Talk:Stairs

UK building regulations have been updated (2010 vs 2000)
Latest version of section K of the building regulations.

Also handrails are almost universally required on all stairs.

It should also be pointed out that Scotland and England have different building regulations, although the information in the article maybe an accurate summary of common requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3E8D:8500:1C3F:41DF:4C29:A6A9 (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate article
Hi, Samw,

Do you realize that there are two articles about "stairway" and you have edited/created both of them? see www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairway of 29k and the other is www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs of 15k.

I'll leave it to you to check them out and do what is necessary. Hope you won't mind my bringing this to your notice ;-) Actually it looks like some kind of fork.

Dieter Simon 22:42, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Definition of "Landing"
The article defines landing as an "...an intermediate floor between flights of stairs...". In my experience, there are "landings" and "intermediate landings." Landings are part of the regular floor near the stair and intermediate landings are as described in the article. Any objections if I modify this article accordingly?Newell Post 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Be Bold and go for it! Samw 00:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wretched and deplorable reference cited
In the "Ergonomics and Building Code Requirements" [] section, footnote  no. 4 hyperlinks a 1911encyclopedia.org entry:

"Jacques Francois Blondel . . . was the first known person to establish the ergonomic relationship of tread and riser dimensions[4]."

The link is to http://97.1911encyclopedia.org/S/ST/STAIRCASE.htm, and the resultant page is quite possibly the grossest dogs' breakfast of html formatting I've yet encountered anywhere on the net (the text all-too-obviously scanned and imported by an extraordinarily obtuse bot) -- which might be forgivable if it contained coherent or valid information. Regrettably, the writing wanders into ludicrous bombast and is fraught with errors; to wit, the simple arithmetic in the examples of stair rise and run is just plain wrong.

As to why the author of the sentence in question felt compelled to fertilize (and/or decorate?) her/his assertion with such spurious manure, one can only guess. Similarly, it is fatuous nonsense to entertain (even for a moment) the proposition that an 18th Century Frenchman was the 1st person -- anywhere on the planet since the beginning of time -- to have considered the ideal proportions for stairs. Ironically, such overweening pedantry spreads the indelible pall of dubiousness over an otherwise serviceable entry.

--Teknozen 17:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See Cite your sources. As you assert, it's not obvious Blondel established stair ergonomics and I felt it important to give a reference.  If you have a better reference than the 1911 Britannica, by all means replace the reference.  If you have references that suggest stair proportions were established by someone prior to Blondel, by all means remove Blondel and replace it with the name of whoever was earlier.  Please cite your references though.  It may well be Blondel was the first to write this down.  Thanks. Samw 01:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Which Blondel???
This article states that it was Jacques-François Blondel who first compiled mathematical formula for issues surrounding stair ergonomics. However, both the French and the German Wikipedia state that it was Nicolas-François Blondel, who lived nearly a century earlier. Whichever is correct, we should establish this a.s.a.p. and spread the correct version over all language versions. Please note that both of these Blondels have authored books with identical/similar titles - which is probably how this confusion started. Otto von B. (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've checked footnote 12, on which the "Jacques-François Blondel" statement rested, and it talks only of "Blondel" and of "course d'architecture". As I have pointed out above, that can refer to both Blondels. So I have checked Nicolas-François Blondel's original books, and the ergonomics and measurement thing is in there. My French may not be the best, but everyone can check for themselves: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/blondel1698c It's in volume 5, book 3 ("Des Escaliers"), in chapters XIII ("Des Marches des Escaliers") and XIV ("Regle pour la proportion de la hauteur à la largeur des Marches des Escaliers").


 * So I have changed "Jacques-François Blondel in his 1711 Cours d'architecture was the first known person to establish the ergonomic relationship of tread and riser dimensions." to "Nicolas-François Blondel in the last volume of his Cours d'architecture (1675-1683) was the first known person to establish the ergonomic relationship of tread and riser dimensions."
 * I changed footnote 11 accordingly; I left footnote 12, as it does not contradict the new version; I also left the follow-up sentence unchanged: "He specified that 2 x riser + tread = step length.", as that sounds about right to me; I also left foonote 13 unchanged, even though it's dead anyway....


