Architecture of cathedrals and great churches is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Historic sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

have been copied and pasted to the new page at Talk:Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France --Amandajm 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologise to anyone who is irritated by my thousand small changes. Firstly, I'm still getting the hang of how to edit. The pictures are a mystery to me. I've got nice ones of my own and still can't work out how to upload them! Also, my server has dropped out repeatedly . When I make lots of adjustments in one hit, I lose them and have to do it again. So just have patience while Granma sorts it out, OK?!

--Amandajm 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone a better photo ? This one is bad and png.

This was one sentence:

In the still greater movement in the 12th century, when the episcopacy, supported by the emancipated communes, undertook the erection of cathedrals of greater dimensions and the reconstruction of others, in some cases they utilized the old foundations, as in Chartres, Coutances and Auxerre cathedrals, while in others (as at Le Mans) they extended the eastern termination, much in the same way as in many of the early examples in England, with this important difference, that when the apsidal east end was given up (about the middle of the 12th century) in favour of the square east end in England, the French, on the other hand, developed it by doubling the choir aisles and adding to the number of extra chapels; thus in Canterbury, Norwich and Gloucester, there were only three apsidal chapels in the chevet, whereas in Noyon (1150), Soissons (1190), Reims (1212), Tours, Seez, Bayeux (1230), Clermont (1275), Senlis, Limoges, Albi and Narbonne cathedrals there were five; in Amiens, Le Mans and Beauvais, there were seven apsidal chapels, and in Chartres cathedral nine.

(Wow.) In general, the language in this article is very long-winded and complex, no offense to its writer. It needs to be broken down and organized for readability. I made some changes (which hopefully didn't hurt the content) but more are needed. Deco 04:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With reference to the above comment

The matter that this comment refers to has now been moved to its own page better suited to the amount of detail that it goes into. See Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France

--Amandajm 01:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put up a request here for more information about the use of paint and colour in medieval cathedrals. In England we are inured to plain stone, but I understand that medieval cathedrals were actually brightly coloured. I am no expert on this, and I hope someone is and can incorporate a suitable write-up into this. Djnjwd 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===See Amiens Cathedral===Tvbanfield (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article Cathedral architecture should fully cover its subject, with sub-sections headed by those Main article:.. headings. Much of this present article ought to be integrated with, for example, Chevet, with a condensed version here. Shouldn't this information be presented stylistically and chronologically: Earliest cathedrals; Romanesque cathedrals; Gothic cathedrals; Renaissance and post-Renaissance cathedrals; Neo-Gothic cathedrals; Modern cathedrals. Regional character should be mentioned under each style. The article Cathedral diagram once again is able to make its points with groundplans. --Wetman 11:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to rework this article into a broad statement about cathedral architecture which explains why cathedrals are the way they are, what the styles are and how they differ regionally.

The article on the Eastern Ends/chevets etc is not, I feel, very useful to the general student who looks up this subject because they know little or nothing about it and would like to know more. I'm keeping the language simple.

For many people, their interest in architecture from the medieval through to 19th c revivals stems from the proximity or a visit to a cathedral or great church. That is why I am seeking to make this a 'beginners' page rather than a specialists.

--Amandajm 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been retitled Cathedral architecture of the Western World, it needs a link to whatever article fully describes Metropolitan church architecture in the Eastern world: is Byzantine architecture the correlative? Christian architecture, unlinked here, covers c.1180 forward. "But in practice, the cathedral was generally the largest building in any region": the writer of this sentence may have been unaware of the comparable importance of abbeys: no comparison between a cathedral and an abbey church has been made in this article. The complete lack of any reference to any book in the history of architecture undercuts reader confidence. --Wetman 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, I'm still working on it! I know it needs this and that! Any link that you'd like to make, I'd welcome!

Yes, I agree that it needs a link to the Eastern World. It wasn't me that retitled it Western Cathedral architecture, but now we've got the western, I'm prepred to go with that, while acknowledging the influence of the east upon the west. Which is there in my discussion of Byzantine in Italy.

Now, are you telling me that I have to turn around and write a detailed article about Byzantine churches as well? How about you do that one, while I'm doing this!

