Talk:Gothic architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateGothic architecture is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
September 29, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg


Moslems are editing Wikipedia pages and adding misleading information. Please remove islamic influence section. Gothic architecture wasn't influence by moslems.

Norman and Angevin Kings[edit]

I edited this England, under her independent Norman kings, had large domains in France. and made it this England, under Angevin kings was in personnal union with large domains in France.

Here are my reasons:

  • First when the gothic architecture was introduced in England it was no longer ruled by Norman but by Angevin Kings (See reference I added some time ago to the article from "L'art gothique") and the Angevin and Norman dynasty are clearly different ones, there is also way enough materials on wikipedia with loads of sources (no, not all mine and not even close) to back that.
  • Under the Norman kings the only land in "union" (that's already a strong word as the two titles were distinct) was Normandy. It was only under the Angevin kings the "union" including Anjou and Aquitaine. To put Norman and large French territories is misleading too, even though "large" is subjective and some would consider Normandy large by itself it's still small compared to the sum of lands ruled by the following Angevin dynasty (and therefore you can't say it's large compared to the "Angevin Empire")
  • Independant king is a pleonasm, besides of this as count and duke in France they weren't exactly independant so to put it together with "England had large domains in France" in a sentence is misleading as it clearly implies that England as a state controlled French territories, when it is not quite correct (the states were separed), and it is a matter of debates. There are controversies around that point so let's not put a strong statement (some sources from academists and historians will say it was indeed England ruling parts of France, some equaly numerous will say the reverse and some will say it was a mere confederation and everyone has good points) like that one and affirm it as truth without a single reference. Although shorter the new sentence at least avoids controversies by putting a simple statement without too much interpretations.
  • I linked the article about the Angevin Empire which describes the whole context and gives, as much as possible, all the points of view about this political context. The readers will be able, if he makes it through, to make his own mind from several different perspectives (all backed with references) as to include them in this gothic architecture would be too much.

Matthieu 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Please remove "JOHN IS THE COOLEST..." from the article please.

Cherokee40 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Cherokee40

Gothic = dark?[edit]

ij Removed the stuff about Gothic architecture being dark -- One of Suger's goals was that it NOT be dark -- hence the windows. The gothic church was supposed to transport people to a more holy realm. One of the points of flying butresses was to allow the churches to be lighter, with more open space, and more windows in the walls -- not to be dark and heavy. And I don't EVEn know what to say about the gargoyles. JHK

Dark should perhaps be replaced by rudeness, severity, intensity or something along those lines. I'm new to this, but am quite sure that a valuable contibution to this page would be the works of John Ruskin, who wrote extensively on the definition of gothic architecture. Someone should add this, it is he who describes it as rude and severe changefull and amongst the highest in architecture. sorry for the bad grammar. Alans22 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)ABS

"Dark, severe etc." The comments here were made a long time ago, and the article has been largely rewritten. Modern Art Historians would probbably noot choose the words ""rude and severe" to describe Gothic architecture. Let us presume that Ruskin was not looking at the chapel of King's College, Cambridge when he made these comments.
This article describes the architecture and its development. It also briefly describes Gothic Revival architecture, which has its own article. While Ruskin's books reflected a renewed interest in the "Gothic", this had already taken place, without his influence, as early as the mid 18th century.
I have added a tag directing to the Gothic revival article, where Ruskin's influence is discussed. In this article, which is not England focussed, he is simply included among "Oxford Movement and others".

--Amandajm 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Can we please put a timeframe here? I'm arguing with my wife over whether Gothic came before or after Romanesque Architecture

They were in part simultaneous, but Romanesque predates Gothic. JHK

I'll put back that part about Gothic revival, which waas good, but that stuff I just cut was plain silly. Or at least very badly written. JHK

Easternmost Gothic cathedral?[edit]

After I removed the statement that the cathedral in Zagreb was the most eastern Gothic cathedral, Wetman posted this on my talk page:

Hi! Give us some clues about Gothic east of Zagreb: monuments and dates would be a start. Not any easy subject I know. jump in at the deep end! Welcome!

So made a quick search and found a few Gothic cathedrals east of Zagreb. Not too many for sure (and I'll try to find more later) but certainly enough to prove that the Zagreb cathedral is not the easternmost.

City		Longitude	Gothic cathedral		Built
Zagreb		15.6 E
Vienna		16.2 E		St. Stephen's Cathedral		1359-1433
Bratislava	17.1 E		St. Martin's Concathedral	13th C-1452
Gdańsk		18.6 E		St. Mary's Concathedral		1379-1496
Kraków		19.6 E		Wawel Cathedral			began 1320

Note that these are only the biggest cites with most impressive cathedrals but one could list many more. Anyway, thanks to Wetman for encouragement! Kpalion

Be bold! Take your list now-- you did the homework-- and add them to the entry. Imitate whatever format you find (a good idea til you start recasting clumsy formats yourself) Put Gothic architecture on your "My watchlist page" so you can check in and see what's happening. I don't want to steal your stuff and do this myself. Wetman 01:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, so here's what I did:
  • added some East European structures to the list
  • changed some names to make the list a bit more consistent (like Notre Dame --> Our Lady's, it'a an English Wikipedia after all)
  • sorted them alphabetically, usually by city names
  • separated Gothic from Neo-Gothic and added Westminster Palace to the latter; I hope some day there will be a separate article about Neo-Gothic architecture, but for the time being the Neo-Gothic list may stay here
It would be good to add not only churches to the list - so far there are only sacral structures on the Gothic list. We will need to add some civilian and military structures (city walls, castles, etc) as well. Kpalion 02:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if Rabelais used "bigots" for goths ? This word has another senses in modern French And especially in a religious context.
Ericd 20:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It has been argued (most recently by architectural historian Dan Cruickshank in "Britains Best Buildings") that Durham Cathedral, as well as being a superb example of Romanesque architecture, also contains the first evidence of Gothic design.

The nave contains pointed traverses and pointed arches while flying buttresses are concealed over the aisles - the main elements of Gothic, 20 years before this style was seen elsewhere in Europe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

In consideration of the above comment re: Durham Cathedral, would anyone object to updating the page to reflect this? If there is doubt over the earliest examples this should be stated, otherwise the authority of the text is compromised.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

A recent addition[edit]

An anonymous user made this recent addition to the opening paragraph:

Interestingly enough, the Gothic style of architecture was more flattering than Romanesque. Cathedrals made in this style were very popular through out Europe as they had more windows and color to boast. This is fairly recent style of building that was later copied and developed in the centuries to come.