 * ''Arguments for the changes I made:

Otto von B. (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * not a single source has been cited in the article to support the "Jacques-François Blondel" statement: footnotes 11 (old one) and 13 were dead, and footnote 12 inconclusive (see above).
 * after my change, English Wikipedia will be in line with German and French Wikipedia.
 * Nicolas-François Blondel's main work is available as a photographic reproduction from a reliable source (see link above); and contains the passage in question.''

Lego Picture
Anybody noticed that the space saver staircase isn't symmetrical? Flume 02:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify your concern? The yellow/blue stairs is "normal".  The red/green stairs are the "alternating tread" stairs and the correct foot must be used. Samw 04:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samw, if you imagine climbing the alternating stair, you will see that stepping up from the left foot to the right foot, you move forward one 'lego unit' (Sorry, but don't know what else to call it). Stepping up again from the right foot to the left, you advance *two* lego units. It is not symmetrical left-to-right. Using this stair would be uncomfortable and dangerous. It does not reflect the construction of a real-life alternating stair, where you would advance an equal amount for each step, despite having to use the correct foot on the correct step. Flume 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey I think you're right! I was focussed on the vertical symmetry that I didn't notice the horizontal assymetry.  I flagged the section as inaccurate and notified the original provider of the model and photo.  You're welcome to build a better model and replace the photo.  :-)  Samw 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new model. Thanks for notifying me. -- Diomidis Spinellis 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for sorting it out! Flume 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

History of stairs
Hello,

It would be very interesting to read something about history of stairs - whether it is known when they were invented (and eventually who invented it), etc.

sirix


 * Per above, even the "Jacques Francois Blondel" reference is disputed, so I doubt there is an agreed upon history. Furthermore, stairs were probably invented in prehistory (that is before the invention of writing so there's no record of its invention).  The sequence is probably: climbing stick -> single pole ladder -> double pole ladder -> stairs (where the two poles of the ladder are converted to stringers).  I don't think there would've been a single inventor or an established date. Samw 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes some history would be interesting and helpful for a link i want to create from archaeology. good article BTW Boris 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a historian/archaelogist so I didn't feel comfortable writing about the evolution of stairs from climbing sticks. Be bold and add a section! Samw 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would if i knew anything about the history of stairs myself but i will add a section stub as you suggest, thou I feel like i am despoiling a beautiful piece of work Boris 12:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

https://www.stairsupplies.com/resources/design/who-invented-staircase Jidanni (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternating stairs patent date
Does anyone know why the patent for alternating stairs appears to have been granted nearly 100 years after a published discussion? --njh 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted this text from the article:
 * Alternating tread stairs were invented by James Lapeyre. He received US patent 4,509,617 on April 9, 1985.
 * The claim of invention seems suspect, per the other reference. The patent info is accurate, but since I don't see patent information in other articles about similar structures (e.g. ladder, escalator), I thought I would remove it. &mdash;Kymacpherson 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you remove verifiable information? You're welcome to add commentary on the validity of the patent but the fact of the patent is correct.  If other articles have relevant and verifiable patent information, that should be added as well. If there's no objection, I'd like to add this factoid back.  Samw 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My preference is to remove it; in my opinion its trivial information, and not relevant to a worldwide audience. But I see you've done a lot of work on this page so I'll leave it to your judgment.  &mdash;Kymacpherson 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not American. In my industry (software), and I suspect most industries, getting a US Patent is critical simply because of it's economic impact.  A local patent may be worthless in relative terms.  Regardess, IMHO, patents are never trivial.  That any object at one time had a patent, should be part of any comprehensive history on that object.  Samw 04:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Deadly Stairs
There isn't anything in the article about how many deaths and injuries occur from people falling down stairs.

"There are approximately 287,000 stair accidents in dwellings requiring hospital treatment annually in the UK and 500 fatalities." http://www.rmd.communities.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=11177

--80.47.203.53 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to enter these data in the article as the source material seems fine. Don't frget to cite the source in the section you are adding. Dieter Simon 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Straight Stairs and Modern Homes
Under "Forms", the article states that straight stairs are "not often used in modern homes" because of several listed disadvantages. But is this really true, worldwide, across a large variety of home styles? I don't have much experience with brand-new home construction, but at least in the few-decade-old housing stock where I live (outside Washington, DC), a common colonial floorplan involves a central straight staircase. I find it hard to believe that the disadvantages (which are minimal, depending on the layout) have only been recognized in the past few years.