I haven't lost sight of the abbeys. I need to add something there. I have, in fact, mentioned Cluny as a specific influence. Is there an article on abbeys, or do I do that too?

As for my reference to books, yeah, I'll get around to that, when I've found out how to do it. Now, how is that, to encourage your confidence?!

Please assist me with the links to whatever extent you like.... I'm not terribly good at it.

--Amandajm 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked out how to drop in pictures yet! If anyone has good pics illustrtaing the article it would be wonderful to have them!

--Amandajm 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate what you mean by "the Western World"? Are Orthodox (Byzantine/Russian) cathedrals part of the Western World or the Eastern World? Is there any encyclopedic definition of the Western World? Or is it pure original research as I tend to think it is? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've got a point. The problem is that the title changed from Cathedral architecture to Western cathedral architecture (I think that's how it went...)

Anyway, I turned it around in order to get the word 'Cathedral' first, because that's what people will look up! You dont want them having to make several hops in order to find info on Cathedrals.

So then, what? I ended up with Cathedrals of the western world with the the thought that western European culture and architectural style has spread and predominates in Australia, New Zealand, North America and South Africa.

How do you suggest that it should be fixed?

You might notice that I have completely omitted Scandinavia, about which I know very little and Belgium and Holland, which i know a bit better.

This could all get very cumbersome!

Can YOU write an article on orthodox cathedrals? Could it encompass all of eastern Europe including the biits which are predominantly Catholic?

--Amandajm 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question by Ghirlandajo as to whether this article constitutes original research, here's a quotation from the Wikipedia Guidelines-

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

This article is in its entirity "source-based research".

--Amandajm 09:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain it to me, what does original research mean?

Do I go on trying to sort out an article which could possibly be useful to someone if it was arranged with sequence and some clarity, or do we just leave it as a wordy dissertation on the development of the eastern end. Yes, it's scholarly. Yes, it's source has been cited. No, it isn't very useful to anyone who doesn't have a fairly in depth knowledge of the subject to start with. No, it's not the answer to an article on cathedral architecture, western or otherwise.

Can I suggest, as politely as I can, that rather than chopping bits out of a work in progress, you make positive suggestions about how they might be improved?

--Amandajm 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comment about in Title with regard to "original research" and "source-based research." --Amandajm 09:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to remove the following passage: "The greatest buildings of this period include Notre Dame, Paris; Chartres Cathedral, Rouen Cathedral in France, Stasburg Cathedral, Cologne Cathedral in Germany, St Stephen's Vienna in Austria, Florence Cathedral in Italy, Burgos Cathedral in Spain, Salisbury Cathedral, Canterbury Cathedral and Lincoln Cathedral in England." The assortment is arbitrary and records no factual information, only a judgement. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than removing it, why don't you phrase it so that the list of examples remains intact but doesn't use a judgemental word like "greatest'

--Amandajm 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at this again. Ghirl, if you think that this list is 'arbitrary' then you need to look at a lot of gothic cathedrals and do a great deal of reading and see which ones you would include among the greatest. I could probably find an author for each one of these who would say like Alec Clifton-Taylor "All things considered, Lincoln Cathedral is probably the finest of the English cathedrals." But quotations of that sort belong on the page for the specific cathedral, not on this very general page. There really is no doubt that these ARE among the finest cathedrals of Western Europe, so why quibble? They have been chosen because they are great and specifically or predominantly ( in the case of England) Gothic.

What is called for here is a list of examples, but these are NOT arbitrary examples, these are among the finest examples, and that's that! It's here for the benefit of a student who might want to follow a link and would best be directed to a really oustanding example such as Lincoln than a much rebuilt example like Southwark or a partly demolished example like Carlisle or a burnt-out large parish church like Coventry.

--Amandajm 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone happy, or do we do something better with it?

NOW what we need is a really good article on the Cathedrals of all the countries that haven't been written into this one. I think it's over to you, Ghirlandajo! --Amandajm 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have too much on my plate as it is. I like the new title better than the previous one, however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is a good idea to redirect Cathedral architecture to here. Does anyone else agree? Remy B 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spaces were inserted for reasons of layout. They only occur before headings, in order to keep a heading on a single line. Because this article has a great number of pics illustrating the points, it isn't easy to make the pic and the paragraph beside it exactly the same length. Sometimes this is of no account, but at other times weird things happen and a section heading may appear as

  Latin
  Cross 
              and
Greek
    Cross

instead of

Latin Cross and Greek Cross

When you look only at the edit page, then the gaps seem meaningless, and deleting them is very easy. But pleeease don't do it without a preview to see what you've actually DONE.