I was hoping someone could integrate this into the main body of the article, in some way. I don't really understand what's being said here, but it should not be in the opening paragraph (a summary) unless it is expanded in the main body. Stbalbach 20:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Distracting blank spaces[edit]

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here, but just want to point out some things. There is a major break in the continuity, see the Wikipedia style guidelines on how to write a good lead section and the purpose of the lead section. It's an abstract of the article contents, not a part of the main text, it's a summary. However it's a user-defined variable to see the TOC or not, and I think stylistic issues should be left to article contributors. Blank spaces can be nicely filled with images, and by reducing the number of section headings and thus length of the TOC. As well with small screens, blank spaces are not such a problem, for example on my laptop screen this article has a very minor amount of blank space since the image fills most of it. Stbalbach 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite true. It shouldn't become an issue, nor should it be interpreted as an iron-clad directive to be enforced by enforcers in the name of uniformity. Wrapping the table of contents should be an oped option at each article, assessed on an individual basis, merely in the interests of a handsome, readable format for the viewer. --Wetman 22:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ely cathedral[edit]

To describe Ely cathedral as a gothic cathedral is misleading. From the outside, and from inside the long nave, the primacy of style is Romanesque. From the crossing, with its famous octogon, to the east end are a mixture of Early English and decorated gothic. Ely's Norman nave wasn't reworked like both those of Winchester or Canterbury to approximate the later fashionable gothic style. Cathedrals of England - Alec Clifton-Taylor & An Outline of European Architecture - Nikolaus Pevsner

What happened to England?[edit]

Gothic architecture in England seems to have lost non-domestic information: does anyone know when such info was vandalised, or does it need re-written? ...dave souza 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Lund Cathedral[edit]

Lund Cathedral, included here in the list of notable Gothic structures, is rather known to be of Romanesque architectural style. I don't think it should be present in this list. Please see the article (Lund Cathedral) for pictures and details. Atilim Gunes Baydin 13:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph needs fixing[edit]

Someone obviously pulled a prank here, but I'm only a casual wikipedia user so I'll let someone more dedicated correct it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

St. Vitus Cathedral is gothic structure?[edit]

The end of building of St. Vitus Cathedral is in XX century. So we must say the cathedral is partialy neogothic structure. On the picture we see the main part of the tower which is evidently medieval but the top of the tower is baroque architecture. I think we should remove this picture because it can make false imagination of the gothic structures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Restored image with a comment on tower. Unfinished towers are typical of gothic cathedrals, there are very few examples of medival stone spires. the most notable ones like Cologne and Ulm were finished in the 1880s.
Also, we should make a distinction between neogothic and contemporary completions of gothic structures using original plans and often, original construction techniques. -- Petri Krohn 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I made the distinction talking about but there is difference between Cologne Cathedral which was complete with original plans and the tower we can see on this picture. The towers in Cologne are whole gothic and top of tower on this picture is evidently baroque. Can we show it as an example of gothic structures? -- 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If that is the point, we should also remove the photograph of Notre-Dame de Paris, which was almost totally re-invented by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc in XIX century, and is, therefore, neogothic in what we can see. I think the best thing is to keep both, puntualizing this under the image. Strong restoration in XIX century and completion in Baroque or Renaissance is is really common in gothic structures.--Garcilaso 11:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


hello, i am doing an extra credit report for school and i need three characteristics for gothic architecture. i found that the 3 characteristics were very faint i couldnt quite understand what they were. i know that they talk about pointed ahrches and and gothic cathedrals could be highley decorated. but i could still not find out the third characteristic, i was hoing someone could say in another post or edit the page so it might be a little more understandible.( 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) and also i am very very new so please HELP!( 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Two ideas that should help: use a search engine (the first hit looks useful to me, but no need to stop there), and always use more sources than Wikipedia – it's a starting point, not The Definitive Answer... Good luck, .. dave souza, talk 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gothic - Medieval[edit]

I see that the Italian churches are listed here. They would usually be characterized as 'medieval' rather than Gothic. But there is no category more encompassing category 'medieval'. What to do?Brosi 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Brick Gothic[edit]

Hi, I was wondering what people think of the brick gothic section in this article? To me it seems like it’s given undue prominence (lovely though the photo is!). I’ve checked a few of the main reference works on Architecture/western architecture/Gothic (Pevsner, Banister Fletcher 20th ed., Watkins, Frankl -index only) and in none of them does the term brick gothic appear, all I can find are a few very brief references to particular gothic buildings being made out of brick.

It would be silly to get rid of it but I think it would be better treated as a style of a particular area in a similar way to, for example, Rayonnant, Decorated or Mudejar gothic. Seeing as though there is also an article devoted to brick gothic I think we could safely do away with the photo from the gothic architecture article but keep the text (there aren’t individual photos for each of the other gothic styles mentioned, most of which command a number of pages each in the books I mentioned). I hope this isn’t too controversial, but the article does give a distorted view of what is generally understood to be gothic architecture. I’d really like to hear what people think before I go ahead though! Thanks --Ivanivanovich 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to see this article in passing and was struck that the Brick Gothic photo seemed to dominate too much (agreed it's a good one, but there could be a link to Gothic architecture photos in commons). -Rodge500 08:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention all interested parties[edit]

I'm about to get stuck into this article and expand it. I don't think it's the right place to list the stylistic periods of different countries.

I've done a bit of a search, and find no article on French Gothic, and likewise, no article on English Gothic. There are three articles dealing with the phases of English Gothic and containing mainly info drawn from Britanica. However, the headings Early English etc are only relevant if you know exactly what you are looking for, or have visited this page first and followed the links.

The proposal is to create several brand new pages and transfer that info which pertains most directly to the country, and fill it out with more detail-

--Amandajm 13:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't cannibalize this article. A better way: simply cut and paste into your new article any relevant material you find here, and build the new article upon it. Insert a hatnote Main article: French Gothic architecture etc etc at each appropriate place in this article. And when you're finished, you might check that the brief coverage remaining here is still an acceptable concise version of the new article that you've expanded. This way encyclopedic (i.e. comprehensive) coverage is maintained at Gothic architecture and new articles are nested within the broad article. --Wetman 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wetman, and all,
I'm not in the habit of cannibalizing article. By the time time that I have finished here, it will be a considerably improved article with a section on influences and the stylistic development out of Romanesque, more discussion of the advantages of the pointed arch, a broad indication of stylistic changes that took place over the period and some of the distinctive regional developments etc etc etc.
It doesn't need a baldly stated list of the periods of French Gothic with no indication of the stylistic development that accompanied the names. That list need to go on a new page that actually tells you something about the development of French Gothic.
The info on English Gothic has now been combined onto one page, which I will improve.
I'm planning the page on Italian Gothic.
With some of the others I might block in an outline of the areas that need covering. My knowledge of Spanish Gothic, for example, isn't very extensive.
Wetman, you're probably aware of what I have done with Renaissance architecture. I've just finished writing two articles on Italian Renaissance painting (can you believe that there wasn't one?) and Italian Renaissance painting, development of themes. I've rewritten Sistine Chapel ceiling, and reconstituted Leonardo da Vinci, written Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor. I'm serious about improving this encyclopedia's coverage of art and architecture.
So the inuse banner may be up for a while, and It's probably not worth getting too excited about the details of someones favourite building going temporarily. I can assure you that there will be a great more buildings cited as examples by next week.