Does anyone have a citation that supports the proposition that straight stairs have recently become less common? If not, I propose simply listing the possible disadvantages without making any claims about the frequency of straight vs. landing stairs.

Krinsky 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I am someone who spent time building stairs. I would think that a straight stair at a resonable grade would require a very long stringer, that could not be cut from a standard stock piece of lumber.

4:30, 22 October 2007 (CST)

Futurama reference
I did a bit of google searching and found that the episode of Futurama that mentions stairs the most is "I, Roommate" which refers to the M. C. Escher painting Relativity). See this pdf file for details. I've added the links in the relevant articles so it's easier for future readers to explore these things. Should the painting Relativity be mentioned in this article? I can't visualise what the article's talking about so I can't add a description of it. Ascending and Descending, another Escher painting, is already mentioned in the stairway article and is IMO more relevant. Then again, I know nothing about art, can't see it, and have never engaged with a Futurama episode, so who am I to judge these things? :) Graham 87 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, a google search for "a case that contains stairs" returns nothing so that part must have been misquoted. There seem to be many websites with full transcripts of Futurama episodes and they would turn up in google results. Graham 87 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Futurama
Sorry a friend who is a futurama fanatic told me about it. also sorry about anyone who i have written on the talk page of. I haven't been here very long and am still getting used to proper editing and etiquette.

Copyright
This page http://www.search.com/reference/Stairway appears to be a copy of the wikipedia article. But which came first? The search.com page says copyright cnet. How do we find out who's copied who? peterl 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Search.com is definitely one of the mirrors and forks of Wikipedia. It has a copy of our history of Wikipedia article, for example. For less clear-cut cases, the Wayback Machine can be useful for determining whether a Wikipedia page is a copyvio. Graham 87 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mess
This page. Perhaps we should split it into different types of stairway? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. I plan to add a good deal on new methodology on building free-standing circular stairs, and this could really make the article too long. Anyone willing to go to the sandbox to work on where and how to divide the article?Supertheman (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Skateboarding?
Is that section really needed? It isn't that it is necessarily bad information (I don't know if it is or not) just that it doesn't seem to belong in an architecture article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.32.188 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, that needs to be removed, it belongs on the skateboarding page. I erased it from the page. Supertheman (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology
I noted that some old non-industry-standard terminology was being used, and corrected it. Balusters were being called "pickets", even though balusters were defined on the page (and not even called "pickets" there.

I changed "bullnose" to "starting step", which is an industry-standard term. A "bullnose" is actually something different. It is either the rounded edge of cap, or refers to cap that has an edge which is wider than the cap itself. For example, the cap might be 3/4" and a strip of wood 1" is glued onto the running edge leaving 1/4" of the strip to create an overhang. This is done to match the cap (which is often 3/4" stock), to the treads, which are often 4/4" stock. Does anyone have a problem with this change? I built stairs for over 20 years and only recently left, so I pretty familiar with all the current industry terminology and just thought I'd help the article along. Supertheman (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

'Stairway'?
I have never, ever heard anyone use the term 'stairway' Bitbut (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the American way of saying "staircase" which would be the British version. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you add this to the "other terminology" section? Samw (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the Duran Duran album, Rio there is a song called Last Chance on the Stairway. Duran Duran is (was?) a British band. 71.198.11.186 (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not suitable?
Why are stairs not suitable for wheelchairs and other vehicles? --88.77.234.107 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The wheels damage the front of the tread (and vice versa) forming ruts. In the particular case of wheelchairs, the operator may lose control potentially causing divots in the surface from multiple impacts.  In carpeted environments the brains and blood can be difficult to remove. --Jaded-view (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

History?
when were they first used/found? what are some known developmental histories of the stair?

good point. I love stairs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.176.225.179 (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article lacks totally the historical component about stairs and their invention in distant past. Needed. SvenLittkowski (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hansning (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re template "being in list format but might be better in prose"?
Stairways/staircases being what they are, have a large vocabulary, and many special terms which to my way of thinking are really better off in list format. Maybe the list may need a bit of reorganising. I think it might be quite hard to accommodate the various terms in an essay-type format. For a start, readers would have to read through the whole article to find the definition of a term they are looking for, whereas a list, provided it has the right headings, would lead them to what they are looking for more easily.

