combined public market and courthouse; which was also the basis of the plan of the Romanesque cathedral.2

This sentence leads the section on Plan. It is plainly incorrect. By the year 1150, the architects were not looking to Ancient Rome as a basis for their structures. They were developing out of the Romanesque. There was a 700 year tradition of building large churches to the basilica form. So to imply a direct association with the Roman basilica is misleading.

This is the sort of reason why I am doing an overhaul.

Amandajm (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Major deletion

I have just removed the entire History section because it was entirely about France. And went into French Gothic architecture to a detailed extent tat is certainly appropriate for the Main article on that subject, but not for the Genral article.

The info has been cut and pasted to the French Gothic architecture talk page for inclusion.

Basically, a history of Gothic architecture that fails to mention Durham Cathedral and Wells Cathedral is not an adequate history of the earliest stages of Gothic.

This was a difficult thing to do, as I do not want to offend anybody. But lets get it right.

Yes, he references were cited, and all that. But that doesn't mean it was the right place for that information.

Amandajm (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I have created a new section Structural elements, which contains

1 pointed arch

2.ribbed vault

3.flying buttresses.

It comes under the section that has things pertaining to the overall layout of the building

plan

elevation

west front

towers and spires.

This will incorporated some of the more recent material

Amandajm (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You're doing a great job with with your editing, it's useful and comprehensive and the article is much improved. The additional images are a very good idea, particularly those explaining the details of construction, and add a great deal, and the organization makes sense.

I have just a couple of minor quibbles.

Is Wells really the first Gothic cathedral? French sources like Olivier Mignon give credit for that to Sens Cathedral, which was built between 1135-1140. I think that Sens should be mentioned as well.

The article says that that Gothic architecture "May have been influenced" by Islamic architecture, but that also means it may not have been. The article doesn't give enough convincing proof or explanation. The images of bridges and other pointed arches with the article don't have an obvious connection with the rib vault and other key Gothic features. I'd suggest you leave that out until there's more compelling evidence.

Lastly, it would be great to have dates with captions whenever possible.

Again, congratulations and thank you for your good work. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SiefkinDR (talk).

Yes, dates in the captions would be good.

Re Sens and Wells. Sens is essentially the first substantially Gothic cathedral in France. But it maintains parts of the earlier Roamanesque structure. It also maintains many characteristics of Romanesque architecture. It is barely more Gothic than St Etienne, Caen, except that it employs pointed Gothic arches much of the time.

Wells, on the other hand, in unquestionably Gothic. It was begun in the Gothic era, and maintains the pointed arch, structurally, throughout.

The Classical form of column used in so many French Cathedrals is abandoned in favour of clustered piers, and accompanying fluted mouldings of the arches at both arcade and gallery level.

The Romanesue pattern of paired openings under an arch, maintained at the gallery level in most early french Gothic cathedrals has gone in faour of a row of lancet arches with very rich mouldings.

The Gothic west front uses a number of innovative forms, including trefoil arches over the niches.

Altogether, it is an immensely creative building which pushed Gothic concepts to new heights.

Re the influence of Islamic architecture- it goes without question that Islamic architecture influenced buildings such as Monreale Cathedral.

The section needs a little more work.

What I am currently doing is hunting out suitable pictures for the galleries.

I can't lways find what I want. And, as a designer, I like a gallery to look as if the pictures go together well. IF the sizes, shapes and colours are jarring, then I search for another alternative.

The aim is to select and arrange pictures that I can conveniently refer to in the text.

The pictures are important, to give readers/student a clear concept of what is meant by the terms, and descriptions.

Hope you are keeping well! Amandajm (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I will drop pics of Sens into the first relevant gallery. Amandajm (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR (talk), I have left you a message above to say that I am getting back to this, and would include some more info at your suggestion. Please just leave me to do it.

Amandajm (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Please don't ever use the word "features" when the word "has" will do. as in "Sens Cathedral features a Gothic choir." No! "Sens Cathedral has a Gothic choir."

You can say "Sens Cathedral features a light and sound show for Christmas!" Amandajm (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ogival Architecture

re reversals GPinkerton (talk) The term "ogee" or "ogive" Is used in English architecture specifically to denote an arch which has an S bend, and is of the Flamboyant form. The two references are both in the French language, and neither applies in English Architectural text book, in general. It is not particularly detrimental to the article, but it is a little confusing to any English speaking student to come across a word in a given topic. Amandajm (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: as I mentioned on your comment on my talk page, what you say is not the case and neither of the references I have provided is in French. Ogees and ogives are different things, and you appear to have confused them. GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Churches that are not Cathedrals