--Amandajm 05:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's looking like a huge improvement already! I agree that this isn't the place for lists of the different styles in different countries, it would be better to have a couple of paragraphs which briefly explain how gothic architecture developed differently across Europe instead. Ivanivanovich 10:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


At the risk of offending the person who wrote it, I have removed something that I strongly disagree with, that the intention of the Gothic cathedral is to compare the greatness of God with the smallness and (I can't remember whether it said useless or worthless) nature of humanity. No. That's not what it is about.

The facade impresses with grandeur, and overwhelms, yes. Christ sits in Majesty or Judgement at the door, along with the terrors of hell and often the ten wise and foolish Bridesmaids. Anyone who enters is reminded to repent and humble themselves.

But once through the door, the effect is not to oppress the sinner with their smallness and uselessness; the aim is to raise the sinner with a knowledge of salvation. The reason that people, tourists as well as worshippers, go to cathedrals (Canterbury, has hundreds of paying visitors every day), is not because they feel useless and small, but because the cathedral has the power to inspire, to uplift, to refresh and to heal. By the very nature of the building, a great number of people experience this whether they are believers or not.

It is probable that not all architects realised this function, and either by accident or design, built oppressive buildings. But on the whole, the vastness itself does not oppress, (unless one has agrophobia I suppose). The long naves of England say "walk this way!", the sky-high vaults of France demand "Look up!" the wide aisles of Germany say "Wander!", the clearly defined progression of Italian gothic churches invites "Come forward!" while the complexity of Spanish cathedrals impels one should "Explore!" While I recognise that not everybody has the same experience, I think these are in general the sorts of reasons why cathedrals are still highly valued and are still meeting needs that are in no way associated with participating in the formal services.

--Amandajm 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arch types[edit]

The equilateral arch is not, as specified in the article, of altitude (height) equal to its width. Please see: Equlateral arch.PNG. The altitude is . (See also: Equilateral_triangle)

Flip purr 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

purrfectly right! will fix it. --Amandajm 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Excesive generalization: Spanish Gothic section.[edit]

I have just seen the problem with that anonymous editor that is deleting once and again a sentence about Spanish Gothic. I think that the problem is not the truth or not of one sentence or the "alternative", but the excessive generalization that is stated in the seven sentences that talk about "Spanish Gothic cathedrals".

First of all the paragraph lacks of a chronological and stylistic differentiation, that IS important to understand the variety of styles of what is not only "Spanish Gothic", all in one, but "Spanish High Gothic" or the later "Levantino Gothic" and "Isabelline Gothic" to say only three clear examples differenciated by their chronology and, of course, by their shape, spatial concepts and ornamentation. They cannot be analised in the same sentence as a whole. (Not talking about Mudejar Gothic, that goes in parallel with the other styles, and that could be considered a hybrid style). This hasn`t got to be necessarely much longer, but much clearer.

  • comparatively short and wide could fit to High Gothic cathedrals.
  • characterized by its structural achievements and the unification of space, by th anonymous could fit to the Levantino Gothic.

I hope this helps.--Garcilaso 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! and I find another simplification in talking about the characteristics of Gothic Cathedrals. Gothic churches, abbeys, or civil Gothic are not as easy to make simple regional comparisons as the cathedrals, but are sometimes as important to the style as these. Some examples could be the Levantine Lonja de la Seda or the Isabelline San Juan de los Reyes in Toledo, for Spanish, or Westminster Abbey for the English, and so on...--Garcilaso 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What you are saying is true, but there is no room for it all there. Needs separate article.
The most diverse by is English Gothic with which only Spain is comparable in diversity. Germany and France have considerable regional diversity, but not the huge stylistic development that occurred in England, particularly in the vaults. Italy is not so diverse, except Milan and Sicily. They all need separate articles. How about you get stuck into Spanish Gothic and define all the various developments and styles?

Amandajm 10:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read your comments again. I'm not prepared to go into the different styles and features of different periods. The effect of doing that would be to completely negate the broad regional comparisons. This is not a history of the styles of each country. That would require another ten thousand words. If someone wants to know that characterists of each phase of french, English, Spanish gothic etc, they need to look at the main. If there is not a main, then it needs writing.
I think that as a generalised statement about the broad character of Spanish Gothic, the section is adequate, with one exception- there is not a clear enough statement of the "Moorish" influence. This is mentioned in the body of the article, but not in this section. I will set that to rights. Amandajm 11:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
After the changes it looks better, although it continues somehow vague. Indeed, I agree with you with that of the "main articles", and it is my fault not to have enough time by the moment to write some vaulable content on it. It will be a priority when I have a moment. The handicap of the language makes my editions slower that any native speaker's if I want them to be correct. By the way, should I remark that Mudéjar is not the same as Islamic architecture? On the other hand, although there were influences of Al Andalus in almost all the Christian architectural styles of the Middle Ages in the Iberian Peninsula, the influence in Gothic is very delimited to the Mudéjar Gothic, in the rest of styles the influences are puntual or even anecdotical. Thirteenth century was by far one of the most "international" moments of Spanish architecture.
Anyway, you don´t seem to get my point: I don´t want to enlarge the section, but to make the sentences match to the reality of the styles more than they do by now. When I find the moment to edit the section carefully will I have your help?
And last, but not least, it could be considered a bit restrictive to face the local developements of any style ONLY with comparisons, and even more ONLY of comparisons OF THE CATHEDRALS. if all the regional sections become a bit longer, I don´t think it will be a catastrophe.
I hope my reflections are read as what they are: an attempt to improve the quality of the article contents, although of course, the level of this one, and of Renaissance architecture, is much better than before Amandajm. Besides, I knew because of your careful way of behaving in Wikipedia that it is always a pleasure to participate in talk pages with you!
Thanks, --Garcilaso 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Gothic[edit]

Someone who is not registered and who uses a number of different computers keeps changing this section, without comprehending what the actual purpose of the section is.

If you are that person, PLEASE READ THIS!

There is a heading that says

4 Regional differences[edit]

under the heading it has subheadings:-

  1. France
  2. England
  3. Germany and the Holy Roman Empire
  4. Spain
  5. Italy

Under these subheadings the distinguishing characteristics of each region are compared. If you do not know what this word means, please look up "compare" and "comparison" in your Spanish/English dictionary, because this is something you do not seem to be understanding.

  1. French cathedrals (and some German cathedrals in the French style) have interiors that are very very high and vertical, but not in England, Spain, Italy or other parts of Germany.
  2. English cathedral are designed to look long and horizontal, but not in France, Spain, Germany or Italy.
  3. Germany Cathedrals are often designed as hall churches. Even when they are not, they are designed to look very spacious. but not in France, where they look tall, and not usually in England where they look long and not usually in Spain where they look complex.
  4. Spanish Cathedrals are often designed to look wide, with separate units opening off the main space. They do not look very very tall. They do not look very very long. They are spacious, but they look more complex and compartmented than German cathedrals.
  5. Italian cathedrals look as if all the parts are clearly defined, usually by colour as well as architectural forms. This occurs in brick Gothic churches in other places, but is a widespread and distinguishing feature of Italian Gothic. Spanish, English, French and German Cathedrals that are built in stone like Cologne don't look like that.