After all, once again we shouldn't assume people know more than they do when they consult an encyclopaedia, and when an article contains many specialised words we should make it as easy as possible for them. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Spiral stairs- clockwise or anti-clockwise?
Someone has just changed the statement that medieval spiral stairs wound anti-clockwise according to the ascendor back to clockwise. I was going to post about this earlier but I thought the change (to anti-clockwise) was correct because the Scala Contarini del Bovolo, which dates back to the 15th century winds anti-clockwise? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, because according to the sources I found clockwise winding seems indeed the rule. If, however, you can source your Scala Contarini example, please include it as an exception to the rule, by all means. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I have now included the exception to the rule in that the Palazzo Contarini indeed winds up anti-clockwise according to the image shown in the article. Forgive me for this faux pas. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Images/Lists
There were lots of beautiful photographs scattered throughout the page in places where they didn't seem relevant to the text, so I moved them to the gallery at the end.

Speaking of images, I think those lists of terminology would work a lot better if they were presented as diagrams instead. That would get rid of a lot of the lists on the page and take up less visual space. Anyone up to drawing some? Tea and crumpets (t c) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted all edits by 64.252.202.57
Have reverted all edits by anonymous editor 64.252.202.57 as he/she blanked whole sections of images, including a gallery without the slightest real explanation, other than AF: Section blanking. Surely this kind of action needs explaining? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wheelchairs on stairways
Is it allowed to carry wheelchairs on stairways? --88.78.9.26 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. 71.198.11.186 (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (Ask a silly question...)71.198.11.186 (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tags still necessary?
I worked on articles similar to these -- a basic term which everybody understands, but which explores things in depth. What I'm saying is that we're not going to find lots of good references on the subject of "stairs" since much is obvious. And the article has perhaps 10 references and this seems plenty for an article of this type. The list format -- well, in this case, I think it's a good choice because people know, basically, what stairs are, and the list makes it easy for people to find a particular type of stairs. Or, NOT using lists would make this article more difficult to read. So I'm removing the two tags; if others still feel they're needed, please make an argument why the tags should remain, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ascending and Descending.jpg
The image File:Ascending and Descending.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiral staircases
Comments:

1. Oughtn't there be a separate Wikipedia article on spiral staircases? Offhand, they seem to be a different enough animal, and capture the human imagination in a totally different way, from straight stairs that it might be considered.

2. Is the reason Arne Jacobsen's then-well-known spiral staircase in Copenhagen's circa-1960 SAS Royal Hotel not mentioned because it is insignificant? Would ya at least want to include it in the random JPEGs at bottom?

3. In the caption to the JPEG of the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe, remove the hyperlink to 'spiral staircase'. One, I just said, there is no such article. Two, it leads to a disambiguation page, which is a specious use of a hyperlink. Why would you ever want to -reambiguate- the topic? Three, the only relevant link on the disamb. page is a link back to this article. Links to less-relevant senses of a topic should be confined to the bottom of the article, e.g. 'Spiral staircase art' and what have you, here. --Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Stair repair
I'm a handyman and Wikipedia contributor who recently had a project to repair stairs. Not sure whether any of the public domain pictures would be suitable for this great article (love the text and pictures here -- great job people) but wondering where to possibly put information about fixing stairs. What I did was open up a staircase, and built a wooden structure underneath (to support weight) then reattach the steps; I describe the project here Stair Repair. If interested, bug me about it; my pictures are public domain but they're not as beautiful as the ones here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to “Stairs”?
It seems to me as if the term stairway is not an ideally neutral title. I didn’t recognize the term at first, and I’m American (supposedly it is American usage). Perhaps it is primarily a technical term? I don’t know, but according to this article, staircase is used in the UK. Staircase is also, of course used in the US (and, if I was asked for a long form of stairs, I would say staircase)…why wouldn’t we use that then? Or perhaps, we could just use “stairs”. Everyone generally reduces whatever other long form they use to “stairs”….Stairway just doesn’t seem appropriate, considering there are other, more universal and neutral terms.

Having taken a look at the Cambridge dictionary…
 * Stairs is defined as "a set of steps which lead from one level of a building to another”.
 * Staircase is "a set of stairs inside a building usually with a bar fixed on the wall or onto vertical poles at the side for you to hold on to”.
 * Stairway is "a passage in a public place with a set of steps that leads from one level to another”.

I would probably vote for “stairs”. Simple, universal, generic. The others seem to have too many qualifiers….

