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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no merge.--Jorfer 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an article titled "dome" which is universally recognized as having a right to exist as an independent article, hence we have every reason to assume that an article concerning the "world's largest domes" has every right to exist as an independent article, too. Please refrain from trying to subordinate this article to another one where it simply does not belong to. Regards Gun Powder Ma22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing the merger now instead of being bold and merging it myself. The world's largest building article has enough space to where this can be a section of it. It will be more visible if it is on world's largest buildings then it is here as this page has currently no links on the major search engines while the largest building article has 160 according to http://www.hscripts.com/tools/HLPC/index.php --Jorfer14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the proposal for the above reason. We need one article for each topic, and not a hyperlong article on such an overly broad concept as "The world's largest building", under which very different buildings are stuffed indiscriminately. This is very much against common WP practice. Regards Gun Powder Ma22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were really a list of the world's largest domes, I think it would fit well in the List of largest buildings in the world. However, its first list is a list of domes that have held the title "world's largest dome" at some point in history; it is not a list of the largest domes currently. It also contains several ancillary lists, such as largest domes by structural type, largest domes by continent, and other famous domes (which seems out of the scope of the article title, but whatever). So I would suggest not merging. Agyle23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO MERGE. A dome is a part of a building while all of the sections in the List of largest buildings in the world deal with complete buildings. Domes do not belong there. Perhaps someday there will be a "List of world's largest building parts" and we can include largest domes, along with largest roof, largest archway, largest window, largest room, etc. Until then, List of world's largest domes should remain an independent article. Truthanado17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Should this not be the world's largest cast iron dome, finished in 1871, it is eliptical in plan, with major and minor axes of 83 m (272 ft) and 72 m (236 ft) and 41 m (135 ft) high.?
The principal construction of Novosibisk theatre's building is the big dome, 60 meters wide and 35 meters high. The dome is a unique construction that supports itself without girders or columns. The ratio of its thickness (an average of 8 cm) to its radius is less than that of a chicken egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.157.195.240 (talk • contribs)
Is it worth mentioning the Volkshalle? This proposed building in Berlin was to have a huge 250m high dome, but it was never built. Astronaut10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not exactly up on my facts, but I was always told that the Kingdome in Seatle Washington was the largest concrete dome in the world at 660 ft. until its destruction. Then i was told that the Yakima Sundome (of which dimentions i cannot locate) is now the largest concrete dome in the world. Whether or not this is true, i would love to know, but i think the Kingdome belongs on the list somewhere.
The Yakima Sundome says it is the biggest dome "of its kind" but does not elaborate as to what "its kind" means. It is 82 meters wide, so it was never the biggest reinforced concrete dome. The reference "Reinforced Concrete Thin Shell Sports Facilities" now on the site is a great source. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tomb, located in the city of Bijapur, or Vijapur in Karnataka, southern India, was built in 1659 by the famous architect, Yaqut of Dabul. The structure consists of a massive square chamber measuring nearly 50 m (160 ft) on each side and covered by a huge dome 37.9 m (124 ft) in diameter making it the second largest pre-modern dome in the entire world after the dome of Hagia Sophia. The dome is supported on giant squinches supported by groined pendentives while outside the building is supported by domed octagonal corner towers. The Dome is the second largest one in the world which is unsupported by any pillars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.124.162 (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It resides inside a disused hangar 360 metres long, 210 metres wide and 107 metres high. At 5.5 million m³ (194 million ft³), it stands as one of the largest buildings on Earth by volume, and is the world's largest single hall without supporting pillars inside. The hangar cost €78 million and was originally commissioned by Cargolifter AG as an airship hangar named Aerium, but the airship it was intended to house – the CL160 – was never built. (I was surprised not to see this place listed in the article, as I would certainly classify this as a dome, as it now houses a water park.)
Utilitysupplies (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Madrid, the dome is 33 m wide and 58 m high, completed in 1770. 23:53, 08 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk)
What is the definition of a dome? According to wikipedia a structure that resembles the upper half of a sphere. Why on earth is that Georgia Dome in this list? It looks like a squashed wedding cake, certainly doesn't resemble any dome I've ever seen. BigTurnip (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
North American domes from 1965 to present
The list for North American domes makes no sense in the context of the article. The stadium domes listed from 1965 on are larger than the domes in the world-record list for the same period. If they're true domes, they should be record holders in both lists, and if not, they don't belong in the North American list, either.