--Amandajm 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your hard work. I suggest you look at the template {{clear}}. The problem with adding blank lines is that it is dependant on screen size, window size and font size. For example the current layout can appear as:

Also note that headings don't take capital letters (apart from the first one) that they wouldn't in ordinary text.

Best wishes Rich Farmbrough 22:58 10 June 2006 (GMT).

P.S. And on Firefox it is possible to zoom images! Rich Farmbrough 23:04 10 June 2006 (GMT).

I took out the link to baths because it went specifically to the town of Bath, which does have a Roman bath, but doesn't really illustrate the point.

--Amandajm 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. It's in France.

--Amandajm 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article goes largely against WP:Style. I seem I had spent some time to put it to rules stated there, but I seem that good nonna Amandajm reverted it. Be ready to have a large revision of format here soon, but also to check WP:Style rules before trying to revert my attempts of standardization. Bye and good work. --Attilios 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Attilios! The reason why non-standard bold face has been used in place of sub-titles is because it prevent the Table of Contents from being a million mmiles long. It was suggested as a strategy by another Wiki editor who also knows about style.

For example, every one of the Cathedrals for which there is only a 3 line description could have its own subheading, but that would immediately add a dozen new articles to an already long list.

--Amandajm 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of alternative styles for Tables of Contents available in Category:TOC templates. It's probably better to look thorough those and see if one of them would be suitable and restore the use of sub-headings etc which makes editing easier if nothing else. David Underdown 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article was removed from FA candidacy by its author. The article seeks to cover a vast amount of info in a compact space. To achieve this, and make useful comparisons between buildings of five regions, much useful info is in point form. Remove the points and you lose the comparison. I preferred to have the most useful article that I could write than one that fitted FA criteria to the letter but lost out on content. --Amandajm 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some very good work here. Just wondering if there is a separate article yet that looks further east than Vienna? If so, there should be a link from this article. If not, perhaps it's another project...Corlyon 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't! I wish there was. I would like an article similar to this, but it would have to look at the distinctly different architectural character produced in Orthodox and Catholic churches. I will attempt it, when I get up enough courage, but it's not actually my area. --Amandajm 07:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford was also not built as a cathedral (although as a priory church it is arguably more within that general tradition). Also, at that point in the article we are merely saying that great size is not a necessary attribute of the funtion of a cathedral, we have not yet moved on to a discussion of the style of architecture commonly associated with cathedrals. I think it's worth mentioning at least one other "small" cathedral as it shows that Christ church is not entirely a one off. David Underdown 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a cathedral. and it has never been completed.

But this article is about Cathedral architecture. For that reason, an number of buildings are included which fall into the cathedral style architecturally speaking, even though they are not the seat of a bishop. For the same reason, buildings are generally avoided here which were designed as Parish churches but have been elevated to cathedral status.

There is another article called Cathedral which deals with the function of the building, but does not describe the architecture in a detailed way.

--Amandajm 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as stated in the introduction, is primarily about architecture, rather than function. There is an article called Cathedral which deals with function, does not deal with architecture and excludes buildings that are basilicas etc. But this article is more flexible in its definition where function is concerned and includes buildings that fit the pattern of "cathedral architecture", such as St Peter's Basilica.

St John's was a Romanesque church, largely demolished and rebuilt to become the largest church in the Netherlands. It became a cathedral during the time of the Gothic rebuilding, which probably influenced its final size and style. It is beyond doubt of cathedral proportion and style. It certainly isn't what one would term a parish church.