This article haphazardly refers to cathedrals all over the place, and then describes in detail numerous churches that are not cathedrals when purporting to discuss Gothic cathedrals, relying on them to demonstrate points relating specifically to mediaeval ecclesiastical Gothic architecture. For instance the Basilica of Saint-Denis is not a cathedral, neither is Sainte Chapelle. Southwell and Ripon cathedrals are not mediaeval cathedrals (they became bishoprics only in the late 19th century), Florence's Santa Croce and Santa Maria Novella are not cathedrals, neither is the Basilica of Saint Anthony of Padua, the Abbey of Saint-Étienne in Caen ("Abbaye aux Hommes"), Ulm Minster, Westminster Abbey, &c., yet all are discussed under the heading "Cathedral". This is as misleading as it is unnecessary. GPinkerton (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That is why, in quite a number of places, you will find the words "and great churches" or "and abbey churches" or "and large town churches". In point of fact, many large abbey churches are indistinguishable from cathedrals, architecturally. Which is why, at the Reformation, churches some were simply upgraded. Question, when you write a large document, Pinkerton, do you entirely edit the whole thing as you go? Or do you come back and work over it? I will check any points that you make, like this one, and make sure that the wording meets that requirement. Now, go and sort out the whole narrative of how Michelangelo cam to paint the Sisteine Chapel ceiling, so that when someone, other than you, reads it, they actually understand what happened. Amandajm (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Incidentally you rudely removed the inuse banner while I was working on the article? Why do it? THis is not the first time that I have asked you today to butt out while i am writing. Amandajm (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Pinkerton, You weren't removing a template that had been "left behind" You had been told I was still working on it. You had bee requested to desist. I was putting together a gallery, and searching through hundreds of images. Could you possibly show a few manners? Amandajm (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained before Wikipedia is not your personal blog and you do not decide what and when others may contribute. In fact, you wrote that you had removed the template, had not done so, and I removed it for you. You have failed to justify why you believe the discussion of multiple types of churches deserves the inaccurate heading "cathedral", which is the point I am making here. Your sorry diatribe on Michelangelo has been part-rectified, and if you want to write a personal reflection of what the Vatican means to you in place of accurate historical information Wikipedia readers require, do it elsewhere. That would be manners. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk) I have just done a rough check over this. Understand that there is some material here added by other writer in the past, and some of it has stayed put, and not yet been reviewed and editted. So the expression is not mine. What I am going to tell you is that my brief check has indicated to me that in almost every instance, I have referred to "Cathedrals and great churches" or "cathedrals and abbey churches", and very rarely just to "cathedrals". So anyone who takes the trouble to read the text of any section that has been written by me will surely not find it too confusing. Please stop wasting my time! I removed the "inuse" banner yesterday, and put it back today. Amandajm (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: You claimed to have removed it today: [[1]] Your attempted point about the Reformation is absurd and has no bearing on the matter. The modern cathedrals I mentioned were not "upgraded" at the Reformation, nor because of it. Your assertion "many large abbey churches are indistinguishable from cathedrals, architecturally" is completely backwards and wrong-headed. In fact, architecturally, cathedrals are indistinguishable from large churches. Nothing about architecture distinguishes cathedrals from churches; neither could it. The discussion of architecture has to do only with churches; that is why it is called "ecclesiastical architecture" and not "episcopal architecture" or "cathedral architecture". GPinkerton (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk), You are perfectly right about the two abbey churches that you mentioned. They were both elevated to Cathedral status in the 19th century. In England, in fact cathedral and abbey churches are in general very similar, architecturally. But contrary to what you have said here, they are both (in general) very different from other large churches. St Mary's Redcliffe, Bristol, St John the Baptist, Halifax; St Peter Mancroft, Norwich, etc, do not resemble cathedrals. Even though they are among the largest and grandest parish churches in the country. 23:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: I dispute that they do not resemble cathedrals, but this is beside the point. Manchester Cathedral was built as a parish church, but resembles a cathedral, which it now is. Of course, Halifax Minster is a parish church, and there is no reason to exclude Parish churches, like Ulm Minster, or royal chapels, like Westminster and Saint-Denis, from discussion of Gothic. There is reason not to call them cathedrals and good reason for a new article discussing Gothic ecclesiastical architecture in detail under its own head - Gothic churches. Abbeys, parish churches, and cathedrals would all be covered. GPinkerton (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Inuse

GPinkerton (talk) There is a banner at the top of the page informing you that the article is undergoing a serious revision. Can you just do me the courtesy of keeping off the page until I remove the "inuse" banner. And as for you proposal to split the articl, It will be done, in time, but certainly not at the point at which you have suggested. Go and READ the total hash that you have made of the first section of the body of Sistine Chapel ceiling and get out of my hair for a while. Amandajm (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Re the Discussion banner

I have removed it for now because I am writing, researching, and finding pinks and refs.

I don't want to waste mind time in long discussions on the talk page, when I could be working on the article.