Faith Chapel...
Somebody seems to have destroyed the structure of the artice with the addition about the Faith Chapel Christian Center. The arrangement should have been By continent and By structure. If someone cannot give a good method to incorporate the data into the existing arrangement, I suggest that this information be removed. Unstudmaddu (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Largest North American dome 1956 to 1963: Alexander Memorial Colisuem in Atlanta, GA?
Why isn't the Alexander Memorial Coliseum on the campus of Georgia Tech, which opened in 1956 with dome diameter of 270 feet listed as the largest dome in North America from 1956 to 1963 in place of the Baden Springs hotel?
Since it's been a month since I posted this question and no one has given an explanation, I suggest that we change the 1881 to Present, since the building still exists and no other information suggests that the Pantheon's record has been bettered.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a month since I posted this question and no one has given an explanation, I suggest that we change the 1998 to Present, since the building still exists and no other information suggests that the Georgia Dome's record has been bettered.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. Peter's Basilica ?
In the list of the world's largest domes, Santa Maria dei (n.b., not "del") Fiori in Florence is listed as having held the world's record from 1436-1881. However, in the list for Europe, St. Peter's Basilica, Rome is listed as having held the record for largest European dome in the "16th century", although it's stuck in between two ancient Roman domes. Based on its stated diameter, it appears not to be the largest at any time.
The Dome of St. Peter's is mentioned under "Famous domes" and I think that's the only place it belongs.
This link suggests the diameter of the oita stadium is 245m and therefore should be at the top of the asia list, unless you think it's not a proper dome. http://en.allexperts.com/e/o/oi/oita_stadium.htm
This article is about domes with the largest diameters... not their height. From extranomical.com: "The massive dome of the San Francisco City Hall is one of the largest in the world with a diameter of 27.43 meters (90 feet) and a height of 94 meters (308 feet), more than a foot taller than the dome of the US Capitol building in Washington DC." 90 feet in diameter does not make the list in this article. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I strongly object to including football stadium covers as "domes." To me a dome has a circular cross section. Wikipedia (an unimpeachable source) says, "A dome is a structural element of architecture that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere." Merriam-Webster defines it as "a large hemispherical roof or ceiling."
Besides, if you are going to include things like football stadia, how about dirigible hangers? Hanger 1 at Lakehurst, NJ measures 292 meters x 107 meters x 61 meters high. Hanger 1 at Moffett Field in Sunnyvale, CA is even bigger; 345 meters long x 94 meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alweiss (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dome Definition
A dome may be defined as a self-supporting structural element of architecture that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere...
I don't believe this definition can correctly describe architecture. A dome is essentially a rotational arch. In other words, any dome is an arch section that is repeated as many times as necessary to complete a circle. This is similar to the definition of a vault which is an arch that is repeated laterally. In other words, a vault is like a series of arches standing side by side. There is a difference however between a vault and a dome: any vault section is freestanding as an arch regardless of the sections on either side. A dome in contrast is not necessarily so since it can involve outward thrust that is converted to hoop stress in the completed structure. Not everything curved is an arch. A real arch can be made with wedge shaped bricks with no mortar holding them together. The base would have to take all of the outward thrust. You can have a wooden beam and if this beam were curved it would still be a beam, not an arch.
The above definition of a dome further appears incorrect since it would include things that are clearly not domes. For example, one could build a flat, truss, roof structure that is supported on the ends. This is not a dome. Then one could give this flat truss a slight upward curve so that it is rounded on both the top and bottom. It is still a truss and incurs neither outward thrust nor hoop stress yet by the above definition it would be a dome. Secondly, all real arches, vaults, and domes are built with regard to gravity. A mixing bowl when turned upside-down would be a dome by the above definition. Yet, it isn't really a dome because it will maintain the same shape when turned upright, on its side, etc. It is a simple fact that wooden and pottery bowls existed thousands of years before architectural domes were built. Yet, architectural domes were derived from arches and vaults, not things that happened to be hemispherical in shape. Linking a dome to a simple geometric definition is fundamentally dishonest and completely ignores the genuine technological and conceptual limitations that real buildings have.