The comparisons are partly a matter of appearance. It is the way the buildings are designed to look. So:-

  • A narrow building might look very tall, even if it is not.
  • A wide, tall building might not look very tall, because it looks wide and spacious.
  • A building which actually has a lot of space might look quite narrow, because of the positions of the columns

For example:- the interior space of the nave and chancel at Barcelona is actually more than a metre higher than the nave of Winchester. But it doesn't look as high, because it is wider. On the other hand, the nave of Winchester is very steeply pointed and gives the impression of tremendous height. When you see it, it would be easy to believe it is the highest vault in England, but it is not as high as many others, including the wooden ceiling on the Romanesque cathedral at Ely.

These churches are surpassed by Beauvais, Amiens and Cologne by about 20 metres. In other words the interiors of some Gothic churches are nearly twice as high as Barcelona, Winchester etc etc.

  • About the "few" pinnacles. A pinnacle is a very little spire. Some churches, eg, Milan Cathedral have hundreds of them. Most Spanish Cathedral have straight parapets and just a "few" pinnacles. Not as many as in Northern France, or England, or Germany or at Milan. Just a "few". The straight parapet is a feature of many Spanish Gothic buildings.

Now this is clear, please stop changing the comparative statements. Just accept that by comparison with an English, French, or German Gothic church, the main internal space of a Spanish cathedral appear short and wide, rather than long and narrow or very tall.

So, please

  • do not keep adding the word "high"
  • do not add words like luminous instead. They all look luminous.
  • do not delete words like "few".
  • do not keep adding "general" material about Gothic, or about lots of Spanish Cathedrals. This is a "brief" comparison.

Do go and write new articles about individual Spanish Cathedrals. Also- Get yourself a sign-n name, so that even when you change computers, you are identified as a particular individual. Serious editors do not like dealing with people who are just a string of different nubers. We cannot converse with you. And every time you edit, leave an explanation in the "Edit Summary" box. You are not a new editor any more, so you should be begunning to find your way around these things.

Amandajm 10:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great article[edit]

Congratulations to the editors on a great article, beautifully illustrated. Any thoughts of taking it to FA? PiCo 12:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish parapets[edit]

Please fix the vandalism - I don't know how[edit]

The second paragraph of the first section reads "Originating in the pants of a million Kingsland High School girls what can i say beside GOD DAMN!! 12th century France and lasting into the 16th century."

I can't find the "edit" link for the first section, so I can't fix it myself. Someone please fix this vandalism. 20:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction to author's name[edit]

This is my first time editing and couldn't find the "Edit Summary" box I was supposed to make a comment in. I simply changed the incorrect spelling of the first reference - Jean Bony author of "French Gothic Architecture Twelfth and Thirteenth Century". The name was incorrectly spelt Boney. I know the correct spelling because I work for his widow and have seen this book on her bookcase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsylv (talkcontribs) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! A quick Google turns up the link William Avery (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey[edit]

Why no photo of Westminster Abbey which is one of the most famous, if not the most famous gothic building in the world? Signsolid (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, Will do Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Notre-Dame de Paris, Cologne Cathedral and Milan Cathedral are more famous but Westminster Abbey is one of the famest Gothic English structures and picture of it should appear in the article. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Every picture in this article has been chosen to illustrate a specific point in the text. There are many famous works of Gothic architecture which have not been included. The scope of this article is wide and general. It is not the place to deal with the history of Gothic in each country, or the details of all the most important buildings. Being a generic article, it must have info of wide application. If there is a list of famous Gothic buildings, then Westminster Abbey should be on it, but it is not essential to show it here. Amandajm (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical developments / Timeline[edit]

Even though Gothic architecture has had diverse developments in different countries, there should be a section about its general historical development, from the early experiences at Suger's Saint Denis (and Durham??) and early development in Northen France, then its adoption in Europe as a whole (with many French architects being employed as far as Cyprus), on to its fragmentation into various national styles.

For example, some parallels can be drawn between the English and French styles:

  • The "Early English" style is an adaptation of the early tGothic style invented in the Paris region a few decades earlier;
  • The "Decorated, Geometric" period seems rather similar to the "Rayonnant" style of French cathedrals with its geometric tracery of trefoils and quaterfoils;
  • The "Decorated, Curvilinear" period is the same as French "flamboyant".
  • The "Perpendicular" style is very specifically English and has no equivalent in France or Germany.

Cvereb (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


  • I agree that some more about the historic development would be advantegeous.
  • The parallels are dealt with to an extent under the discussion of arches and types of tracery. I haven't attempted to give specific timeframes for every country, simply because each country needs its own article that lists those things.

We have a article length limitation here, because if it gets too big, it won't load on some browsers, so we have to be content with an article, not a full-length book. Which is what it would take, if I attempt to explain all the relationships you are suggesting. Amandajm (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed section on Portugal[edit]

The reason for removing the section is that the editor had added the info without actually reading the content of other parts of the section to see what it is about.

The section is specifically about the way in which Gothic cathedrals differ from region to region. It attempts to encapsulate how the buildings look different from each other, and might be recognised stylistically.

The deleted section was a brief summary of Gothic architecture in Portugal, stating the number, location and types of significant buildings. This is all interesting, but it isn't the topic of the section, and it belongs in the main article on Gothic architectuure in Portugal. This article does not attempt to contain details of the location of all the hundreds of Gothic buildings spread across Europe.

Amandajm (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I incorporated imformation about Portugal, including citing an important building, into the Spanish section and renamed it Spain and Portugal. But this editor just doesn't seem to comprehend that this section is not a list of stylistic development and buildings. The frustrating person has no user name, and hops computers, so cannnot be messaged.
While the info is correctin itself, this article is already too long to include lists of buildings and the successive styles of each region, which can bbe found on the pages for each country.
Moreover, Portugal, now a separate country, was at that time a kingdom like Aragon, Castile, Naples etc. These kingdoms are not given separate treatment in this broad statement. Moreover, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria are not treated separately from the broad trends described under France and Germany. Amandajm (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Section on Portugal[edit]