Amandajm (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: Wikipedia is not your personal project and you do not make the decisions. Wikipedia works by consensus and verifiable reliable sources. Talk pages are here to achieve consensus and not for you to claim sole authority based on your misremembered architectural vocabulary. Consensus is not a "waste of time" and you are not the arbiter of whether the article will be split or no or when other editors may make contributions. You suggested I rewrite the article on the Sistine Chapel, and for part of it, I did. With actual references and real objective information. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a common courtesy to let a person get on with what they are doing. What you have done at the Sistine Chapel article is to add a mish-mash of referenced material, some of it being quotations from 150 years back expressing ideas no longer prevalent. You have dates, but no coherence. Go and read the article, as if you were a student trying to get some information out of it. I'm busy. I am absolutely certain that at this point in time, you can find a great deal to criticise here. But I haven't finished. Amandajm (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: You have been editing this page since 2006. When do you think you'll be finished? When do you think other editors might be able to contribute and clean up the morass? That is just common courtesy. GPinkerton (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You will see there was a gap of many years, until quite recently. Your tone is completely uncalled for. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections relating exclusively to cathedrals, their evolution, characteristics, &c., especially the Gothic_architecture#Plan,_elevation_and_parts_of_a_Gothic_Cathedral section be split into a separate page called Gothic Churches or perhaps more specifically Gothic Cathedrals. Gothic Cathedrals presently redirects to this general and over-long article. The content of the current page is almost double its rightful size and its middle is bloated with information and detailed plans that relate not the Gothic as a whole but only to mediaeval European ecclesiastical architecture, a subject well worthy of its own article: these sections are distinct enough to make their own page, since various churches and cathedrals and their typologies are already amply covered in the discussions of the various styles and sub-types. GPinkerton (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Leaving what exactly? Gothic secular and domestic architecture, which we already have? Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: As above: leaving the rest of the article and discussion of the history, the main typologies, and general principles of the Gothic, which are identical in secular and ecclesiastical fields. The article is double the size it should be. GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, GPinkerton The article is indeed twice the size that it should be, and it will be radically reduced in the near future. One of the reasons why I haven't split the stuff off yet is that I am picking bits out of it a I go, and don't want to miss anything. Amandajm (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk) The most relevant type of building to be discussed in an article on the development of Gothic architecture is the cathedral. I could cut the information on cathedrals, but it would be a bit like writing an article on Renaissance sculpture and forgetting Michelangelo's David, or writing an article on World War II and not mentioning Hitler. Amandajm (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: No one is asking you to "cut" anything". I am proposing that the detailed discussion of Gothic ecclesiastical architecture (churches not officially episcopal sees are just as relevant and just as Gothic) be moved to a page befitting its notability and scope. No-one would propose having both WWII and Hitler's life-story all on the same Wikipedia page and not all information relating to David needs to appear under Renaissance sculpture; indeed, most material covered under David should not appear there. This proposal to split the page is not a task delegated to you; this discussion is supposed to reach consensus before any radical changes are made. The information is all relevant, if often poorly sourced, but Church Gothic deserves page of its own where the various kirks, abbeys and cathedrals can be discussed without diluting discussion of the formal qualities, history, and architectonic developments of Gothic per se, whether sacred or profane. Since the plans of cathedrals are relevant to Gothic churches in general but have nothing whatever to do with all the other uses of Gothic architecture, it is under their own head that they should appear. GPinkerton (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The appeal of this proposal is not obvious at the moment. For the general reader in English, medieval Gothic architecture pretty much is church architecture, and it is entirely proper that the basic title should largely concentrate on that. This is a popular article and we should aim to give the readers what most will be looking for. I'm ok with waiting to hear Amandajm's proposal. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The appeal is the desperate need for the over-long, over-broad article to be split in half. Why should there be innumerable pages detailing every aspect and sub-type of each provincial Gothic style, and a separate page for guildhalls, cloth halls, vernacular Gothic, carpenter Gothics, Gothic art, and so on, but not have a separate page for Gothic ecclesiastical architecture, let alone a separate page for Gothic cathedrals? What on earth is the rationale for disgorging all possible information on Church Gothic on this general page alone, but largely excluding secular and domestic architecture? You said: "For the general reader in English, medieval Gothic architecture pretty much is church architecture, and it is entirely proper that the basic title should largely concentrate on that." Why should Wikipedia reflect the prejudices of a "general reader in English"? The purpose is to provide accurate, verifiable information, reflecting reliable verifiable sources and their content, not to arbitrarily decide Gothic architecture is exclusively about cathedrals based on what someone might know about the subject before reading the article. Some of the churches here described as "cathedrals" are not cathedrals at all, would not appear in a Gothic Cathedrals page, but would appear in a Gothic Churches, as could all the cathedrals. Where is the reliable source that says "medieval Gothic architecture pretty much is church architecture"? If users are looking for Gothic Churches, (or Gothic Cathedrals), I suggest they be allowed to go to an article of that name, rather than be redirected to the general article of an architectural style, spanning some eight centuries, that was never exclusively, or even predominantly, ecclesiastical. At present, Amandajm has made more edits on this page than almost everyone else put together, over a decade and more, and is treating the subject as birthright, despite the article's shortcomings in the understanding of the subject and its presentation here. GPinkerton (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I make no apology for trying to cater to the expectations of the "general reader in English" - not their "prejudices" as most won't have any. That is exactly what we are supposed to do. An article this popular (1800 views avge pd over the last 5 years) will have relatively few readers who think they know much about the subject, and will probably include schoolchildren doing homework or projects. Survivals of non-church medieval Gothic architecture are extremely thin on the ground in English-speaking countries. It was originally just about true that Gothic "was never exclusively, or even predominantly, ecclesiastical", but in terms of British survivals it is not. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: If the page will have relatively few readers who think they know much about the subject, and will probably include schoolchildren doing homework or projects what reason is there not to have a clear and concise article on the history and uses of Gothic architecture, and another on the detailed specifics of Gothic churches? The purpose is to inform, not to regurgitate what editors expect others already to know. Combining 800+ years of a general-purpose architectural style with a detailed exposition on the churches of mediaeval Catholic Europe is completely unreasonable and confusing, though I'm not sure why the appeal to school children's homework trumps Wikipedia's need for verifiabilty, reliable sources and article length policy. "Survivals of non-church medieval Gothic architecture are extremely thin on the ground in English-speaking countries. It was originally just about true that Gothic "was never exclusively, or even predominantly, ecclesiastical", but in terms of British survivals it is not." This is really problematic. 1.) Where are the reliable sources that say so? 2.) Why does surviving to the present day have any bearing on the matter? This is the general article, about style not one about existing buildings. 3.) What on earth has surviving buildings in English-speaking countries have to do with anything whatsoever?! We don't insist that buildings under Classical architecture be existing buildings in English-speaking countries? Why would we? Or else why "British survivals"? Where is the inherent link between speaking English in a modern country and the architectural style. Please clarify, and explain how your views are supported by any reliable sources anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I'd like to hear from you about this, when you have time. GPinkerton (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I notice that my splitting proposal has been deleted altogether by Amandajm. This is not acceptable. @Amandajm: It is not for you to decide when to remove a proposal to split the page. Please avoid POV-pushing and abuse like this. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Really? She must have put it back, because there it is at the top. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note the tag on the article page does not link to this section, as it should. Three editors (me, amanda, Siefkin) have now specifically opposed this proposed split in the Rfc section below. I'm sure we would all agree with some reduction of size by splitting-off, but not this. It's improper to have an Rfc and split proposal, launched within hours of each other by the same editor, both going on at the same time. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Yes, really. She didn't put it back; I had to do so when I noticed it had gone. You're reading this page differently to me. I read the words: "I do think the article is too long and good part of the text should be spun off to other articles." as being supportive of the idea that the article is too long and much of it needs rehoming elsewhere. You'll notice too that by now all my contributions to the article have been blanked. From you Johnbod, I'm still interested in your concerns about surviving Gothic architecture in the English-speaking world expressed above; what are they and why should they govern the content of the article? GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Banister Fletcher

The article makes frequent reference to Sir Banister Fletcher (junior)'s reference but without specifying so much as a volume or a chapter, let alone a page number. To complicate this, there are now (since 2019), more than twenty editions of the work. I have the most recent one available to me, but this (the 21st ed.) is the only one to have been wholly rewritten since old imperial stalwart's death 70 years ago. There appears to be significant changes to the field over the years, and I am at a loss to try to track down any of the vague allusions to it in the references - there are more than a hundred chapters! GPinkerton (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Separate articles on Gothic Cathedrals and Architecture?

As the article continues to grow in length and complexity, I'm beginning to agree with others that having a separate article on the Gothic Cathedral is a good idea. The existing article on Gothic architecture can focus on the history and evolution of the style in different countries, without going into great technical detail. It would also include more about university, civil and military architecture, and the relationship between growing wealth and population and the appearance of the style. Readers who want to know the basics of the history will be able to find it quickly, without having to go through long sections of technical detail. Those who want the technical detail will it more easily in the article on Gothic Cathedral.

Basically, the plan of Gothic Architecture would be: -Characteristics (briefly) -Brief historical and economic context -History and survey of major examples, both religious and civil by country. -Sections on military and University architecture.

The new article on the Gothic Cathedral would focus primarily on the architectural elements, and how they evolved, by period. It would be the place for a more detailed technical explanation, with lots of illustrations, also linking out to related technical articles, and a timeline of major cathedrals.

I think the division of the current article into two articles makes good sense, both for readers who mainly want the historical context and for those who want the technical details. The alternative is an extremely long and complicated article that will be frustrating for readers. What do others think?

