Talk:Gothic architecture

Influence of Islamic architecture
The section on the influence of Islamic architecture on the Gothic style needs more evidence. The pointed arch is just one feature of Gothic, and is found in other styles, including Islamic architecture. The rib vault is an essential feature, along with flying buttresses, which made the height and great windows of Gothic cathedrals possible. The current citations for this section aren't sufficient. The section needs to give examples, with illustrations, of the use of rib vaults in Islamic architecture that predate Gothic cathedrals. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The claims only relate to those features, & the arch is undeniable & well-referenced (not, nb, necessarily that IA was the first to use it, but the immediate source for Gothic). We don't actually absolutely need "examples, with illustrations" - we just need WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no particular dispute about pointed arches, they existed in other cultures and regions before the Gothic cathedral. The question is about the rib vault, which, along with the buttress,,  is the feature that made Gothic cathedrals possible.   Are there any examples of the use of rib vaults in Islamic architecture which predate Durham Cathedral and the Basilica of Saint-Denis?   If there are, they should be included, with illustrations.  Without specific examples and illustrations,  I don't see how the article can credibly claim that the Gothic style was directly influenced by Islamic architecture.  Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is the illustration of islamic rib vault https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zZJdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&dq=rib+vault+cordoba&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjogY7pvN7hAhW36XMBHWw6AsQQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=rib%20vault%20cordoba&f=false2405:204:3399:50B1:D19C:FCBB:1D1B:7D94 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very helpful. Cordoba Cathedral seems to be the most prominent example.  The difference between the Gothic and the Islamic rib vaults, if I understand correctly, is that the vaults of the dome of Cordoba Mosque carried the weight directly downward onto  the walls, while the Gothic rib vaults carried the weight outwards to rows of columns, and a little later to buttresses outside the walls, which allowed the greater height and very large windows of Gothic churches. 09:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Christopher Wren when he mentioned his distaste for gothic and the influence of the Muslims was talking primarily about the decorative elements such as tracery, compound arches, multilobed arches and so forth, as seen in the Cordoba Mosque. And much of those design elements are owed to the evolution of math during the Islamic Golden age which led to the designs based on intersecting circles, squares, triangles other geometric figures to produce complex shapes.   The reason for the preoccupation with such forms in Islamic art was due to its iconoclasm, as in not depicting the human form in their art.   He was not talking about the basic design of European churches which got their basic form from Roman basilica and the evolution thereof under the Byzantines in places like Syria and Armenia.   And a lot of that merging of styles between Christian and Muslim came from Spain such as again Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba or Castles like Aljafería.   Big-dynamo (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know by now, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You've recently restored your old text, complete with spelling errors, and deleted later edits and citations, by other editors, including me. This really isn't how Wikipedia works. Please expect that more edits will be made to your text by others, including me. And please don't delete edits with reliable citations, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, simply because you  disagree with them. Yours is not necessarily the only valid point of view, Other views should be and will be included. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor is yours, Siefkin, nor that of your French sources. You have had a pretty good run with the article, with 1106 edits since 2018. I would give Amanda some time to complete her edits, as you have been given (does your post here actually belong in this section, or is it more general?) Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * SiefkinDR (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC), are you repsonding to me?
 * Of course I was! I named you. Please don't be silly. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go to the bottom of the page to continue. Amandajm (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Facciata del Duomo di Orvieto.JPG

Embedded lists

 * It seems two very large embedded lists], apparently a form of "Related topics" sections, has grown enormously.


 * The "Subvarieties" section and subsections contain 42 links
 * The "Notable examples" section and subsections (Main article: List of Gothic architecture) contains 173 links.
 * 215 links goes far beyond any rational number considered controversial over how many links to articles and links to lists that should be put in any article. See: WP:NOTREPOSITORY. --  Otr500 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual policy behind this? Nobody could describe this lengthy article as falling foul of "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ..." (my emphasis), so I'm not seeing WP:NOTREPOSITORY applying here. Have there been discussions or RFC's on this actual point. We have a lot of articles on "Subvarieties" of Gothic, & I'm not seeing why a link to each at the main article is excessive.  Personally I'd rather trim the templated navboxes at the bottom. Perversely, the "Gothic" one has several links on architecture that the "Gothic architecture" doesn't have. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Sorry for the delay but health issues and an operation was an impediment. Thanks for your reply. I have not looked at the article history for any pass discussions other than what is currently shown. From a maintenance point of view there is nothing currently considered worthy of an RFC. Although becoming more common, this is usually considered a later resort in dispute resolution which has not occured. Besides, with 587 watchers a miniscule 2.5% involvement would likely be more than a normal RFC would garner.
 * From a C-class point of view any issue is negligible and the article does seem to have a "reasonable encyclopedic style". However, I would assume that a perpetual continued status quo would not be a worthy goal. There is likely a for more higher than normal chance that any attempt at a higher reassessment would be hampered by the bloated "Notable examples" section. Considering there is a "Main article inclusion of List of Gothic architecture, a very large but incomplete relisting, from that main article, might be considered inappropriate.
 * I did see that there was a "Notable Examples section" discussion above (4-6 August 2020) that would likely not be too arguable as to be consensus, at the time, for section deletion.
 * The "Notable examples" list has zero sourcing, and for certain red link sourcing should be required. The main article only has two references, and is plagued with unsourced red links.
 * I would question why there is such a lengthy and incomplete list, lacking sources so has no inclusion criteria (what criteria does a partial listing follow), and so find it a little bewildering why it could be considered as not falling under NOTREPOSITORY. It seems to me a logical reason to have a "main article" is so only a small amount of prose (summary-only descriptions) after the main article link would be needed.
 * I did not look to see how many members of the link are also included in the approximately 208 images and drawings used on the article. That may also be an issue if the article is ever to be considered for promotion. I did see that the "main link" is also redundantly used in the "See also" section. Both of these sections are actually appendices so could be left out and neither are required for article promotion. --  Otr500 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, Hope you are better now. I'm on holiday abroad for the next few days, & will have to look on my return. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)