Talk:Cologne Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	Catholicism Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Cologne Cathedral was (or will be) featured on the Architecture Portal as Selected article during week 20 of 2007. For more information or to participate, visit WikiProject:Architecture

---

Contents 1 peer 2 bells 3 Contradictory dates 4 Clean up 5 A roman temple? 6 Removal of box 7 References 8 Height to width ratio 5:1. 8.1 ratio 9 Ceasing of mideaval works 10 Bibliography 11 Skyscraper box.. 11.1 Tallest Building box 11.2 Another suggestion 11.3 About the Box 12 World Heritage Box 13 Clean up Still Required

[edit] peer

Sanssouci is currently up for peer review here. If anyone has any comments to make to improve it, I would be very grateful.

[edit] bells

16 April 2006: This web page: http://www.willkommeninkoeln.de/media/sound/dom.htm has the sound of one of the bells of the Dom, the one that seems most fredquently heard. The only problem is that I don't know the name of the bell. Could someone who knows that add the webpage (which is the Cologne Cathedral website) and also indicate which bell this is in the external links?

Also, the Cologne cathedral now has a webcam for services. Itr would be very nice to note that in the external links. It works very well. Nkb

[edit] Contradictory dates

The caption of the photo says this building was the world's tallest from 1880 to 1890. The article's introduction indicates it was surpassed in 1884. Which is it? --dreish~talk 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I placed the clean up tag on this article. While reading it, I noticed that this article repeats itself, specifically the fact that the cathedral used to be the tallest in the world before the Washintgon Monutment was built. This is possibly the rsult of some contributors editing one section without carefully reading the other sections.ErinHowarth 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the stuff about its tallest-building status from the lead, which eliminates the repetition. List of tallest buildings and structures in the world says that the Cathedral was the tallest from 1880 until 1884, when it was surpassed by the Washington Monument. The text of this article now says the same.

The infobox on the right is a bit different. It had said that Cologne Cathedral was the tallest until 1889, when it was surpassed by Ulm Munster. That infobox refers to the "world's tallest buildings" as being fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to rooftop. This is not the definition used by the list of tallest buildings, which doesn't even include Ulm Munster. There is a whole consistent run of infoboxes linking tallest buildings as defined this way, though, so I'm not going to mess with it. However, Ulm Munster was finished in 1890, not 1889 (that was the Eiffel Tower) so I fixed the date.

I've removed the clean-up tag, as that was the only issue listed. If more is required, feel free to restore it.Eron 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A roman temple?

Recent archaeological research dealing with former buildings on the site of Cologne Cathedral suppose that there rather a horreum (roman store-house) has been than a temple. Diggings in the city center of Cologne brought several remains of those horrea out into the open, and it is correct that throughout the Imperium Romanum horrea were used as places of christian worship when christendom reached the provinces. Cologne’s romanesque St. Martin-church in the city center also is built onto the foundations of a horreum, what can be seen in the modern crypt. After WW II archaeologists recovered foundations of the warehouse beneath the gothic cathedral and, following an ancient assumption, called it a temple. Maybe that early christians in Cologne used the room for service so that there is an liturgical tradition at this place from the beginning until now.

I apologize that my English may be not quite correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.176.230.140 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Removal of box

This is a B class article that I am trying to turn into an A class article, which shouldn't be hard, with a more adequate description of the very significant architecture, and a bit of inline referencing.

With regards to thhe removal of the BOX:- as has already been noted, there are conflicts in the info about height. They are not really conflicts, if you read the small print. The claim in the box was based on "habitable" building, and the building needed to be habitable from top to bottom. So what?

• It was the tallest Gothic style structure in the world (NOTE: not genuine Gothic as in Medieval) and remains the second tallest to Ulm Minster.
• It was the tallest structure in the world until surpassed by the Washingtom Monument 4 years later (and many other buildings since.
• The fact that it was also the tallest "habitable" structure until Ulm Minster was built is really labouring the tall stuff a bit far. It adds a fairly meaningless dimension, better covered in the other two classes of tallness which are both discussed in the intro.

On the other hand the fact that the building is a 'World heritage Site' is of current and ongoing significance which has to do with all its intrinsic values, not just the height factor.

As far as I'm concerned, a misleading box about a highly-qualified factor that is no longer important detracts rather than adds quality to the article.

--Amandajm 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Could someone please locate the source of the measurment that are listed in the intro? --Amandajm 09:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's fixed.

I've cleaned up, sorted out, incorporated a range of pictures illustrating diverse aspects of the building, with comments. I've removed some pics that doubled up, were of poor quality, or didn't substantially contribute to the unique aspects of this particular place. I've probably dropped someones's favourite in the meantime. Can't please everyone! There was lots of external atmospherics and not enough architectural detail for an encyclopedic article. That's been fixed.

--Amandajm 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height to width ratio 5:1.