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stairway → Stairs – A more universal and neutral term, it is all encompassing. The current term “stairway” is awkward, and isn’t in common use outside the US. Also, stairway, according to the Cambridge dictionary, is has more qualified and definite usage that doesn’t seem appropriate for this article. 24.190.227.163 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN and it is used in Canada as well. There is no entry in the Move log for this page, or edit summary for a move/rename. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR doesn't apply, as "stairs" is perfectly acceptable in every form of English. In fact, if "stairway" is indeed not frequently used outside the U.S., then WP:COMMONALITY becomes relevant: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles."  Powers T 19:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONALITY. As Powers says, "stairs" is used universally whereas "stairway" is not. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONALITY. As an American, I can say that typical usage in my country is "staircase" or "stairs". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No history?
There is a brief mention of the history of spiral staircases. There is no description of the history of stairs in general. I find this sorely lacking. 71.198.11.186 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We have been trying to find out the history of the formulas R+G=17 and 2R+G=24 inches. My friend calls 17 the "magic number" of a staircase. Who first came up with this idea? The ancient Greeks or Egyptians? --76.100.182.121 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

staircase
What are the types of staircase? Masonydig (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Stoop (architecture)
This is a narrowly-distributed regional term for a very common architectural feature, the front steps of a building. Our coverage of the topic is here; there's nothing there that can't be merged into this article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The unsourced text on stoop (architecture) appears to be misleading WP:OR. I don't think multiple stairs are a necessary element of the stoop, and the word is not restricted to the U.S. Northeast or urban houses.  It's certainly in common use in the U.S. Midwest, and is sometimes called a "step" instead, but refers to whatever elevated thing one might stand on to get to the door if there isn't a porch.  It's semantically different than a staircase; a stoop is a place people or things might linger on, rather than merely climbing; sometimes a stoop even has a small chair.  Some dictionary definitions:
 * dictionary.reference.com: "a small raised platform, approached by steps and sometimes having a roof and seats, at the entrance of a house; a small porch"
 * Merriam-Webster: "a porch, platform, entrance stairway, or small veranda at a house door" &mdash; this is the closest to my idea of a stoop in the Midwest
 * Cambridge: "a ​structure that is ​part of the ​front of a ​house consisting of a few ​steps ​leading up from ​ground ​level, often with a ​raised, ​flat ​area near the ​door"
 * I guess, in some cases, it could refer to the steps/platform leading to a proper porch also, but usually it refers to something simple that substitutes for a porch instead, and might or might not have or be stairs, at least in the Midwest. I've added 4 pictures above to show my idea of stoops. --Closeapple (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not merge I found this Stoop article while trying to understand the phrase "sitting on stoops" in this BBC article. A useful quaint word, I say, different to the usual "stairs". Zezen (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lighting
Are there any recommendations or obligations for lighting in a stairway?

Asks Harald wehner (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

My edit was removed for inappropriate external links
My edit was removed for inappropriate external links, possible as I had linked to a few pages from a single website, but each page contained different follow-up information, can you only reference a domain once even if there are multiple information pages on that domain? I thought I should be adding a cite reference for each piece of information? LJ1379 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no imposed limit to the number of uses of a particular website. See WP:CITE to see that it is not mentioned.  However, an article which cites only one website when there are others available would suggest there might be a non-neutral point of view.
 * Most commonly, additions of URL citations are removed either for WP:SPAM or WP:ADVERT, especially if the website is predominantly promotional rather than a more scholarly exposition of information. —EncMstr (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Stairs for cattle
Hello, Do you know the word in english for this type of stairs. They have very large steps and are (were) used for horses and cattle. I created on the French wikipedia fr:Escalier en pas d'âne (litteraly stairs for steps of donkeys) and perhaps would like to create a page on English wikipedia and a category on Commons. Thanks.