I added the section on Portugal by the following reasons: Portuguese buildings as their own interpretations of gothic style and one of them represents an tottally indigenous developments of that style, that for it self means a regional difference.A huge regional difference which exists only in Portugal and in is former empire (Brazil, Angola,Mozambique), I first wrote a short description of the Manueline portuguese style but it was almost imediatelly deleted, because of that and for people see for them selves that a portuguese style exists I listed the three ,architecturaly speaking, simbolyc Portuguese buildings for interested people know that and get more information if desired, starting for the Portuguese gothic architecture page (which is not refered on modifications,why 'portuguese architecture' and not 'portuguese gothic architecture' a specialized page?. Portugal at XII to XVI centuries was already an independent country with borders well established (more or less the actual borders)and total sovereignity. Gained is independence from Castille at 1147, recognized by the Pope about 40 years later, so Portugal was not and is not CASTILLE or SPAIN. As politics, architecture was a competition and afirmation field between both iberian dominant countries and they didn´t copied each other since for most of the time they were at war or disputing something. Inspiration for portuguese building come from two different origins (mostly), from France and England (a close ally), and from local devellopments of style. The portuguese style adopts the tall construction style of England with simple, but elegant decoration without paintings. The manueline style which is more exuberant don´t copied any spanish examples since the intention was comemorate the portuguese maritime achievements at XV and XVI centuries being Spain at that time a fiercely competitor and frequently an enemy (see about tordesillas treaty - the end of dispute about Americas!). Before remove any reference about Portugal take a close reading on the pages about Batalha and specially Jerónimos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my opinion, as someone who has written several articles on Portuguese Gothic buildings. I know very well the exceptional value of many Portuguese achievements of the period, Batalha, Alcobaça and specially the Manueline style, which is truly exceptional (Monastery of Jerónimos etc). Nevertheless, the Gothic architecture page should be about general aspects of the style, and one must recognise that Portuguese Gothic is a tiny portion of the vast body of Gothic monuments in Europe. From the 13th to early 16th centuries there were lots of regional schools of architecture in Europe that cannot be possibly dealt with in the general Gothic architecture page: one could speak of Czech (Bohemian) Gothic, Polish Gothic, Hungarian Gothic, Scottish Gothic, Catalonian Gothic etc. I would like to suggest to the anonimous editor to improve the Portuguese Gothic architecture page, which needs a revamp. And about the relations with Spain, it is true that the term "Spanish Gothic" (like German Gothic) is an artificial construction: what's the point of considering Seville Cathedral more related to Barcelona Cathedral than to Batalha? But I nevertheless agree with blending Spain and Portugal in this context so as not to complicate the page too much, otherwise one would have to include a hundred subdivisions into the main article. Cheers, Fsouza (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr.FSouza (or if you are a Brazilian citizen: Caro FSousa) First of all: Thank you very much for your comment. I apreciated your comment on descripton I made above and I see you have vast acknowlegement on this matter, far vaster than mine, my interest is more as admirer of that construction style. Nevertheless, I think (some people should agree, others disagree, everybody has that right!), that regional differences between Portuguese (specially Manueline) and other European gothic architecture tendencies is enough to justify an independent entry on the list of regional tendencies, even if only serves the purpose of calling attention for his existence. It must be taken into account that late portuguese gothic is not a simple minor adaptation of other styles, that might be true for some examples (I think Alcobaça is the most evident case, but is not late gothic), but style diverges from others and evolves on is own way (even if incorporates some foreign elements), since construction of Batalha monastery until construction of Jerónimos monastery, that could be seen at Tomar with several buildings from that period. Joining together Spain and Portugal not appears to be a good idea as explained above, because politics affected architecture, and the typical styles from Spain and Portugal diverged from each other by rule (but, of course, some buildings are very similar, the inspiration sources were the same). Another reason for appearence should be the widespread of style troughout former portuguese empire, even there evolved with local adaptations, like happened at India (Goa). With my cumpliments (or compliments, i´m not sure!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Fsouza. The reason why I did not link the article to the page on Portuguese Gothic architecture is simply because I did not succeed in finding the page when I looked for it.
The section on regional diversity does not describe:
  • the names of the different styles for any of the regions mentioned. England, for example has four successives styles, each with quite distinct characteristics. You can read about them on the page English Gothic architecture.
  • The names of all the most important buildings. England has 25 cathedrals with significant Gothic architecture, but you will have to look at the Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England if you want to know more. None of this information has been included in this article.
What the section attempts to do is give a very broad picture of the different forms that the buildings take in different regions. Broadly speaking, the architecture of Portugal is much more like the architecture of Spain than it is like the architecture of France, Germany, England or Italy. In every one of those areas there is diversity. But this is not the right place to write about the details of that diversity.
If there is a major characteristic that makes the Gothic cathedrals'monastic churches of Portugal very different from those of Spain, then one or other of you ought to be able to describe it in a single sentence.
eg: The cathedrals of France give the impression of height, but the cathedrals of England give an impression of length.
That is what this article requires. Cann you write for me one sentence that says:
The cathedrals of Portugal are different from the cathedrals of Spain because they are (taller, shorter, wider, more decorated, steeper roofs, fewer windows, no chapels, bigger towers, ......?) If there is one or two big diferences, then say what it is here and I will write it in. This is what the section is about.
However, if the main differences are local stylistic differences, or differences in decoration, then leave it for the main article.

Amandajm (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Amandajm, from your comments I have the impression that you may think I'm the anonymous guy, so let me tell you I'm not. I think the regional section is ok as it stands now, i.e. with an Iberian section instead of a separate section on Portugal. I don´t think the article should have hundreds of subsections on every regional school of Gothic architecture. I think that either there should be a mixed Spain-Portugal subsection or no separate section on Portugal at all.
Now about the subject of influences on Portuguese Gothic: I'm an amateur and have no hard training on architecture, but I have read a lot about Portuguese art, and what I have seen is that the influence of "Spanish" (Galician, Leonese, Castilian, Aragonese etc) religious architecture on Portugal was very strong during the Romanesque and Manueline and Renaissance. During the Gothic period, however, the main influences seem to have been French (Alcobaça) and English (Batalha) instead of Spanish. Portuguese late Gothic (Manueline) is different, since many of the most important buildings of this period were influenced and sometimes built by Spanish masters, like the St Francis Church in Évora (a magnificent Hallenkirche, or Hall-church), the Monastery of Jesus of Setúbal and the nave of the Jerónimos, built by Joao de Castilho, a Basque architect. I don`t know of any general differences between Gothic churches in Portugal and present-day Spain. Fsouza (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I gave that impression! I didn't think you were the same person. My thanks for your comments should have been more separate from the other things that I wrote.
I just checked out the exterior of Batalha. Very interesting! Definitely influenced by the English Perpendicular style, although it wasn't immediately apparent to me, because of the Flamboyant and very European nature of the tracery. The interior is more like a late French cathedral than an English Perpendicular Cathedral, because at that date, English high vaults were much more complex. But the proportion of the very tall arcade is reminiscent of the naves of Canterbury and Winchester as well as Amiens, Beauvais etc.
Amandajm (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence for discussion[edit]

The Gothic style of church architecture was also viewed as being the "French" style.

This unreferenced sentence was added to the end of a paragraph discussing a specificically French reference to the architecturte as being of the "Goths". If it relates to the French view, then that is unclear. If the writer intended to relate the sentence to the English view, then it needed to be placed in a different paragraph, linked to the material there, and properly referenced. Also, the time period at which the architecture was regarded as "French" needs to be defined. The rest of the section has references that are associated with historic views of Gothic architecture. Amandajm (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-attribution of section on materials - appears to fail to attribute this article[edit]

This edit of 25 June 2007 added the section on materials. The section is very similar to but that web page has a date of May 2008 - checking the wayback machine for example, the version of 27 May 2007 does not include the same material so it would appear that the website failed to attribute wikipedia rather than the other way around. --Matilda talk 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Breadth in photo subjects needed, less churches[edit]

Could we please have more attention to shop architecture, modest-sized domestic architecture?

and less exclusive focus on cathedrals and castles?