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: This is precisely what I have proposed above! with the exception (I'm sure you'll agree) that the new page ought be headed "Gothic churches" and not "Gothic cathedrals". "Cathedral" is not an architectural term or genre of building, and much of Gothic ecclesiastical architecture was, obviously, nothing to do with a bishop. Many English "mediaeval cathedrals", for example, were not episcopal sees until the Early Modern period and we not built to be cathedrals, yet are as big and Gothic as mediaeval civilization could afford. GPinkerton (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Without supporting or opposing a split at this point, shouldn't such an article be called Ecclesiastical Gothic Architecture, if that's would the focus would be (as opposed to the buildings themselves)? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

How about Gothic cathedrals and churches? Or "Architecture of Gothic churches and cathedrals"? I think most people associate Gothic primarily with cathedrals. I'm afraid that a lot of people don't know what Ecclesiastical means and wouldn't find it in a search. Plus I can't spell it. SiefkinDR (talk)

@SiefkinDR: @Girth Summit: All cathedrals are churches but most churches are not cathedrals. As with Greek temples I think the simplest, broadest, shortest term is best. "Ecclesiastical Gothic architecture" could redirect there, as could "Gothic cathedrals". Presently, "Gothic church" redirects to this page. As I've pointed out earlier, many of the most famous and important large Gothic churches are not or were not built to be, cathedrals. Westminster Abbey, Saint-Denis, and Sainte-Chapelle are all not cathedrals. GPinkerton (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'd recommend a trip to Beverley Minster to anyone. You can wander from early English through dec and into perp as you walk from east to west (on your way to the pub), and it's not a cathedral either. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Quite so! I think we should use "church" so as to keep it to the actual liturgical church buildings themselves, rather than anything and everything made by The Church (ecclesia) in the late Middle Ages. So, for instance, practical ecclesiastical buildings that are not the actual church bit - monastic refectories, bishop's palaces, and so on - would probably come mostly into the secular side of things, with halls, bridges, colleges, and the rest. GPinkerton (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, well, I wouldn't lose any sleep about what it was called. I do think though that we should wait a while to see whether Amanda returns - the building's not on fire, there's no need to rush into anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there's no rush. I believe Amanda has returned, she's certainly writing angry messages to me. Okay, let's say we go with "Gothic Churches" or "Gothic Churches and Cathedrals" or "Architecture of Gothic Churches and Cathedrals". What sections of the Gothic architecture article could migrate from Gothic Architecture to here? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, I don't quite understand that - Amanda hasn't edited since yesterday. Are you talking about emails? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

She sends messages to my user page SiefkinDR (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, her last edit there was on the 8th of April,unless I'm missing something? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: To start with section No.s 7 and 8. (on the contents box). They only deal with churches (largely, though not wholly, with cathedrals) and the stuff about vertical emphasis and architectural character of big churches is not pertinent to Gothic as a whole. A few other subsections could go along too. GPinkerton (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The "stuff about vertical emphasis and architectural character of big churches" seems highly "pertinent to Gothic as a whole" to me, though it is not written that way at present. That is why yanking out random bits that seem too long will just lead to two inadequate articles. The various differing suggestions as to what would be taken off to a new article, "Gothic Churches" or whatever, will clearly not lead to a coherent treatment of that subject without a great deal of additional work, which I don't see anybody offering to do. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You "don't see anybody offering to do" it? Why do you think I started this conversation? I can produce a coherent treatment. That is why I am proposing this coherent treatment idea. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I was (if you read what I said) talking about a coherent treatment of "Gothic Churches" or whatever. There has been no talk of that above. Don't let's go into why I think you started this. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I don't know how I could have been more explicit in my previous comment, please read it again, slower ... Are you opposing the split because you don't want to do it or because you don't want me to do it? GPinkerton (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to start an article on "Gothic Cathedrals and Churches" (Or "Gothic cathedrals and churches" if that's stylistically better) ) using text, images and citations condensed from French Gothic architecture and English Gothic architecture, plus text on other countries and from other sources, It may not be necessary to split anything off of "Gothic architecture". I believe that article is written for a particular audience, primarily architecture students. This would be written for a more general audience, with much less of the technical aspects and would focus more on history. Opinions and suggestions are of course welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: I have started a draft article here, with material from this page that I think is too much for the main Gothic architecture page (which is where I think the main historical and developmental analysis should go). I think the overall stylistic history and periodization should remain mostly on this main page, since it was international (and mediaeval nations don't map exactly on to modern ones) and the styles spanned civil and religious architecture. I can't stress enough that even though the illustrative examples are often cathedrals, a cathedral is not a type of building. GPinkerton (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I read your draft article, and it's full of good and interesting material, but it's not exactly what I had in mind. I'd like to write an article for those who are not specialists or students of architecture, that gives the general facts and history, without getting too deep into technical terms. It would try to explain why Gothic cathedrals and abbeys were important landmarks of European history and culture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: The draft as it stands is just the material copied from "Gothic architecture" that relates purely to big Gothic churches and which is a mess in terms of text and references; a lot can be more concise and so make room for the important stuff of what went into the building and furnishing and use of Gothic churches, and needs to be prefaced with a lot more material on historical background and developments. I didn't write almost any of it. I'd welcome some collaborative edits on what material you think should appear there: add away! Again though, focusing on just cathedrals and abbeys misses more than half the picture; where are the smaller but much more numerous and no less Gothic churches discussed? As I mentioned elsewhere, the church furnishings (rood screens, altars, choir stalls, fonts, reliquaries) in the Gothic style are very important - these were the objects people came to church to use and the ones that caused the biggest politico-religious conflict (and resultant change to the fabric of Gothic churches) in the Reformation, Revolution, and after - but nowhere appear on the overall "Gothic architecture" page, since they all have to do with Gothic churches alone and are not strictly architectural. Ecclesiastical Gothic is about more than cathedrals or architecture; it's the whole package of what a Gothic church was and was used for. I think some of what you say about landmark buildings in history and culture could go into improving the Architecture of cathedrals and great churches article or else as-yet un-written articles on Medieval cathedrals, Medieval monasteries, &c. for the more general medieval history of church-buildings, their social role, institutions, political powers, &c., and with the purely Gothic discussion kept at Gothic churches. As with cathedral, an abbey is not a type of building but an institution, and their constructions did not differ significantly from priories, canonries, collegiate churches, chantries, &c. GPinkerton (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic, and a lot can be done with it. As you say, it's not only about architecture; it includes history and decorative arts, even music. all that goes into make Gothic cathedrals and churches special. It includes the role of Cathedral art and sculpture in teaching the illiterate about Christianity. I don't want it to read like an architecture textbook; it's for non-specialists who are curious. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: Incidentally, I think the idea that all the ecclesiastical details were there to educate the illiterate is rather overplayed. To control - with things like the Hellmouth and Last Judgement which have an obviously didactic purpose - is probable, but the illustration of Biblical episodes in stained glass and reliefs was probably done for the satisfaction of those that paid for the work and who could actually understand the Bible or the church services, neither of which was in a widely understood language in most of Europe. Even then, much of the decoration was so far off the ground or far away from the ordinary congregants or hidden behind screens and things that it was unlikely to be of help in understanding anything. But at present the role of mediaeval mystery plays and mummeries goes entirely unmentioned, and it is from these that western mediaeval folk usually got their understanding not just of Biblical stories, but of other popular narratives as well, since they were performed in vernacular speech. The changing fortunes of stained glass, like other Gothic church features like rood screens and reliquary chapels in the Reformation and after needs to be discussed, probably at "Gothic churches", since the story was the same for churches large and small, but varied from place to place and time to time. The same goes for the "improvements" to Gothic churches made in the Gothic Revival and Romantic periods GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've started a prototype of an article called Gothic cathedrals and churches. As noted above, it's less about architure and focuses more history, art and the other functions of the cathedrals. I'm using the same montage I created for "Gothic architecture". If the new article works, I can make a new montage for Gothic Architecture. Opinions and suggestions welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: I think you've rather jumped the gun in creating a whole new article without establishing a consensus on the proposal to split this page. Why didn't you use a draft or consult anyone beforehand? GPinkerton (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real necessity to split the Gothic architecture page. The new article is about history and art and functions of Gothic Cathedrals, with less of the details about how they're built. Some of the text from the architecture article might eventually move over, but I think the two are really on different subjects. The Gothic architecture article is written for architecture students. The Gothic cathedral article is for general readers. I think that the two articles can compliment each other. Don't you think that would work? SiefkinDR (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: If the new page is "about history and art and functions of Gothic Cathedrals" why have you named it "Gothic cathedrals and churches", and why have you begun to speak about abbeys and non-episcopal churches? This would make it very difficult for the page I propose - Gothic churches. Also, Medieval cathedrals might be better for the purposes you propose; a substantial treatment of Gothic cathedrals would be a desideratum there. In any event I strongly suggest moving the new page to Gothic cathedrals, leaving out all the other churches, which I think you don't propose to discuss. GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It could simply be called Gothic Cathedrals, but it needs to also include Abbeys. That's why I added "churches". SiefkinDR (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