 * In English, I have seen the terms "low-rise stairs" or "halting walk stairs" and the term has nothing to do with cattle or donkeys, it refers to long stairs going up a very shallow gradient, with stairs long enough to require multiple footsteps, forcing you to halt your walk on the final stride of each stair step.
 * I doubt it would warrant a separate article on the English Wikipedia. A sub-section of this article would suffice.
 * Lovely picture, I must say. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answer. OK, I will create only Category:Low rise stairs on Commons. Perhaps, these stairs were used only (or more) in France or in Europe...--Tangopaso (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620064022/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/Buildings_within_the_City/monument.htm to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/Buildings_within_the_City/monument.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

unsuitable humoristic publication used as reference for historical fact
The following sentence: "Spiral stairs in medieval times were generally made of stone and typically wound in a clockwise direction (from the ascender's point of view),[12] to place attacking swordsmen (who were most often right-handed) at a disadvantage." references a work of fiction, namely the h2g2 (https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A506611). This is obviously not a seriously sourced work, and most likely an imaginary explanation. All the more so than anyone who has visited a lot of medieval castles will have observed that most spiral staircases actually wind counter-clockwise, because it's easier to climb with a load on the back, and, anyhow, fighting situations are hardly considered a design constraint. Please someone serious remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thbb66 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, the reference is a work of fiction, but the fact is true. See :
 * https://nerdist.com/theres-a-very-specific-reason-medieval-castles-stairs-were-all-clockwise/
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/406sa5/were_castle_stairs_designed_to_impede_sword_use/
 * http://truthorial.com/history/a-castle-s-spiral-staircase-was-a-defensive-measure
 * I restored the paragraph with these references. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly common misconception so is worth addressing in the article, but needed context. The article now goes into more detail using more reliable sources. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Church of Our Saviour, Copenhagen
Seems to me the Church of Our Saviour, Copenhagen deserves a mention and a picture in this article with its unusual extarnal spiral staircase.

--Nø (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

missing Components and terms
How is that open space between flights of stairs or in the center of a circular staircase called? --188.103.17.148 (talk) 01:03, 5 May 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) 10:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Potemkinmarch.jpg

No mentioning of Titanic Grand Staircase?
In the section "Notable sets of stairs", I miss the famous Grand Staircase of the RMS Titanic. They are more famous than many of the stairs mentioned otherwise in this section. There is even a wiki article dedicated to them, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Staircase_of_the_Titanic ,


 * OK, I added it. Good call. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Vessel
Hudson yards Park folly could be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B137 (talk • contribs) 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Spiral/helical stairs
The 'Spiral and helical staircase' section could do with clarifying, as I can’t make out the difference. The opening sentence states that the defining feature of a spiral staircase is the central newel, while a helical stair doesn’t have this: Yet the top two images, labelled 'spiral staircases' show staircases around a central void (ie. helical?) Also, the paragraph defining the term "spiral" states ‘The presence or otherwise of a central pole does not affect the terminology applied to the design of the structure'. So which is it? And if the latter, what is the difference? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A spiral is precisely defined as a planar curve, while a helix is a 3-dimensional curve. Since the purpose of a stairway is change elevation, it is inherently 3-dimensional. Unfortunately, sloppy everyday usage conflates the terms, so that that helical stairways are often misidentified as spiral stairways. The presence or absence of a central newel seems to be irrelevant, depending mostly on the diameter of the helix. This terminology all needs to be explained carefully at the beginning of the article, probably just after the explanation of the various terms for a stairway.
 * John Templer devotes an entire chapter of his classic book to helical stairways.]
 * Reify-tech (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite the whole article.
To be frank, nothing about this article even remotely manages to match the MOS:LAYOUT. No contents table, no historical overview/concept of section, multiple parts of it are worthless per WP:NOTABILITY, and there's even a hyper specific section dedicated to something as frivolous as UK policy. (A very clear WP:GLOBAL problem.

In suggesting an article which is exemplary of what a rewritten article would look like, Doors would be a fine start. 2601:540:8200:187:8062:862:DBF8:F3DB (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Important reference work is open sourced now
I have added the seminal two-volume work The Stairway, by John Templer, to a new "Further reading" section in the article, with live URL links. The best thing is that MIT Press has shared both complete books via a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.

Given that this C-class article is rated by Wikipedians as a "Vital" article of "Top" importance, it definitely needs systematic reorganization and rewriting. I think that Templer's books can provide a self-consistent, authoritative reference to help in overhauling the article, especially since it is freely readable by the whole world.

Reify-tech (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ladders are not a type of stairs
Unless there is a specialized, technical meaning of "stairs" or "ladders", in which case it should be discussed in the article, I feel that most people would not describe ladders as a type of stairs. The article itself describes ladders as an alternative to stairs, in the alternating stair section, also in terms of building codes, implying they are not the same. BrightVamp (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, the article agrees with you that ladders are alternatives to stairs rather than types of stairs. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)