Thanks, Dogru144 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What Are The 3 Examples Of Gothic Architecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment smade in December till hasn't been dealt with. Castles.... Well there is very little focus on castles here. A whole separate article is needed. Domestic architecture.... yes, there needs to be an whole article on that. Parish churches could also use an article.
But as for shops and modest-sized domestic architecture, they are nearly always in the local vernacular style. Amandajm (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


okok pls read gothic lolita RILY RAWKS YO! LUV GOTHIC LOLITA♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspberry56 (talkcontribs) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

the term "Gothic"[edit]

See Talk:Medieval art#the term "Gothic". Srnec (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


An editor added the following about Hungary. The sections about different regions deal briefly with differences in style. There is no room here for histories. A short stylistic description of Gothic in Eastern Europe would be useful. I'll do it.

When I went looking for another article to drop this into, I found no article on Medieval architecture in Hungary, and no other generic article. It's been very roughly translated, with all the verbs wrong.

Details of the Matthias Church'es fachade in Budapest, Hungary

The most important spreader of the Gothic art i9n Hungary was the order of the Cistercians, wich style has influence even in the royal chapel of Esztergom.

Buda will be the city were the court will be located, and there will be built the church of Nagyboldogasszony (Holy Mary) and the church of Saint Nicholas [1]. The most significative gothic constructions will be also the benedictine church of Sopron, and many castles and village chapels.

The King Louis I of Hungary was the one that ordered the construction of the royal chapel in Buda in the XIV century, and also the construction of the palaces of Visegrád and Diósgyőr. However, the gothic architecture reached it's climax during the reign of Sigismund of Hungary in the early XV century, when was built the modern Palace of Buda, and the fortresses of Siklós, Csesznek, Gyula and Kisnána.

Later, in the XV century the City of Buda was modified by the King Matthias Corvinus, and the gothic art was conyugated with the traces propper of the Renaissance, creating nex combinations that are still visible in the streets of the district of the Palace of Buda[2].

Amandajm (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Removal of pic[edit]

The picture is quite impressive, in itself. However, it is more pertinent to the St Trophime article than the general one, because, as stated in the text, ribbed vaulting came into use during the Romanesque period, It was one of the features of Gothic architecture that was already well established. I have a plan for using that pic somewhere else. Amandajm (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. It would probably be more at home on the Romanesque page, I can't remember if I posted it there or not...DuendeThumb (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of External Links[edit]


Removal of reliable external links is not at just one persons discretion. Be respectful of other individual's contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicArchitect (talkcontribs) 06:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article that you keep adding is full of errors. It simply isn't good enough to be linked here.
Thank you for alerting me to the fact that the other link is dead. Amandajm (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference your supposed errors[edit]

I agree that there needs to be mutual respect for other's contributions which is why it is far-fetched for you to label the external resource as laden with errors. Depending on the literature referenced, some of the contributions made on this page could be viewed as erroneous as well. Therefore, it boils down to opinion for some matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicArchitect (talkcontribs) 23:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Firstly Here's the list of characteristics. With some of the Characteristics it is very hard to go wrong. With others, there are errors

  • Pointed Arch - yes
  • Ribbed Vaulting -yes
  • Flying Buttress -yes
  • Intricate detail in carvings and paintings- yes and no. Architectural Paintings were not a major feature of Gothic architecture, except in Italy.
  • Emphasis on increased vertical stature and indoor light to create soaring and open spaces
  • Paintings and ornamentation with aesthetically pleasing colors and details- Er? This is a value judgement. Are the ornamentations of other periods not aesthetically pleasing?
  • Exceptionally tall naves
  • Expansive area of windows (aka rose windows), increasing light internally. yes and No. "Also Known As" rose windows is incorrec and very misleading. A rose window is a circular window, not an "expansive window".
  • Large and embellished facades
  • Decorative themes incorporating biblical stories
  • Decorative window tracery
  • Elaborate color and detail on exposed surfaces to emphasize extravagance- No. The words "to emphasise extravagance" are nonsense.
  • Use of limestone an colored marble- "and coloured marble". No. This is not characteristic of Gothic architecture. It was a characteristic of Romanesque architecture in some regions, that continued in the Gothic architecture of Italy to some extent, maily on the exterior of buildings.


The section Origins of Gothic Architecture attributes the development of Gothic architecture solely to the influence of Islamic architecture. It cites Christopher Wren (late 1600s) and then mentions the influence of Islamic architecture on his design for St Paul's Cathedral (which you really must know isn't Gothic, and is hardly relevant).

Quote:"Many of the churches and related buildings erected in Europe and Spain during this time were based on the Saracen model, a model that stemmed from the imagination and innovation of the vast Arabian empire."

This is utter nonsense! The model of churches had developed over a period of about 800 years by the time the first Gothic churches were built! That model stemmed from the imagination and innovation of the vast Roman Empire, if you don't mind!

An uninformed reader would be given the impression that the Islamic style and Islamic ornament had simply been lifted straight out of the Middle east, or Moorish Spain, and applied to European churches. This is far from the reality of the situation.

What happened was more like this:

  • The pointed arch, as a structural device, was borrowed from the Persians by Islamic architects and eventually became a dominant architural feature. It apparently had influence on a number of Romanesque churches in Sicily and at Autun in France.
  • In Europe, independently, the pointed arch developed as an engineering solution in a structural situation where (at that date) it had not occurred in Islamic architecture- the ribbed vault. Its first occurrence was in the far north of England, a very long way from Spain, Sicily and the Moors.

Some of the examples given under the different regions

  • Pisa Cathedral?
  • Durham Cathedral?
  • Sant'Andrea? (Which Sant' Andrea? There are three architecturally famous ones, and I can assure you that none of them are Gothic! There may be a Gothic one somewhere!)

the photos

They are a mish-mash of Gothic, neo-Gothic and other things.
Bamberg Catheral is mostly Romanesque and "transitional". With all the excellent examples of Gothic in Germany, this is an odd one to cite as an example of Gothic particularly as the chosen photo is almost pure Romanesque.
Why on earth is this house described as Gothic Revival? [1]
Why is this [2] highly eclectic building included?
Why are there no labels on the pics to indicate which are Gothic and which are Gothic Revival?
Why is ther a section on Mosques? One photo is relevant. It is a fine example of a medieval Gothic building taken over for use as a mosque, but retaining its gothic character. The other are completely out of place in an article on "Gothic" architecture.
On the Miscellaneous page, you have something stuck in here [3] as "Detailed building", and here [4] as "Medieval Gothic". These just happen to be two of the best known examples of Gothic Architecture on Planet Earth. If you cannot identify and name them, then you should not be attempting to set up an authoritative website on "Gothic Architecture", let alone argue about whether it is worth linking here.

Please do not keep linking a half-developed website with lots of errors to Wkipedia! Go and do a great deal more work on it first, and please do try to remember that Gothic architecture was the product of a over thousand years of Christianity.

Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of your suggestions although you could have handled this better. Thanks for doing all that work for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Handled it better? I had already detailed some of the most pertinent errors on your personal talk page. And you deleted them, before demanding, on this page, to know what the errors were. You are using the accusation: "You could have handled it better" as an excuse for not simply apologising for your own behaviour in the face a reasonable explanation. For a link to be valuable, it needs to contain either a great deal more information than is already here, or information of a different kind, eg a very detailed range of architectural photos. Your website does neither of these. And as another editor has pointed out, your site also contains spam. Amandajm (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amandajm.

And as expected from Grand Tutnum - that was indeed lot of work. :). I would go point by point and would agree almost to everything literatim. But by the end, I failed to find those errors in Article. It took me a while to realize, that it is an analysis of quality of an external link. (well I see I overlooked your last sentence Amandajm).

What makes me most crazy is when gothic revival buildings are shown as examples of gothic (here or elsewhere). Or here the - Bamberg_Cathedral (when I saw it firstly years ago, I couldn't believe that such an awesome romanesque structure might have exist and might have survived. Awesome - yes absolutely, gothic - not.) Colored (marble or paintings)? - Well it was only relatively recently, that I realized that it might have been often, in some parts and it might have been beautiful too. In those parts of Europe, I am living in, this is not the case, here everything in gothic is lofty, elegant and sober one. The case of origin too.

Just for some of the subjective judgments - as it is just an external site, it can be forgiven, if its author use a bit more subjective point of view in terms of beauty such as "influence on its beautiful and intricate designs" (as long as it would be clear, that it is judgment of particular - skilled - person, not an authoritative description). Reo + 08:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


In the third paragraph of the section Majesty, it should be Ripon Cathedral, not Ripon Catherdal; also, in the same paragraph façade appears as facade thrice. -- (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll fix the cathedral error. I have an intense dislike of using French punctuation in words that have bbecome part of the English vocabulary. I used the word "facade" in at least half the articles I write, and wish that people would leave it alone. Amandajm (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Brabantian Gothic aka Brabantine Gothic[edit]

The article Gothic architecture renders adequate attention to French Gothic and rather overemphasizes English ecclesiastic buildings. The section on Gothic in the Holy Roman Empire however, fails to even mention the distinct Brabantian Gothic and its samples such as Saint Rumbold's Cathedral in Mechelen (the earliest sample of this style), the Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp, Saint John's Cathedral in 's-Hertogenbosch, St. Michael and St. Gudula Cathedral in Brussels, the Basilica of Saint Martin (aka of Our Lady) in Halle, and numerous other noteworthy buildings such as the Brussels City Hall. In fact, though its churches often have a single western tower, Brabantian Gothic is in several ways closer to French than to German Gothic while the length of the transept might even remind of English Gothic - with also some own characteristics it should have its own section.

The English language Wikipedia systematically forgot about Brabantine Gothic: not only is its own article a mere stub (compare nl:Brabantse gotiek, fr:Gothique brabançon or it:Gotico brabantino) and still manages to erroneously reverse a characteristical difference about the transept, it was not even linked to those other language Wikipedias and 'Brabantian Gothic' was not yet a redirect to it. The style is once again nearly utterly absent from the article Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches (the rather atypically twin towered Saints Michael & Gudula Cathedral is mentioned).

Understandably, this being an English language encyclopedia may cause showing great detail about English architecture; this must not allow oversight of an equally important Gothic style where only the region lacks size.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-09 13:37-16:45 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. Can I suggest that you expand the article on Brabantine Gothic? I'll put this article on my list of things to do. Amandajm (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I already started (in a personal sandbox) to translate the Dutch WP's article. I'm not quite sure how quickly it can be ready; if it would take more than a week or so, I'll publish what I will have by then.
I'm not at all a specialist, perhaps you can be the better judge to put proper weight into the articles Gothic architecture, Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches and possibly other that I do not know about.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-11 02:03-02:09 (UTC)
I'll check out your translation to make sure that the architectural terms, and so on, are those most appropriate to English Wiki. Drop me a message on my home page when you are ready. Amandajm (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. I translated the Dutch WP's article, but found a number of inaccuracies and obviously missing references. I looked a bit around on the Internet. I ended up with a more comprehensive and, I hope, more accurate article. Several earlier variants of Gothic architecture in the Low Countries (and sub variants of Brabantine) do not exist on the English WP. One can hardly learn anything about the Brabantian era without some idea about those and their geographical situation. I wrote a short section and a few footnotes to that respect, though not more than what should remain even if dedicated articles would become available. I selected some other and a few more pictures. More sources are specified, and in particular the parts that I added or modified are properly referenced.
Be aware: Architecture is not at all my specialism. But I do happen to be a Mechlinian, which is rather an asset when Brabantine Gothic is at hand. And I did visit a few[gross understatement] religious edifices in the wide area as well as in Cologne, in England and in northern France. I even spent a rainy 3-weeks holyday touring around in Normandy, once.
Meanwhile, I gave Jean d'Oisy a spot on this here WP (and edited a number of articles that I happened to come across).
Please, do let me know what you think about it, and what might be unclear, unbalanced, or dead wrong.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-20 06:40-07:06 (UTC)

Picture to place in the article[edit]

A set for the lead[edit]

Since we don't have a good overview of the exterior of Reims cathedral, I suggest a set for the reknowned Notre-Dame de Paris. MathKnight 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It contains the three major aspects of Gothic architecture:

  1. The west facade.
  2. The interior (esp. the nave)
  3. Overview with rose windows, transept, flying buttresses, pinnacles and spire (though this spire in neo-Gothic)

I think it is suitable to replace the current leading set of Reims. MathKnight 20:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Matt, it's a great set of pictures. Now look at them as if you were an artist/designer, and see how they go together in terms of colour and composition of the photograph. It's about Layout. All three pictures are good in themselves, but as a group of three, they don't make an attractive set to head up a major article. In other words, they don't group well. (When I create groups of photos, like those on the page Architecture of cathedrals and great churches I spend hours and hours of time sifting through thousands of pictures and then cropping and editting them so that the gallery works as a gallery. When it cam to choosing the Reims photos, they were picked because the interior view matches the exterior one very well. Some other building could have been used, but because they were the introductory pictures, they needed to give an arresting intro to the article.