On what basis are you including abbeys? Are you including priories? What about friaries? Will be describing actual abbeys, or just the churches within them? see what I mean? If the page Gothic churches will cover both parish churches, abbeys, and cathedrals, why would an extra page just dealing with cathedrals and abbey churches be appropriate? If your page will deal with history and social role of monasteries, how will it fit the brief of dealing with cathedrals, whose organization, social function, &c. was thoroughly different to the many types of monasteries? GPinkerton (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are good questions, and will have to be dealt with as the article goes along. I mentioned Abbeys in particular because they played a key part in the development of the style. There are already more complete articles on monasteries and churches. This article won't go into great detail about their social role and history. I know, it's a very complicated subject. This article is just a look at one aspect of it, that will be understandable to non-specialist readers. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Here is some food for thought: why not have an article about Gothic religious architecture? After all, there is Gothic secular and domestic architecture. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The new article now in development, Gothic cathedrals and churches, includes examples of most types of Christian religious architecture, including cathedrals, chapels and abbeys. The focus is history and art. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New montage

I have added a new montage, since I moved my old montage to Gothic cathedrals and churches, where I think it fits better. I've tried to represent different aspects and periods of the architecture with images. Please let me know if there are any problems or questions. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Like the old one, it's bad and pointless - there is plenty of room at the top for all these to be individually. I don't know why you do these. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Goodness, you're not in a good mood today. All the architecture style articles use a montage. I don't know a better way to show the various aspects of a long article, so readers get an idea of what they'll find. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, all the architecture style articles do not use a montage, just the ones you done, & a few other like Indian ones (for some reason Indian editors love the things). I've complained about them often before, and dismantled a few. They are never a good idea, especially when followed by acres of imageless text. One picture at a decent size is far more useful than a bunch of postage stamps - especially illustrating things like Gothic cathedrals. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not quite true, I didn't do the montage for Italian Renaissance. Your lead for that article, by the way, is really excellent, a good model for other articles. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment - length and content

This article is twice the size any article ought to be. It furthermore harps on excessively on ecclesiastical Gothic - misleadingly titled "cathedrals" - to the exclusion of other types and uses of this type of architecture. This discussion deserves a new page, under Gothic Churches, which would also discuss those Gothic churches that are deemed cathedrals. I have requested the split, but the article also has numerous other issues and faults. It is primarily the doing of two editors, whose edits and additions dwarf the content added by anyone else, and the article, which is a popular one, and its talk page, require attention from other editors for balance and objectivity. GPinkerton (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment- There is an experienced editor work in the article, as diligently as I can,.... It still has issues. Now the problem about "harping on" (I quote) about ecclesiastical architecture in this context, is that the "cathedrals and and great abbey churches" as they are generally referred to in the article (along with some reference to other "large town churches" etc) are the sources of much of the architectural development. Now, I happen to know that there exists a very good article on Castles. (Well, it was good. I haven't looked to see if it has been maintained) That article has a link to this one. I also :know that there are a number of articles that deal specifically with regional Gothic architecture. For example- every different style of Spanish Gothic has its own article. This means that the part of the article that can be dispensed with is the section that looks at the individual buildings and development within all the different countries where Gothic architecture is found. There also existes an article on Gothic secular and domestic architecture which was formed in parallel to the article Romanesque secular and domestic architecture. So ther is information in this article which can be conveniently reduced to a sentence or two, and a link. Since people in general, and art students in particular, associate the Gothic style primarily with church and cathedral architecture..... ...and since it was at abbey churches, and at cathedrals the the pointed arch, the ribbed vault, the flying buttress, and stained glass windows were developed, then I suggest that we just leave the "harping on" (as Pinkerton calls it) about church architecture, right where it is. I feel the need to say this really loudly as the point keeps getting lost-I AM STILL WORKING ON IT! so could we just keep the criticism down , because it s wasting my time dealing with it. Suggestions are good, and yes, I even respond positively to GPinkerton (talk) 's suggestions and act positively towards them, even when they are rudely delivered. Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: It is not your job alone to work on it. Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise, not your blog. It is not for you to decide who edits what or when. Two basic errors exist in this attempt at logic of yours: 1.) "Since people in general, and art students in particular, associate the Gothic style primarily with church and cathedral architecture" Wikipedia exists to reflect reliable sources, not the prejudices of art students in particular or people in general. Unless you can find reliable sources to justify this assertion, there is no reason to include it in Wikipedia, still less in this article. 2.) "since it was at abbey churches, and at cathedrals the the pointed arch, the ribbed vault, the flying buttress, and stained glass windows were developed" Everyone knows Gothic developed principally at Saint-Denis. Saint-Denis is not, and has never been, a cathedral. Where on earth did your get the idea that your beliefs should be reflected in the content of Wikipedia articles? GPinkerton (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, just out of my head-

• Pointed arch: Monreale Cathedral; Autun Cathedral, and Durham Cathedral, where it was used for the first time in a high vault.
• Ribbed vaults: once again, Monreale and Durham Cathedrals, and the Abbey church at Caen.
• Flying buttresses: would you believe Durham Cathedral, where they cannot be seen because they are screened by the roof over the clerestory,...... and Notre Dame de Paris, where they predate the rebuilding of the clerestory at Abbey St Denis. The flying buttresses at Sens Cathedral would predate those at St Denis.