I notice that the editor who deleted the info states a specific interest in churches. I would value your suggestions about any part of the description which you described as "dubious". Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I apologize about the word "dubious" where I meant to say "incorrect" (strangely, I couldn't remember that word at the time). As far as I know, construction of the St. Jan had come to an end a few decades before it became a cathedral in 1559. If not, it would have been almost completed by then. I don't know where the year 1584 came from, but in that period only minor changes would have been made. After all, there was a war going on. True, the church is incredibly big for a parish church, but it should be noted that 's-Hertogenbosch was one of the four capitals of the Duchy of Brabant at that time and one of the most important cities of the Low Countries; the city wanted something very prestigious. That brings me to the "incorrect". It was stated that features of the church are typical of Holland. This is wrong in two ways; first, 's-Hertogenbosch is not in Holland. Second, the St. Jan is an example of Brabantine gothic, a simplified variant of which was introduced to Holland as well. The St. Jan is a very rich example of the style, though. If the church is typical of something, it is typical of Brabant, surely not Holland or The Netherlands. About removing the church from the article; if you want to describe churches that now function as cathedrals, that's fine. I'd like to point out though that only two true cathedrals were ever built in The Netherlands, being Utrecht cathedral and the Cathedral of Saint Bavo in Haarlem (20th century). Why not concentrate on these instead? Fnorp (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on user pageAmandajm (talk)

The cathedrals of Prague, Warsaw and Moscow aren't generally in a different architectural category. "Western Europe" is a confusing term from the cold war. I propose we rename this article "Cathedral architecture in Europe". - SSJ ☎ 21:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prague and Warsaw could be argued to be in the same general tradition as they are Western Churches (if not western Europe). But Moscow is Orthodox, so the architecture is rather different. David Underdown (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quite rational explanation. It has to do with the author of the article. I'm located in Australia, speak only English and wrote and referenced the article entirely out of my own library. The article covers the much same ground as a book written by Banister Fletcher which was first published in the 1890s, long before the Cold War. I have followed his principals of comparison of styles, drawing on a variety of other sources for history, detailed descriptions and quotes.

Until recently it has been difficult to locate texts in English that give detailed and accurate descriptions of churches from Eastern Europe. I'm not on familiar ground in writing about these things. I don't have any sort of broad picture in my mind of the general styles of architecture of these countries, with the exception of Romania.

Because Orthodoox churches are rather different in style, I think that a separate companion article could be written about the Orthodox churches of Europe, while pics and general comments on the Catholic and Protestant cathedrals of Poland, the Czech Republic etc could be inserted into the galleries of this article.

Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My initial feeling upon coming to this article is that the introduction takes too long to get to the subject matter; that is, it's occupied for too long with material more appropriate to the definition of cathedral in general, rather than its stated subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed this. Amandajm (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really impressive that you addressed this so promptly. I might still suggest that the first sentence go something like "The cathedral architecture of Western Europe developed from" (etc.), and then backtrack to provide the overview. I won't belabor my reasoning, as it pretty much accords with Wikipedia:Lead section, to which I refer by convenience and not because I'm a slavish rule-follower. (OK, maybe I am; but only if I agree that they're good rules.) I see that you're an experienced editor, and I'm coming new to the article, so this is entirely impressionistic on my part. I have a couple of new articles I'm about to post within the next couple of days that I'd like you to take a look at; I'll leave a note at your use talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "great churches" may be a little vague. How about "Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbeys"? (Except I think that an abbey is actually more than the church building). PiCo (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Abbey churches"? Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that whilst there were a few very important and influential abbey churches, like St Denis and St Nicaise, there were also an awful lot of minor abbeys/monasteries/convents etc with very ordinary little churches which you would presumably not want to include in this section. And what about Collegiate Churches? Some of those (Mantes la Jolie springs to mind) were of very major importance, culturally and architecturally. Also, for anyone with a background in architectural history, rather than an interest in recent church administration, the term 'basilica' simply refers to any building, however insignificant, with arcaded side aisles and a higher nave with a clerestory. The administrative use of the term to denote a church of 'more than usual importance' is largely a measure of Papal patronage rather than architectural merit and only really became widespread (outside Rome) in the Counter-Reformation. If it's any help, art historians generally talk in terms of "Cathedrals and great churches" on the grounds that the slight ambiguity is less awful than the various alternatives. StuartLondon (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Sorry for not getting those comments in sooner - in the middle of moving house... StuartLondon (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hebrew Wikipedia the article is simply called "Church architecture" (אדריכלות כנסיות). MathKnight 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Absolutely awesome.