These measurement of ratio is certainly wrong. For the width of the central aisle of the quire (as well as of the nave and the transepts) is ca. 15m (from axis to axis of pillar) the ratio is nearly 3:1. Swaan's book at all is not reliable as far as details of measurements are concerned. There is a groundplan available edited by the Cathedral's own publisher precise measurements can be taken from. (https://ssl.webpack.de/dombau-koeln.de/index.php?id=16&ssl=1). See also for reliable information in general: Wolff, Arnold: Cologne Cathedral. Its History - Its Works of Arts. Cologne 2003.Monsventosus 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ratio

I did some checking of figures and came up with 3.6:1 measured clear, ie between the columns. Thank you for pointing out this error. --Amandajm 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceasing of mideaval works

More recent researches made it obvious that the works ceased rather in the 1520s. The suggestion that works had stopped in 1560 were a missinterpretation of a historic source. See in this case the profund essay in : Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln (Ed): Ad Summum 1248. Der gotische Dom im Mittelalter. Köln 1998 Monsventosus 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Swaan, the work continued intermittently during the 1500s, and finished completely in 1560. I don't read German. Could you please translate the relevant passage from the book you have cited that says at what date the work stopped entirely. --Amandajm 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon - no, I could not. I don't think that an encyclopedic article is the appropriate place for extensive quotations. Monsventosus 07:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to translate the entire essay, just the relevant bit. You could put the translation onto this page. That is the sort of thing that this page is for. --Amandajm 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

I have added a new title. It is only a visitors' guide, but it contains nearly all important informations concerning history, architecture and art. The author is the former cathedral's architect in chief (Dombaumeister) an so the informations are reliable as can be.

[edit] Skyscraper box..

I've noticed that this cathedral is in the list of world's tallest buildings. The wiki provides a useful "skyscraper" infobox so that users can quickly scroll up or down to see which building preceded a skyscraper as tallest and/or which building surpassed it. One can scroll through, all the way down to the Giza pyramid, but when you hit this page the skyscaper infobox is not there, and you hit a wall. Should this be added along with the world heritage box?

[edit] Tallest Building box

There was a skyscraper box.

Two boxes, one under the other take up an awful lot of room. It's really a matter of what you consider significant. Cologne Cathedral was, for a few short years, the tallest building and is still the second tallest church.

The skyscraper box gives a pretty odd and really specific definition. It isn't about the tallest building. It's about the tallest inhabitable building, and it's supposed to be inhabitable right up to the top floor, which is hardly the case with an openwork spire,, although there is probably a ladder the whole way to the top.

If you put in the box, it will totally stuff up the formatting. We will have to remove every picture from down that side, the view of it in the 19th century with the ancient crane, the interior, the oldest large crucifix in the world, etc etc, just in order to show a box that says that for about ten years 120 years ago it was the tallest building in the world.

Personally I get sick of the "record" stuff. It is the unmeasurably beauty of the building, the spires against the sky, the view across the river, the glory of its interior, the wealth of sculpture and glass and all those other things that make the building worthwhile. These are the things that have put it on the UNESCO World Heritage list, not the fact that it once held a fairly abiitraryy record and no longer does.

I'm asking you please not to overestimate the importance of that one single fact about the building to the extent that it crowds out every other concern. I see its World Heritage staus as being of far greater importance.

Why not add the other box to this page instead?

--Amandajm 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another suggestion

add the skyscraper box at the bottom, immediately beneath the box which links to wikimedia commons. That way it will run down the sides of all the references etc.

There will probably be room for a picture, so the "sunset picture" which is already down there with the references could go at the top of the box.

--Amandajm 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Box

Well, I added the skyscraper box and it looks fairly good as it gives information about the height record that Cologne Cathedral reached in some point of its history. Would someone please check it out in order to review it and possibly fix it if there's something wrong? I used the image of the cathedral at sunset as Amandajm suggested and added the original caption below it but I don't know if the caption itself screws a bit the appearance of the skyscraper box. Is it necessary or should it be moved to the image page? Another thing, which is the specific use of the command "emporis_id", present in the skyscraper box formatting?

I think the Cologne is a beautiful place and I hope you will visit this place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.57.220 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Mannschaftskapitän 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the caption, which was already in the article anyway, and I think it looks great! It's such a stunning photo and it demonstrates the height well, without showing any details which are all shown elsewhere. I'm glad we were able to fit in that box as well.--Amandajm 07:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It was a great idea from yours and we finally completed the circuit of the tallest bulidings along history of the world. Mannschaftskapitän 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Heritage Box

I have just removed the information that said that it was the tallest building in the world between certain dates

Reasons

1. that inforamtion is contained in the box below
2. the information in the box is qualified by this description

"Fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top; see world's tallest buildings and structures for other listings."

1. In the leading paragraph to this article, a different set of dates are given because this church was also the world's tallest structure, bbefore the Washington Monument and the Eiffel Tower. If you have two sets of dates and facts side by side, it looks ridiculous, because in the case of the set of facts in the UNESCO box, they are "unqualified".

--Amandajm 08:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up Still Required

Some of the language is still a little "unencyclopedic", eg "...eventually became a unified whole of architectural distinction and overwhelmingly majestic presence" --ukexpat 13:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"a unified whole of architectural distinction" is hardly unencyclopedic. "Overwhelmingly majestic" has given way to a quotation from the UNESCO World Heritage website. --Amandajm 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And we need to make it Cathedral or cathedral for consistency's sake. - Dudesleeper | Talk 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cologne Cathedral" takes capitals, "the cathedral" takes lowercase. That's the convention. Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)