..and this is why I wrote "since it was at abbey churches and cathedrals...." that these things were developed.

And Gothic piers were first used at Wells Cathedral, which also produced the first example of really sophisticated Gothic fluting, and the first truly Gothic foliage carving that broke free from Romanesque form and Classical models. And just in case you want to argue about it, the church at Wells has been a cathedral, on and off, since the 7th century.

Amandajm (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to explain....It was at St Denis that the various elements (some of them at least) were pulled together and made into a choir that had a distinctively "Gothic" look about it.

Durham is solidly Romanesque. Monreale and Autun also look Romanesque, despite the pointed arches. But the remaining ambulatory at St Denis looks like French Gothic.

However, although it is feted as the first truly Gothic building, it is also argued that the honour goes to Sens Cathedral.... which has been drawn to my attention with an appropriate reference, and I have made a note to incorporate that into the article.

Amandajm (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Wherever claims are made, they must be cited. So, produce the reliable source that supports your opinion that Gothic architecture is mostly about cathedrals, or abbeys, or even stonework. Then explain why a separate article for Gothic churches is not a reasonable way of reducing the size of the article, which is twice as long as it ought to be. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• For anybody who happens to wander into this private dispute: both of them agree the article is much too long (feeling that rather more strongly than I do myself). Neither has really explained properly how they would like to remedy that. GPinkerton's agressive tone (also found at other talk pages) is not helping. Personally I feel it would be better if he let Amandajm finish her changes & then we can see where that has left us. Heaven knows there are plenty of other major articles that could do with a going over. If two editors rub each other up the wrong way it is rarely helpful if they try to work on the same page at the same time. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: This is not a private dispute. It's a request for comment explicitly to involve other editors in the page's editing. As mentioned elsewhere, Amandajm began editing this page in 2006 and shows no sign of "finishing". Or of adding proper citations, or desisting from deleting whole swathes of sourced material on her arbitrary whim alone. I cannot be expected to wait until another editor decides I'm allowed to edit "her" page, and neither should anyone else. From you, I would like some explanation of why you oppose the creation of the Gothic churches page, rather than simply denigrating me unreasonably. GPinkerton (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to be reading the page history correctly. The page more than doubled in size in the period 2016-18, in the decade-long period when Amandajm was entirely absent, but two other editors doing large numbers of edits. References were not insisted on in 2006, & these were added in the later campaign, but not ideally chosen or used. At the moment the problem this page has is too many editors rather than too few. You have now added an Rfc template, and proposed a split via another template, without setting up a talk section to match - this is inappropriate so please drop one of these. If & when you set up a proper section, I'll expand on my reasons for opposing beyond what I've said above. You say "Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise" but show no capacity for collaborative editing - a look at your other contributions shows rows like this breaking out wherever you go. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I have made plenty of good collaborative contributions, you obviously have failed to locate them, and moreover, I have created sections on this talk page for both the split and the unrelated RfC, despite your assertions, and precisely because I want to collaborate. Your refusal to do so reflects on you not me. To this very page, I have added useful and referenced material, as I have ever done. I agree that the page has too many editors at present; I would like to be allowed to make some edits without them being baselessly reverted. References may not have been insisted on then, but the article has been edited thousands of times since. I am trying to improve the page and bring it closer to the reliable sources; you are insisting on some very strange (and unsourced) notions about surviving buildings and the English-speaking world; neither have you expressed any cogent reason why discussion of Gothic churches does not merit its own article. GPinkerton (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose- Reasons

1. The buildings in which the primary Gothic architectural developments took place i.e the pointed arch, ribbed vault, flying buttresses, traceried windows, and extensive use of stained glass, were ecclesiastical buildings, not secular ones. The styles that developed in the important abbey churches and cathedrals crried over to secular architecture, not the other way round.

@Amandajm:Where is your reliable source that says this, a claim on which you appearto be resting a lot. GPinkerton (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

2. If Gothic church buildings are carved off this article and turned into a separate article, then the following material will need to be duplicated- The intro, the source of the word "Gothic", the history, the geography, the religious background, all the information about the primary architectural elements- i.e. pointed arch, ribbed vault, flying buttress.

@Amandajm: You appear to have have misunderstood. I propose to create a page discussing the plan and architecture of Gothic churches, and leave this page for discussion of the Gothic style in general. GPinkerton (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

3. What would that leave behind in the article?

@Amandajm: Everything not directly and solely related to the plan and evolution of Gothic churches. It's really quite simple. GPinkerton (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)  :

Johnbod (talk),

To answer your question about the length, There is material there which I had written as notes, and was creating text out of. That has to go. I also had spare pics here and there- now deleted. There are a few bits that need editing down and simplifying. There are sections on individual regions- it is good to have them together for comparison- but not easy to do so, unless the text is written in a comparative manner. So instead of having the details of every different country separately, I have included information about the diferent regional variations under the headings e'g Towers and spires includes info aver a wide range. There is an article about List of regional characteristics of Romanesque churches. It would be possible, and quite easy, to create a matching article- List of regional characteristics of Gothic churches. To this end, I have already cut about 30,000 bytes off the article and either sent the info home to where it belongs, or deleted it because it repeated what was already well dealt with on other pages. Regarding the secular architecture- as you have observed, there is already an article. And there is already a Castles article. I think that some information on both these topics needs to be included here with the link to the main article in both cases. Re my notes on stylistic characteristics. They might make a handy little List of elements of Gothic architectural styles. Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

First, I think that Amandjam has added a lot of great content, but I do think the article is too long and good part of the text should be spun off to other articles.

-

Second, I think there are some issues of style; much of the article now reads like an academic textbook, not a Wikipedia article. It's hard to read for people who aren't already familiar with the subject. It needs to give the important information first; what is Gothic, who did it, when, where, why. There's too much detail, and hard to find what you need. It should be written for people who have only a slight knowledge of the style and want to know more.

−

Third, Lack of citations is still a big problem. The first large section is entirely to a single source, and this section is entirely favouring English Gothic. Many sections have no sources at all.