I have never complimented article on it's talk page like this. Also the usage of Template:multiple image is quite remarkable. I like it. i do not know, whether it might not happen, that there someone would be objecting, that it's usage is not according manual of style. (But in that case I would drive for changing the manual instead ;) ). Really beautiful and informative. Reo ⁺ 09:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, me too! This is fantastic encyclopedic creation! Why this articles isn't featured? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate notice at Church architecture [1] Some of this material may be suitable for this article, though I guess it is already covered - please check.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth considering using Template:gallery instead of multiple image:

eg

Multiple image:

Gallery:

• 
  Cathedral of Cajamarca, Peru
• 
  Cathedral of the Transfiguration, Khabarovsk, Russia
• 
  Metz Cathedral, Metz, France

It's a lot easier to maintain, and will automatically format to any screen resolution.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is formatted in this way so that it maintains a particular width regardless of the number of pics, and the overall appearance of the article is pleasing.

The other, less obvious, reason is that simple galleries are well-meaningly stuffed-up by people who want to shove in their own photo, or their own church, regardless of whether it complies with the topic, is the right date, looks good in the gallery, and regardless of whether they are capabale of either dating or describing it. Change to simple galleries, and I will have to be here maintaining this article every single day of the week.

Amandajm (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. You make a good second point ;) Sf5xeplus (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current name of this article, 'Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches', does have multiple issues - as User:StuartLondon pointed out on this talk page on 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC). During the preparation of the as yet unpublished revision of 'Brabantine Gothic', amongst the most notable examples I encountered few basilicas but several collegiate churches. This is not surprising for the pre-Renaissance period. The summing-up article name precludes those: No reader would click on a link if his momentary interest would include collegiate churches; even if the link shows another text, the title of the destination would urge the reader to go back without looking further. The article 'Church architecture' exists, and there is a need for that broader subject. Even to the uninformed, 'Cathedrals and great churches (architecture)' or 'Architecture of cathedrals and great churches' does give a good idea of all that might belong in "our" article and excludes what does not. Alternatively, 'Architecture of ecclesiastical edifices' or 'Ecclesiastical edifices (architecture)' would indicate the same.[reply]
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-16 08:13 (UTC)

Anything that says "edifice" is not going to get Wikipedia hits, regardless of how inclusive the word might be. No one will Google "edifice".

I agree entirely that there is a problem in that collegiate churches are omitted here, and ought not be.

So we move it to Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. That takes in basilicas, collegiate churches, abbeys and all sorts of churches which are none of these things. We add a section describing briefly what a collegiate church is, since it is important.

How does that sound?

Amandajm (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly support a move to Architecture of cathedrals and great churches (provided we don't get too hung up on debating what constitutes a 'great church'). That brings in various edifices which are excluded from the current title (including some important Brabantine Gothic examples associated with lay confraternities and beguinages). It also neatly sidesteps the problem of 'basilica', which has very different meanings in architectural history and (mostly more recent) ecclesiastical administration.StuartLondon (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Only problem is, I'll have to request a move, because the article was already at that location, which means that the name is blocked to further use. You'll need to drop by and write "Support" in the right place. Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It worked! Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. 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/20080327015344/http://www.cathedral.org:80/cathedral/index.shtml to http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. 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/20060613074100/http://speyer.de/de/tourist/sehenswert/dom to http://www.speyer.de/de/tourist/sehenswert/dom
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060610060207/http://torre.duomo.pisa.it/ to http://torre.duomo.pisa.it/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510151625/http://www.chartres-csm.org/us.html to http://www.chartres-csm.org/us.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cathedralestmichel.be/eng/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210000812/http://www.stephansdom.at/data/ to http://www.stephansdom.at/data
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615014815/http://www.architoledo.org/cathedral/mosaico.htm to http://www.architoledo.org/cathedral/mosaico.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/index.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, listing the age of a cathedral is to show the age of the architecture, not to show when church history began in that location. It seems to me that quite a number of cathedrals' ages are written to make the buildings seem significantly older than they really are - I can exaggerate by saying "Built in AD 9, and only destroyed and rebuilt seventeen times since then" :) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, not least because parts of earlier fabrics, not to mention burials, fittings etc, typically remain in cathedrals that are mostly built later. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say such things don't remain; I say such things can't reasonably be called "the cathedral". I guess I'm saying I gravitate towards treating the "mostly built later" date - the date of the most substantial visible parts of the building - as the true date, and the historic completion date as a note under "history of this site". TooManyFingers (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "mostly built" dates for the cathedrals at Canterbury or Cologne? Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2020 a banner was placed at the top of this article.

