This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
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
Cologne Cathedral is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
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 World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious Buildings, Architecture and Monasticism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Religious Buildings, Architecture and MonasticismWikipedia:WikiProject Religious Buildings, Architecture and MonasticismTemplate:WikiProject Religious Buildings, Architecture and MonasticismReligious Buildings, Architecture and Monasticism
Well, it seems to have gone now so it's perhaps a bit of a dead issue. I assume that whoever put it in was trying to make the point that the attacks took place in such a mainstream and well-visited place, or something along those lines. But as it's gone I think we can just forget it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The superlative statement "The choir has the largest height-to-width ratio, 3.6:1, of any medieval church." in the lead is unsourced. The ratio had been originally stated as 5:1 with Wim Swann: The Gothic Cathedral being given as the source by Amandajm (talk·contribs). The only section of this work discussing the choir dimensions is on page 226, stating Cologne's to have the tallest choir keystone after Beauvais Cathedral. The comments in the work could be misread as stating Beauvais' choir to no longer be standing ("ill-fated"). This source gave the height to height to width dimensions of 50 feet to 150 feet (3:1 ratio). The statement was later amended during the same cluster of edits in 2007 by the same user, to give the currently cited A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method by Banister Fletcher as a source and the ratio adjusted to the current 3.6:1. The relevant pages for the ratio given in the article come from pg. 394 and 395 stating the width of the nave (identical in width to the choir) to be 41.5 feet (41 feet and 6 inches), that number divided by the choir height given in the diagram on 395 of 150 feet produces the 3.614457831313... given rounded to the first decimal point in the article. Neither of the two sources gives the superlative statement and the first rather tremendous ratio given of 5:1 seems to have been a math error which might have been the origin of the superlative statement. I would remove it, but I lack expertise in this field and fear it might be correct. Pari Sarcinator (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A problem that occurs regularly is that figures that startout in metres are translated onto feet, and hen roughly back into metres, so that the original measurement is lost somewhere along the way.
I dont know where the 5:1 ration came from.... and I am taking a long Sabbatical from Wikipedia. I previously wrote a number of the major articles on architecture. They date from a time when the system of referencing was much less tight than it is now. These older articles should be covered by a grandfather clause to prevent deletion simply onthe grounds that the current standard of referencing is not met.
When the article Gothic architecture was effectively ruined... I tried to retrieve it but met with an incredible amount of opposition from two editors, neither of whom knrw the subject, but both of whom could find, copy and paste, sections from books.
The article on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling was similarly affected by the pasting of spurious information not linked in meaning. English Gothic architecture was treated witha similar lack of understanding.
Part of the idiocy was the statement from these editors that the Gothic architecture article focused too much on cathedral (and abbey) architecture. So they attempted to carve off a new article on Gothic cathedrals. The reason why this is stupidity is that the Gothic style developed exclusively in cathedral and abbey churches, and was not applied to secular buildings for many years. When it appeared, it did so as ornament, the vaulting of larger chambers, and the great Town Hall towers of the Lowlands. In other words, the precedent set by the two major articles on Romanesque architecture needed to be followed- Romanesque architecture and Romanesque secular and domestic architecture
So I reached a point where I became so fed up, that i went on extended leave, and only drop by occassionally.
Not really. As explained I traced the ratio statement and its sources, the 3.61 ratio certainly isn't unsourced, what is unsourced and much more problematic is the superlative claim about the "largest" ratio. I cannot find any sources substantiating this claim. But I'm not too familiar with the subject, thus I am hesitant to remove it outright. ~~~~ Pari Sarcinator (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