−

Lsstly, unfortunately there's an ownership issue. While Amanjam is doing good work, she should acknowledge that this is a cooperative project, and that other editors can, and will, change things. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: I couldn't agree more. GPinkerton (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from you, Siefkin! You had the article largely to yourself (with Vami) for a period of 18 months, in 2018/19 adding 188,000 bytes! If the article is too long you are largely responsible. You have nearly twice as many edits here as Amanda. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have no opinion as yet on the underlying issue here, but must note that the request here is far from neutral, as RFCs are supposed to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk), I want it to be known that you are a bloody-minded, officious bully, who knows how to lift text from other sources, mainly a Dictionary, (and reference it) and who is good at writing insulting material to other editors, but has no talent for writing articles.

Pinkerton, as you have observed, I have been around since 2006, but I have had a five year break.

I think it is time to take another one.

But before I go, I am going to make the point here that Wikipedia is for its users. It is for the students who are doing their homework. It is potentially, a good encyclopedic source.

It is not a repository of information arbitrarily assembled from cited sources, regardless of how well sourced they may be.

You seem to imagine that you are doing a very valuable service to Wikipedia by having identified the fact that an elderly, retired college lecturer and museum educator, wrote a paragraph of Personal Research on an aspect of Michelangelo's work not previously explored by other experts.

Now, why would I have done that? Could it just be that I have expertise?

You imagine that Wikipedia needs you, because you can track miscreants and 'bring them to order. You know how to hound, and to harass.

Wikipedia needs your skills like Hogwarts needs Dolores Umbridge. (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: This is surely pure fantasy - even persecution complex. What on earth makes you think that I "track miscreants"? Is this like that time you baselessly accused me of sock-puppetry? What has anyone's age or retirement plans to do with anything? Original Research is not allowed, and that's not my decision. I have not harassed and I have not hounded anyone. Any student doing their homework should not be consulting Wikipedia, in my view, and if they do then it's doubly important that what is read is verifiable and sourced, not an unsourced opinion piece of "personal research". Certainly citing Wikipedia is an instant fail at any level of education. Valuable service to Wikipedia is contributing sourced, relevant, encylopaedic information, as I often do, not reverting others' edits and replacing them with unsourced opinions. Wikipedia is here for everyone to edit, and you shouldn't feel discouraged. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

SiefkinDR (talk), You appear to be a well-intentioned twit!

I am going to tell you again that it was your failure to comprehend the significance of the pointed arch that has been sending students down the wrong track, and had them persistently giving only the ribbed vault and flying buttress as the primary indicators of Gothic, even though thousands of Gothic buildings do not have either of them.

You do not catch on fast. You cannot tell the difference between a Lancet Gothic chapter house and Flowing Decorated Gothic Lady Chapel.

Moreover, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, even when it is pointed out to you, and you have just written the information that tells you what to look for.

If you were just a little quicker at comprehending and acting upon the information you are given, when it is placed on the talk page of the article you are working on, you would do better.

I have incorporated material sourced by ‘’you’’ into what I have been writing.

If you learn to do the same, you will contribute twice as well.

Keep safe!

Amandajm (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I echo Phil Bridger's comment above about this RfC not really having a neutral question, making it rather difficult to respond to. However...

Amandajm - you've been here for long enough to know that, however you feel about other editors, personal attacks are not permitted. They will not help bring this dispute to resolution; they lower the tone of the discussion, and put people off editing. Your comments above towards GPinkteron and SiefkinDR are unambiguous personal attacks; much as I appreciate your skills and knowledge, they don't get you a free pass on our civility policy. If you insult someone like that again you risk having your account blocked from editing - keep this dispute focussed on the content, leave personal comments out of it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty one-sided, User:Girth Summit. If you read even just this section, let along the stuff from recent days higher up, you will see who has repeatedly been making personal attacks. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks for drawing my attention to that. I confess that the well-intentioned twit stood out as being an outright insult - not profane, but it's literally name-calling. I'll read through the whole discussion over the last few days... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, Amandajm, GPinkerton, SiefkinDR I've just read through the entire page since Amandajm first indicated that they intended to do a major re-write. While I can't find any other personal attacks as obvious as the ones in Amandajm's message above, I can see that the discussion has become quite heated, with people on both sides saying less-than-generous things about one another. I can't understand why anyone would start a split discussion while someone is in the middle of doing a major rewrite - Amandajm agreed that the article was too long, and said that she was going to do something about that as she went along. She's been working on the article solidly for a month or so - what's the rush to split it? Why not just let her get on with it, and see what you think when she's finished? There are plenty of other articles to work on in the mean time. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that Amandjam calling me "A well-intentioned twit" is fairly typical of some of her recent comments. Tact is not her strong point. I take it as a compliment, since she at least admits I'm well-intentioned. I agree with her that churches and cathedrals should not be separated from the article on Gothic Architecture. They're the heart of it. I don't mind waiting until she is finished with her version. But it needs to be written as a Wikipedia article, not an academic essay, and hopefully she'll stop calling me names. Cordially, the Well-intentioned SiefkinDR (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