{{Multiple issues|

The article, as it stands now, was devised, created and written by one single Wikipedia contributor in 2006. At that point in time, the policies on referencing were not as strictly applied as they are now. The article was created because I saw a need for a large,and inclusive article that dealt with the subject of major church structures across the world.

1. The sources of major church architectural structures and features

2. The basic diversity of forms- longitudinal and centralised

3. The differences between cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches

4. Regional diversity

5. Historic styles

The article achieves this. It was written by a person who is widely read in the subject, who has lectured in the subject, and who provided a list of texts.

I suggest that you take into account the date at which this was written, and write into the leading banner, a Grandfather clause.

For several years prior to 2020, I had taken a sabbatical, brought about by the extraordinary misogyny and rudeness of a typical "add a comma and save" type contributor, and the total failure of Wikipedia to take up the challenge of defending a female at that point in time. In 2020, I returned at the beginning of the Covid lockdown, to take up the challenge of the article Gothic architecture. I sat down with a large pile of texts on the subject, and was confronted by the continued interference of two individuals, both of whom had an interest, both of whom had strong opinions, and both of whom were too ignorant of the subject in hand to be able to recognise the difference between an Englih Gothic building of 1200 and and English Gothic building of 1400.

The havoc that was created by these two was beyond me. I retired, and Gothic architecture remains in a total schemozzle.

The two enthusiasts decided between them, that there was too much emphasis on cathedrals in the Gothic architecture article, and they needed to carve off that part and make it separate. It was no good telling them that the Gothic style originated specifically for the creation of cathedrals and abbeys... and that any use of the style on a house, castle, palace or town hall as derivative. They were insistent on chopping of the Cathedral part, instead of following the pattern of Romanesque architecture and creating a separate article on secular Gothic.

My real expertise in this subject fell on deaf ears.

Moreover, the leading paragraph of Sistine Chapel Ceiling (following the intro) has been reduced to nonsense by one of these contributors. . And I have no idea what state the article English Gothic architecture is in. I had a go at giving advice about the changes, without much success.

If you want this present article thoroughly referenced in the style favoured by 2021, then you are going to have to find someone very knowledgeable to do it. Any ignorant person could easily go through this and delete everything that does not have a direct reference. Then you will be left with no article at all.

Amandajm (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Metz, Cathédrale Saint-Etienne-PM 49650.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Santa Sabina (Rome) - Interior.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 32 entries in nine subsections. Three links seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Some of the current links include ones that are not needed giving no benefit to the article and some that can be included in the article with sources. Per ELBURDEN I have moved those removed from the article here for any possible future discussion:

• Alliance Royale
• Action Française
• Rassemblement Démocrate
• Nouvelle Action royaliste
• La Restauration Nationale
• Vive le Roy.fr (UCLF)
• Légitimistes of Lorraine
• French Royalist --

• Speyer Cathedral
• Pisa Cathedral and Leaning Tower of Pisa –
• Hildesheim Cathedral
• Durham Cathedral
• Naumburg Cathedral

• Canterbury Cathedral
• Notre-Dame de Paris
• Westminster Abbey
• Chartres Cathedral
• Lincoln Cathedral
• St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin

• Florence Cathedral
• St Michael and Gudula Cathedral, Brussels
• St Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna –
• Cologne Cathedral
• St Giles' Cathedral Edinburgh
• Toledo Cathedral
• Amiens Cathedral
• Worcester Cathedral –

• St Peter's Basilica, Rome –

• St Paul's Cathedral, London

• Westminster Cathedral, London
• Cathedral of St John the Divine New York

• Liverpool Cathedral
• Guildford Cathedral
• Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral
• Washington National Cathedral
• Cathedral of Brasília
• Basilica of the National Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida

This article is assessed as B-class and #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

• 1)- There are too many citation tags and
• 2)- Many section "no citation" tags
  • These issues alone dictate an article reassessment. I have reassessed the article to C-class.

