Talk:Arch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated Start-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts. |
Contents |
[edit] Minimize image load time
Seriously, I'm on a fast connection and they're taking heck of a time to load. --Cyberman 19:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arch Engineering
I am considering adding a sub heading 'Engineering of the Arch' which will explore the progression of the arch from circuler, through gothic to the eventual catenary shape. If you have any ideas for the section, or strongly object, please say so. --Commander Keane 14:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AAA
You made a mistake, The arch wasn't developed in Ancient Greece, Romans saw that structure in Mesopotamia.
[edit] Illustration captions
Could someone please replace the current captions in the big illustration of arch types with their English equivalents? It's a nice illustration, and it would be nice to know the names of the different types. Gwimpey 18:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arched road bridges in the Lake District, Uk.
I have noticed a good number of stone, arched bridges in Cumbria, England. I assume these have been built since Roman times. It would be nice to see a section on who built these, when, and how immediatley influential the Romans were.
Interesting that the cultures in Mesopotamia influenced the Romans according to AAA but those of us have visited Olympia know there is an arched entrance to the Stadium there. Did the Olympians(or those people from Eleusis) copy the Romans? Not sure of the date.
DVK
[edit] Merge
Both Voussoir and Keystone (architecture) are rather small stubby articles at the moment. The arch article would benefit greatly from their inclusion. Both keystones and voissoirs cannot be discussed without mentioning arches so the reader will only be inconvenienced by having to navigate away to separate pages. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- oppose - I believe at least Keystone deserve it's own article. (plus it isn't that stubby.) That doesn't mean that the material couldn't be incoeporated into the "arch" article as well though.Maunus 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- oppose - Arch should be a general article with subarticles on specific types, in my opinion. Otherwise, it will become like Dam which is a mess now because every article with the word "Dam" in it was merged into it. When writing architecture articles, an editor wants to be able to link to a succient article to explain a term to a reader without the reader having to wade through a huge general article. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- support - One essential fact is that the keystone of an arch has no structural function other than serving as a part of the arch. Furthermore, the keystone is not the "key" of the arch in any sense other than an aesthetic one. Our eyes are drawn towards a keystone, but it is no more necessary to the stability of the arch than are all of the other stones of the arch. Merging the keystone article into the arch article is fair to the prose in the former article, because it will allow that piece of prose to do for the larger article what the "keystone" of an arch does in real life. Bigturtle 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Grande Arche
The Grande Arche in Paris is called an arch. Is it an arch? -- 201.50.251.197 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