We have separate articles for Ancient Greek temple and Ancient Greek architecture though doubtless everyone would agree that in art history and public imagination temples were the "heart" of Greek architecture, I don't see anyone arguing that a major genre of building be denied its own article and subsumed entirely into a general overview page in that instance, so why should the centuries of mediaeval Christian architecture all across Europe should be treated differently? GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't yet have an opinion on the RfC but will be taking an interest to help establish a consensus. I have updated the templates at the head of this talk page. One gives details of the {{section sizes}}, which may help in understanding the current size and structure of the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, I actually think this whole discussion, including the proposed split, may now be moot. If I interpret Amandajm's latest post here, echoed on her talk page under a section entitled 'over and out', she has quit. In this edit, she appears to have undone all the work she did on the article, putting it back to some historic version which was ~65kB smaller than the one we were discussing. I think this is a massive shame, she is obviously highly knowledgeable and productive, and the article was improving thanks to her efforts. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: That is indeed be a shame, and much more extreme than was warranted - I'm saddened and regretful. I'm also insulted that I was accused of "lifting text from other sources"; I have never plagarized anything, neither would I. I appear to be "an officious bully" because of my desire that the encyclopaedia be referenced and not a subjective opinion piece. As regards the article's length, I still suggest it covers minutiae of churches to a level that easily merits its own article and which swamps the article and excludes discussion of much else relevant to the Gothic architectural style in general - its historical background, its regional variation, chronology, &c and dwells on forms exclusively of churches. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, do you think there's any urgency to make that decision? I appreciate that you're not happy at the way you've been characterised - I wouldn't be either. We're living through a trying time though, a lot of people are stressed and not behaving optimally. Under the circumstances, and in the interests of editor retention, burying the hatchet, turning the other cheek, and generally all-round being nice to each other, I wonder whether you'd be willing to withdraw the split request for now, and see whether Amandajm would be willing to resume her work. If she is, let's just leave it for a few weeks until she's done - it's not like she's going to make a total bollocks of it, and there's no deadline. Once she's finished, we could reconvene and discuss whether a split is necessary. I'm worried here that people (not specifically you) are more worried about 'winning' than what is in the best interests of our readers - it looks to me that Amanda was making improvements that they would benefit from, I don't want to lose that. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I think there is more urgency on this page than many of the less well-visited ones but I take the point that it's not an emergency. I too do not like to see the whole work undone; my split proposal only suggests moving a lot of the more detailed treatment to its own article, (with page numbers fixed) not blanking everything Amanda has done; that material would have made a good start to a new article and I would like it rescued. (And not merely because my own history section was lost just recently, but I don't really know to go about this.) I'm not wholly sure abandoning the split proposal would help matters; it's not that that has inflamed things, and I think the idea has merit, but if there's no consensus then nothing doing. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the form it was in earlier today (10th April); no reason to throw away the material, there's work to be done on what's there. I'll have a go at the references, though the Banister Fletcher tome might be a problem. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This comment is directed to nobody in particular, but reading back through this conversation, I fear that I expressed myself poorly in my post above. Re-reading my comment it's not like she's going to make a total bollocks of it, and then my suggestin that 'we' reconvene to discuss her edits, I realise that it might sound incredibly patronising if read in a certain way. For the record, what I was trying to say was this: there is no rush to split the article; nobody should have any concerns that Amandajm is going to leave it in a worse state than it is now - quite the contrary - so there's no need to interrupt her; waiting until she is finished to discuss any future action would seem to me to be the best course of action. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree the article should be retitled - it isn’t Gothic architecture in general. Gothic churches seems about right for the significant content here, and is a worthy cultural theme and historical thread to have. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Respectfully disagree with Markbasett that the article needs to be retitled. This is the main article on Gothic architecture and its elements. There is a new separate article, Gothic cathedrals and churches, which looks specifically at the history and art of Gothic cathedrals and churches. Some parts on the history might be moved to the cathedrals and churches article, but I think this article is the right place for describing in detail Gothic architectural features, such as pointed arches, vaults and buttresses, and including military, university and civil Gothic architecture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the many suggestions made in this and other recent sections did not I think include a rename, & there will be very little support for one. We have to have an article called "Gothic architecture" and this is it. I am just letting this article mellow down for now, seeing if editors return, other new articles appear etc etc. At some point I will return with thoughts on where we are. I'll just say I was pleased to see your new article is getting better views than I would have expected. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Description and scope" section

I would suggest that the "Description and scope" section be eliminated. It simply repeats what's already in the lead, and offers no new information. Any thoughts on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2nd para repeats, but the 1st doesn't, and should be worked into the lead, which needs something like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. SiefkinDR (talk)

Organisation questions

In the present organization, you have to read through five sections before you finally get to a description of Gothic architecture. I would propose that we:

Merge "Transition" into "History".

Move "Influences" further down. It's extremely subjective, debatable, and not directly relevant to the topic.

Move "Structural elements" and "plan and elevation" up. They're what the article is all about. They should probably go before history. What do you all think?

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

They should not go before history. The influences are part of the history. General description can come thereafter. GPinkerton (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Siefkin that a fairly compact "general description"-type section should come before a rather long "history" section. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Consolidation and sourcing of history section

I would like to consolidate the history text in the article a little more, since it's now scattered about, and of course to add more citations. Comments and suggestions very welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are the same as before; that the history part should be the main focus, with a chronological/stylistic treatment of the history the style throughout Europe and the Mediterranean separated out from the more intricate details of churches, their windows, different vaults, &c. GPinkerton (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the purpose I have in mind for Gothic cathedrals and churches, to concentrate only on the history and the art. I think this article can have a little more history, but should focus (with much less detail) on the important architectural elements. Now it has a great deal of repetition, and a lot more technical details that can be moved off to separate articles.

As far as history is concerned, why don't we merge your article and mine on Gothic cathedrals and churches? There seems to be a lot of overlap. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Gothic churches page is just a draft right now and the material there is either copied from this article or isn't ready for inclusion just yet, but the idea that the more technical side should overflow to a separate article is a sound one. GPinkerton (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

One point to raise is the periodization. In the History section I added, I had them treated together, but now it's more split apart. I think we should make it clear that the different periods are international styles that co-existed in many countries. I also think we should categorize them by 1st, middle, 2nd, and 3rd Pointed as that works across Europe. GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC).

Another way of consolidating the article would be to remove the dreadful images in the centre and move them over to the sides where they belong. Some of them are useful, like the tracery one and the ribbed vaults, but the rest are ugly as sin. GPinkerton (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the history section and periods, the French and English use different time periods and titles, and have somewhat different characteristics for each period, and the Italians are somewhere else, so I think that needs to be recognised.

Concerning images, which images are you describing as dreadful? For images, Personally I prefer to have them in horizontal packed galleries, so you can have a larger number. Images on the side are limited to one per section, and depending upon the size of the screen, the images can spill into other sections.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I see just now that you deleted the French time periods. They really are different than the English ones, and they need to be included. Thanks. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with the images? It's not possible to have both vertical and borizontal galleries on the same page. The vertical images destroy the horizontal galleries. Vertical galleries are limited to one image per section, and don't work at all when you need multiple images per section, as in this article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: They are not really different. The Larousse (not the most academic source) has just slightly rounded up dates, that's all. The source cited deals with the whole style, not just England. (or really the British Isles). The horizontal galleries are terrible. The images should go on the sides where they belong. Moreover, you can actually see the images at an appropriate size. Please don't add more. The images were there to illustrate the text and should appear next to the text. I will restore the ones for the history section. GPinkerton (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the images to the sides and again removed the duplicate periodization. The periodization shown is for all Europe and includes the traditional French and English stylistic classifications. Please don't change it again. The Larousse does not say periodizations are different and neither the Dictionary of the Middles Ages nor the Dictionary of Architecture say their classifications are for England only. Quite the opposite. The history section deals with Europe outside France and England anyway, with Strasburg and Prague mentioned. The Larousse also does not justify a separate heading for "Norman Gothic" either. Please agree to remove the horizontal galleries or at least not add any more. They break up the text horribly and they look awful on my screen and doubtless others'. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: I notice also that there is now a lot of overlap between the Structural elements and Evolving styles sections. I propose not adding any more images of these things and sorting out the text so that each item is treated in one place and the pictures go next to it.

I will also remove some 13th century examples from Normandy from the early Gothic section since there is no place for them there. GPinkerton (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)