Amandajm (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, that beautiful side view of Notre dame is already heading up a major article. Go and see how it has been used at Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Amandajm (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No, actually its a different pic, with some of the river showing which gives a sense of location. Amandajm (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I support this set. One can also suggest the wonderful High Gothic cathedral of Chartres. MathKnight 21:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Matt, This is the lead. Think about the images like a layout artist. Think about them arranged vertically, not horizontally. Even as a horizontal set, they don't present a good layout. Vertically, they will be much worse, because the images are both horizontal and vertical in format. If you use more than one image at the head of a major article, then they must go together well, colourwise, scalewise and formatwise. Look at the lead of Romanesque architecture, Romanesque secular and domestic architecture, Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Amandajm (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Gothic buildings[edit]

As the section Other Gothic buildings touches upon the subject of civic Gothic architecture and examples of cities rich in such, would anyone mind if I were to insert a few sentences here with hanseatic examples from the Baltic Sea region? There are several interesting, well-preserved medieval towns there, sharing common features in Gothic architecture. Thankful for any input. Ciao, Yakikaki (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yakikaki, Please do. I started to do an overhaul on this article, but haven't got far with it. Secular architecture is one of the areas that needs to be dealt with. Amandajm (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, I'll see what I can do to help out. I need to take a tour to the library first, though :) Yakikaki (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yakikaki, what is needed even more is an article specifically on Gothic domestic architecture like this: Romanesque secular and domestic architecture. Do you want to do it? I would be so happy if someone other than me took on the task. Amandajm (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I was also reflecting that this would be the best thing to do. I would be glad to help out on such an article, and can make a start, but I have to admit I will probably not have the time to make a comprehensive article. Also, I might run into difficulties finding English-language sources. But a start, certainly. Yakikaki (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure other people will help out. Amandajm (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
All right, I've started something in my sandbox. Anyone interested is more than welcome to contribute. I'll do as much as I can but as I wrote, my pace will be slow.Yakikaki (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What an excellent start! Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I've moved it into mainspace now at Gothic secular and domestic architecture. It of course still has some very severe gaps, but it's a start. It's been going faster and has been more fun than I thought. Yakikaki (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I just transferred the influences section, with some suitable modifications. It probably needs a few more. Chop it around and much as you like. Amandajm (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! Many thanks. Yakikaki (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


The gallery at the bottom of the article, what does it add? It seems to me mostly an odd assortment of three pictures without any explanation. I suggest that either something more encyclopaedic is added, or it is removed. Any ideas? Yakikaki (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was doing some rewriting and those are pics for inclusion. I'll get back to it. Amandajm (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Okey-dokey Yakikaki (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gothic architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Need for some cleanup and editing[edit]

I believe this article is in serious need of some cleanup and editing.

1. Some sections, particularly on the influences, are written like academic essays, are written like academic essays, not in Wikipedia style, and much of what they say is speculation and theory.
2. The article takes a long time, after a number of diversions, before it describes the characteristics of Gothic.
3. It is frequently repetitive.
4. it makes practically no mention of the evolution and major periods of the style.
5. It lacks good images to illustrate the main features.

I'll try to fix some of this. I welcome assistance and comments.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I will take up this article again, too. –Vami_IV✠ 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Vami IV. Thanks for your helpful suggestions and work on this. My apologies for citing both Wenzler and Wexler; they're all supposed to be Wenzler, I was just sloppy. I'll fix those. The 2018 publication date is actually correct; it's the latest edition that just came this year from Ouest-France. I don't imagine that the content is much different from the 2010 edition, since we're talking about the Middle Ages. Best regards, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Some areas for improvement[edit]

Dear Vami IV and other editors: Thanks very much for your edits and improvements. The article is certainly getting better, but I think there are a few more things we need to do.

The Section Characteristics is written like an academic essay, and offers very little new information not found in other sections. I think this part can be reduced considerably, particularly Spread and Height and Verticality (what is the difference between 'height' and 'verticality'?)
Reputation has some interesting information, but might be better if combined with the section on revival.
Influences is written like an academic essay, and has practically no information about the architecture itself. This is not the place for describing the political or philosophical history of Europe in the Middle Ages.
Possible Eastern Influence. Should probably be deleted. It seems to me to purely academic speculation, not part of an encyclopedia article. It makes almost no mention of Gothic architecture.
Transition and Diffusion also doesn't seem to add anything new.
Spread is covered in the earlier sections. Could be deleted.
Light and Windows already has a section. No need for two. Can be combined with section on stained glass.
I don't see a need for separate sections on Equilateral, Flamboyant and Depressed Arches. I've not seem them discussed at length in other sources. This could be shorted and put into the early section on construction.
Symbolism is useful, and could even be expanded, to include the use of sculpture.
Other Gothic Buildings has some good information, and can be consolidated into the text on Civic architecture.

These are my suggestions to bring the article to a more manageable size and more into Wikipedia style. Further ideas and suggestions very welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have responses to make. To begin, many of your comments stem from the fact that you created (better) duplicates of existing sections. –Vami_IV† 08:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. The writing of "Characteristics" is fine to me, but I'll probably rewrite it anyways. I think it can just be reduced to prose in "Elements of the Gothic style."
  2. "Reputation" could be dissolved into the sections on the Gothic style's history and regional variants.
  3. See point 1 on "Influences." The section is here to stay, however. The spread of a style of architecture depends on who likes it and who has the money and interest to invest in construction in that style. As an example, the Neo-Gothic conquered northern England because some town leaders favored it over Neoclassical and were willing to invest in it.
  4. No. Section is relevant, neutral, and reliably cited. I personally do not think it violates WP:OR and contend it is better in the article than out.
  5. Agreed; this section will be dissolved to "History."
  6. See above.
  7. Why you did not combine or expand and move the section on the windows and light earlier is a mystery to me.
  8. I agree. They should only bear mention where sources mention and in sections on regional variants.
  9. I agree.

X –Vami_IV† 08:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much- this all works for me.
My complaint about the section describing various Middle Eastern and Armenian influences is simply that they're not Gothic. I lived two years in Armenia and i love the old churches, but they're not Gothic.
I will put the windows and light together with the stained glass.

Your further ideas and suggestions are very welcome.

Best regards, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Archives from revision[edit]

This section shall be maintained as an archive for revisions containing material useful for other sections. –Vami_IV† 08:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. Purge of the ArchesVami_IV† 08:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Purge of MajestyVami_IV† 10:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Purge of SpreadVami_IV† 10:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Purge of DiffusionVami_IV† 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Influence of Islamic architecture[edit]

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 (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)

Influence subsection[edit]

Please move influence section to the top between "name" and "history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:1118:A3E:7E16:29C:C0F5:8273 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The influence section should be after the section on the history and the different elements of the style. as in the articles on other architectural styles. Please do not move it. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In every architecture related articles "Influence" Section appers at the top. Then come history and elements of that architecture. One should first know what influenced that architecture and its origin. This is the pattern that all books and academic articles, journals related to architecture follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:1118:A3E:7E16:29C:C0F5:8273 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not true in the cases of the articles on Modern architecture, Romanesque architecture, Baroque architecture, Art Deco, and others. These all start with the origins and principal features of the style. "Influence" is extremely subjective, as this article has shown, and depends largely upon personal opinions and points of view. These belong lower in the article, not ahead of the principal examples. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Islamic architecture and the rib vault[edit]

The statement that the Gothic rib vault was derived from Islamic architecture is made as if it's a proven fact, but in fact it's highly questionable. The Gothic rib vault is entirely different in its form and function than the "rib vaults" under the domes in Spain, which are decorative. Unlike the Gothic rib vaults, they don't have any structural function. It should be made clear that this is a theory, not a proven fact, unless there's some better evidence. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)