Talk:Onion dome/Archive 1

older entries
The idea that the shape of the traditional Russian church domes is based on the shape of onions is ridiculous. Were ancient Slavs worshipping some onion deity? No traces of such a vegetable cult exist. However, there IS a striking similarity between the shape of the onion domes (together with the towers that hold them) with the shape of the young hallucinogenic liberty caps (psylocibe semilanceata) mushrooms. The same shape of domes and arches can be seen in many instances of islamic architecture in Iran, Pakistan, India and the whole of Central Asia - everywhere the Indo-Aryans went. I personally have no doubts that the onion (persian) domes are the last traces of the Soma(Haoma) worship. Gene K

By the way, what is an onion dome called in Russian? Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * They are called "makovki", i.e. poppy heads. Gene K
 * My sources say луковица, or "lúkovitsa" (onion) Adam Cuerden talk 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Since the article has been rewritten, I've withdrawn the vfd request. Here is the vfd discussion: Votes for deletion/Onion Dome Many thanks to TenOfAllTrades. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This architecture isn't based off ancient Slav architecture! Believe me, I've even heard some more bizarre theories from some crazy Fundamentalist Protestants, and let's just say it's no mushroom their interpreting it to symbolize! Oh well, these same people exhibit their knowledge of Orthodoxy by saying Vladika is the Russian word for God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new article
''New article text on onion domes in architecture moved to article space. Old article text below refers to satirical website.''

Proposed new section: in Islamic Architecture
There is almost no text on the considerable use of onion-shaped domes in Islamic architecture, such as on the Dome of The Rock. Marquess 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Old article text
Satirical site poking fun at Orthodox Christianity, has caused heated debate within the Orthodox community. Many Orthodox Christians declare the site to be heretical and blasphemous, while others hale it as a breath of fresh air. Onion Dome is an American site, reaching the nearly six million Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Uited States.

Proto-Gothic

 * '' It seems logical that elongated, or onion, domes were part of the same proto-Gothic trend aimed at achieving pyramidal, vertical emphasis

Should that be pseudo-Gothic, meaning resembling the Gothic, rather than proto-Gothic, which implies that it was ancestor of the Gothic? —Michael Z. 2006-09-09 00:37 Z 

Expand: Onion domes in Central Europe
This article dearly needs to be expanded to include the hundreds if not thousands of onion domes in Central Europe, particularly the German speaking countries, where they are a common and typical view. See Zwiebelturm or Onion domes for examples. --Wikipeder 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not onion domes, if you look closely. Try to find a better word. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not onion domes of the Russian subtype, but onion domes they are. Onion dome is simply what they are called: Google e. g. returns 12700 hits for ""onion dome" Germany" and another 3000 for Switzerland and Austria. A Google image search for "onion dome" will return a Central European style onion dome first place after the WP image. --Wikipeder 08:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just Russian?
I'm confused. In this article all the pictures and information seems to all be about Russian architecture. Aren't Onion Domes used all around the world? Byzantium? Indian Moghal - Taj Mahal, etc? I don't really know all that much about Architecture or anything, but yeah I'm confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin Pearson (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Comments
I'd like to make a comment here if I may. I like this article and feel it certainly has the makings of an FA; however, as someone interested in architecture I like to know "what's going on under the hood" so to speak - to be really "broad in it's coverage" I think some mention of it's construction is necessary, sections ideally, material, structural principle etc. - does anyone know where this sort of citable information might be living - I'll go and have a look but perhaps some others can too.--Mcginnly | Natter 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a very small section of a church at Kizhi in The Wooden Architecture of Russia: Houses, Fortifications, Churches by Alexander Opolovnikov et al. I couldn't find anything like blueprints, though. Cstaffa 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some mention of the Royal Pavilion would be good too I think. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A helmet dome stub need creating. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Comments
Nice article. I edited some minor things, i.e. boldface at the lead section and external links. However, there are other things, before this article passes GA quality: &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) About verifiability. I know most references are in Russian, but to make this article verifiable, could editors translate the reference in English and put note like (in Russian) ?
 * 2) Are there any English reference about onion dome? Because English source is preferable and more verifiable in the English version of Wikipedia.
 * 3) I found Image:Vytegra.jpg has an obsolete license tag. Could you please change that?

GA passed
I saw the image tag has been fixed, but I'm still annoyed by cyrillic citations. Per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessement of this article:

1. It is well written.
 * (a) compelling prose to non-specialist readers: passes
 * I enjoy reading this small and compact article.
 * (b) logical structure and lead section: needs a little bit improvement
 * Lead section can be expanded a little bit to summarize the 2 historical views and the symbolism.
 * (c) follows WP:MOS: passes
 * (d) technical jargons: passes

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * (a) references: needs English references
 * Per WP:CITE, English source is prefered, if available.
 * I've made a little literature search about onion dome, and here are some English sources, the editors can use:
 * So, those are a good start for the editors to replace sources with English ones.
 * (b) inline citations: passes
 * (c) reliable sources: no comment
 * The problem is that citations are given in Cyrillics. Thus I cannot read it to assess how reliable sources are.
 * (d) no original research: passes
 * (c) reliable sources: no comment
 * The problem is that citations are given in Cyrillics. Thus I cannot read it to assess how reliable sources are.
 * (d) no original research: passes

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * (a) all aspects: passes
 * As far as I read, major topics about onion dome, i.e. its history and its symbol, have been given.
 * (b) stays focus: passes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * (a) no bias: passes
 * (b) all viewpoints: passes

5. It is stable, no edit wars: passes
 * In fact, it is too stable as no answers have been given to my comments in the previous thread.

6. It contains images.
 * (a) properly tagged and have captions: passes
 * Image tag problem has been fixed.
 * (b) lack of images: passes
 * All images are informative to the subject.

I still think that sources in the References should be translated to English, rather than Cyrllic like that, making reader unknown about sources of this article. I assume good faith of the reliable sources given in this article. Despite of this citation problem, the article passes GA standards. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just noticed that this Good Articles was seriously vandalized back in February. It's a pity that nobody has it on the watchlist. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

GA concerns
After looking over this article, I've noticed its relative lack of in-line citations, which would typically keep the article from GA status. Though many parts of the article have in-line notes, many of them are just footnotes, not citations. Of the 11 in-line references, only 7 of them are actually citations. That is entirely too few for a GA article, especially of this size. Also, the inconsistent formatting of the references concerns me. I would recommend using citation templates to correct this. I'm also not too sure about the Russian text in the references. Might want to look into that. Hopefully someone can find some time to address those issues, if not I'll nominate the article for GA review soon. Drewcifer3000 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review
Since noone seems to be coming to the rescue of the article, I've nominated this article for Good Article review, which could result in a delisting of the article from GA status. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of the review was to keep the article listed as a GA. Archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 05:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article?
There is almost no mention of its use in Islamic countries, and given that this is a very distinctive feature of Islamic architecture such as the Mughal style (the most famous example of which is the Taj Mahal), such massive omission alone should disqualify it from being a good article. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)