I suppose someone could suggest that modern materials change the definition but this is not actually the case. The Saint Louis Arch was built with very modern methods and materials and yet its foundations take the outward thrust in exactly the same way as a brick or stone structure would. An internally braced truss or beam that imposed no outward thrust on the foundation would not be an arch even if it were exactly the same shape.
If this still isn't clear then try a simple thought experiment. Start with a hoola hoop that is made with a square cross section instead of a circular cross section. Put one of these on the floor. Now, by stacking additional hoops with different diameters we could approximate a dome. Is this a dome? By the above definition it is yet by simple common sense it is not. Why? Because by selecting different diameters of hoop we could just as easily build a drum shape, a barrel shape, a conical shape, a spindle shape, or even an hour-glass shape. Nor is this even related to a dome; we could just as easily choose hoops that are triangular or square (like a picture frame).
If this still isn't clear then imagine this: get 4x4 wooden beams and stack them. Let's start with two on bottom in parallel and then lay two across making a square. They have no joints or glue; they are simply stacked (like a split rail fence). If we use shorter and shorter lengths while moving the beams closer to the center we will create a pyramid shape. It will be self supporting. We could also start with a hexagon, heptagon, or octagon shape and choose our lengths to approximate a dome shape. This would again be self supporting without anything holding the individual beams together. It would have neither outward thrust nor hoop stress. By the above definition it would be a dome even though clearly it is not; it is in reality just a stacked beam structure even if it happens to be hemispherical in shape.
If you look at some of the claimed domes in the list you would find that they are not in fact domes. The so-called "moveable domes" are internally braced and other of the domes are actually just curved trusses. So what about geodetic domes; are these real domes? Yes even though they have a great deal of internal bracing. I realize this is confusing. The simplest definition you can use is that if you take a cross section of a dome it will impose a horizontal, outward thrust on the base. This is an important distinction. Brunelleschi used chains to counter hoop stress so this is obviously a dome. So what about the geodetic sphere at Epcot Center? Even though this might appear to be a truss it is actually a fully rotationally symmetrical dome. You can take a hemispherical section in any direction through its structure and the hoop stress is taken by the bottom band. If you only took an arch section then the outward thrust would be unavoidable. If an arch cross section of a dome-like structure would impose no horizontal, outward thrust then it is not a dome.
Dirigible and blimp hangars are also excellent examples of arches however all of them that I have seen are barrel vaults rather than domes. Arches, vaults, and domes are closely related so I could see a list of each either together or in individual but cross-referenced sections. You can see a good reference for meridional stress and ring stress here http://www.nandadeep.org/downloads/home/tension%20ring%20in%20masonry%20dome.pdf
I've edited the lead to remove the ungrammatical phrase "largest domes of its time", but that wording is still present in the title of this article. "List of largest domes of their time" would make more sense – or why not simply "List of largest domes"? WP:Article titles advises against being too precise; the added caveat of "of its time" can be spelled out in the lead. I'll make the change in a couple of weeks if there are no objections. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a few discrepancies between the diameter of the structures and the rankings. For example, the Salt lake tabernacle is listed as having a larger diameter (North America section) than the Santa Maria Del Fiore, but does not actually supplant it in the World Listings. Similarly, Assembly Hall (North American Section) is listed as having a significantly larger diameter than the Belgrade fair- Hall 1, but never replaces it as #1 in the world rankings. If the Diameters are accurate, then the rankings should change. If the diameters are measured inconsistently, the diameters should be listed differently.130.126.103.66 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on List of largest domes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on List of largest domes. 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.
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.
This clinker silo is listed on the list of other famous domes, but has no justification why it is famous. Why is it on the list? Jel3456 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missing telescope domes
several very large telescopes have huge domes that would easily makes this list. in a few years the ELT will be the largest of these at 88m diameter orso 2001:1C01:2DC5:6500:9C66:296D:1D5A:9CC5 (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of domes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#List of domes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)