• The "See also" section includes three subsections and thirty entries. This could be looked at for possible trimming as it may exceed "a reasonable number"
• This article has an astounding 151 images. If "all" of the images are deemed important other ways of using them needs to be explored as explained at MOS:LAYIM. Wikipedia is not a repository|. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed several subsections that have been tagged since 2020. Reinclusion needs to be sourced. Also removed images in these subsections to trim gross overuse of images. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed almost 20k raw bytes, including a number of refs. That's far too much, & I've reverted you. You make many claims of "original research" - were there any particular passages you had in mind? Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: Ouch, I did miss there were refs in the Altar, second Basilica subsection, and Façade subsections. I removed the "unsourced" tags and placed "citation needed" on unsourced content. I am not really concerned with 20k raw bytes removed, as a total revert (apparently a BRD revert) did reintroduced unsourced content, and images of which MANY needs to be removed.

I do not need to "make claims" of "original research". Unsourced content, tagged since 2020, already identifies potential original research. I have opened 49 tabs trying to find relevant sources to back content. I am pretty sure you have more editing experience than I do --but-- for the record I will list relevant policies and guidelines.

• Wikipedia:No original research: In bold Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Second lead paragraph, The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

Please note: anything challenged or likely to be challenged, is what the 2020 tags have done. The original research policy has a note: By "exist", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. I could not find sources for the tagged sections so cannot establish a reasonable expectation that there is not original research. However,

• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations (Wikipedia:BURDEN): All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution.[c]

Please read Note b and c if there is confusion.

Along with the unsourced content there are an unimaginable amount of images that could be a poster child for What Wikipedia is not. I included those in the unsourced sections (excepting the sourced ones I missed) to trim unnecessary images.

Zero sources

• Atrium subsection: Zero sources.
• Post Modern subsection: Zero sourcing,
• East end subsection: Zero sources,
• Chancel, choir and presbytery subsection: Zero sourcing.
• Nave subsection: Zero sources,
• Transept subsection: Zero sources,
• Vertical emphasis subsection: Zero Sources,
• Choir stalls and organ subsection,
• Monastic churches: Zero sources,
• first Basilica subsection,
• Rococo subsection: Zero sources,

Please also note: There is much content that is not sourced aside from what was tagged. I added inline "citation needed" tags to some. The "Early Christian" subsection contains an unsourced paragraph: "The Anchiskhati Basilica is the oldest church in Georgia, dating from the 6th century." That article makes the unsourced claim that the Anchiskhati Basilica of St Mary ..."is the oldest surviving church in Tbilisi, Georgia". I found a tripadvisor link and this source that states: "this ancient church is the city's oldest surviving place of worship". The entire concept of the verifiability policy is so someone can check "the source" and not have to go searching google to find if there really is a source or if there is original research. Other unsourced content;

• first and second paragraph of the "Byzantine" subsection.
• First paragraph of the "Romanesque" subsection.
• First paragraph of the "Gothic" subsection.
• Second paragraph of the "Renaissance" subsection.
• Third and fourth paragraph of the "Baroque" subsection.
• First and second paragraph of the "Revivals" subsection.
• First paragraph of the "Revivals" subsection. Content states "In the 20th century, building in the Medieval style continued, but in a stripped-down, cleanly functional form, often in brick. A fine example is Guildford Cathedral in England. Another is Armidale Anglican Cathedral in Australia." When the unsourced wording "A fine example" is used there is no way to verify if this is PUFFERY or weasel wording.
• Four paragraphs (out of five) of the "Mausoleum" subsection is unsourced.

If any of the past 453 editors or 134 watchers wish to contribute sources that would be great. If not, then the onus is not on an editor removing unsourced content but any of those wishing inclusion. I am patient. We can go one unsourced section at a time, possible revert, or possible Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

• We can also start afresh, how would you like to proceed? The unimaginable amount of images is also an issue that needs resolution. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Personal observation: Sometimes, as an after thought, it just sucks. Probably 18-19k of unsourced (for a over 4 years) material was reintroduced, because I missed two sentences with sources. The comments: "You removed almost 20k raw bytes, including a number of refs. That's far too much, & I've reverted you.". In the interest of improving Wikipedia as well as making sure there is "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" it would seems a partial revert in order.

I just added all the ones I couldn't verify and mass deleted them. I did not notice it was "+20,486". I do suppose it is possible some of the information might possibly have a source. I just couldn't find any and there were career section and subsection tags.

There may be some factions that think it better to be unsourced and tagged forever, "because possibly" 1)- nobody ever introduces "original research", or 2)- there "might possibly be a source out there somewhere in the universe" that could potentially verify the information.

It seems I mistakenly misunderstood Wikipedia policies and guidelines and missed the minimum or maximum number of unsourced material that can deleted at one time. I just, again, apparently mistakenly, understood that such inclusion and exclusion should follow said policies, guidelines, community norms, --and-- take into account that editors might be upset if not given a chance to supply things like sources. -- That I understand.

Some editors seem proud of the many thousands of edit counts, sometimes by small incremental edits or bot assist, which is cool, but of which I care not. I am always open to suggestions so if I did miss the maximum number of unsourced "raw bytes" I can delete at one time PLEASE let me know. BTW, I think this could be a really good article. I will be busy on other things for a few days and will check back. Have a great day, -- Otr500 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me! Have you ever been in a cathedral, or even a church? Even in Florida, the majority of the content here will be true. This article was mostly written (not at all by me) by a mostly-vanished editor who certainly knew what she was talking about, long ago before referencing requirements were what they are now. The content is nearly all a collection of the most basic, obvious and even banal statements about the subject, which could be referenced from literally thousands of books. But of course this takes work, which you are not prepared to do. Of course under the way WP works, you have no obligation to do this. You are free to continue roaming the project, whining, tagging, deleting and in your comments making a proud show of your complete ignorance of the subject. I will add references here, but it is not appealing work. Please don't bother writing long lectures on policy; I know all this and don't read them. It would be best if your personal views on the appropriate quantity of images for a very broad survey of a hightly visual subject were kept as a separate matter - they are out of line with the community. You can also spare us comments like "BTW, I think this could be a really good article" - just annoying/insulting in the context. Do you think you are a good judge? Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @Johnbod. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you (maybe in advance) for adding some references. It is not very appealing and does require work. So many images makes it seem as if Wikipedia is actually a repository. The images on the article exceeds the suggested 100 maximum images (#5), so is not merely "personal views". Also, too many images might be considered non-mobile friendly. 155 images and images of drawings on an article is insane. Most of the images presented here are already on another article, some on several articles, and many are also used on several different languages of Wikipedia. Many of the articles containing the images can be linked to.

Apparently consensus has changed from the good old days when sourcing was not deemed (by some) very important. It was common for an article to be sourced only through the "External links" section. True| or not Wikipedia operates on verifiability. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think potential non-loading on mobiles is the only reason for no more than 100 images being "ideal" (#5). 43 seems a small number to span the gap between "ideal" and "insane"! But, as I've said, I think images & references should be disussed apart from each other. Johnbod (talk)

Not sure what the 43 is in reference to. -- Otr500 (talk)

Really - 143 images (per you) minus 100 ("ideally", per policy). Johnbod (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought you had counted 143. So for "43" read 155-100="55". The point remains. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are around 155 images in the article. Some may be converted to links to their main article or trimmed as Wikipedia is not a repository. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to lose a few - but one shouldn't expect this article to reach the "ideal" number. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very obvious reason why there are 155 images in this article.

It covers a huge subject, including the historic, stylistic and regional development of major Christian buildings for a period of about 1700 years. Moreover, this article is about the visible, specifically. It compares and contrasts.

There are articles that show fifty very similar pictures where six would do, but this is not one of them. The article is not being treated as a "repository", which is clear if you read it. Linking to the individual articles will nor work, because the method of comparison delivers a very large amount of practical material in a concise form. Amandajm (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so concerned with any ideal number as improvements in general, so thank you kindly. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]