Talk:Lincoln Cathedral
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
Lincoln Cathedral is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
An event mentioned in this article is a May 9 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
Where is this Lincoln? I'm guessing it's not Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, but that's the only Lincoln I know of. Wesley
Probably Lincoln, in Lincolnshire, in England. -- Tarquin
Yes, it is Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England jp347
Well, how many genuine Medieval Cathedrals are there in America? How many 'Lincoln's in Europe?....duh....you REALLY need to go sit on the toilet for an hour and read an atlas Wesley.....
Addendum by Mark Rejhon: In case someone tries to edit the 1549 date back to 1548, I should mention... There is some confusion about the date of the 525-foot spire collapse are 1548 to 1549 from several sources, but the official church website indicates 1549, so I am using that date.
Contents |
[edit] Complaint about picture
The picture chosen is not illustrative of this building (to say the least). It shows nothing that's unique about this building but rather something one may see in a thousand church or other similar buildings around the world.It would be a suitable photo for an article about furniture or church decor, but does not help anyone seeking info about this building. Pi lambda 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
yeah, well youve replaced "non free images" with "free ones". whats more important... something thats under a non commercial creative commons license and of good quality or dross thats under a gnu license? is wikipedia out to create quality stuff or simply crusade about open source? particularly like the picture of the wooden seats - could be anywhere. --Gothicform 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I can go out and snap one and stick it under a decent license, it's just down the road, tell me what face you want ;) --Streaky 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spire collapsed "thanks to weather"?
From the article:
- "There was a lead-encased wooden spire that rose 160 m (525 feet), that collapsed in 1549 thanks to weather"
I tried replacing "thanks" with something else, but since I don't know the exact circumstances (storm, lightning, tornado?), I wondered if somebody else could do that? Thanks :-) Peter S. 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
the spire collapsed in a storm. --Gothicform 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Highest point at the same height was the ural?
From the article:
- "Up to that point in time, the next point on the earth's surface at the same height, looking eastwards, was the Ural Mountains in Russia."
From the article about Mont Blanc
- "Its height is about 4,810 metres"
So, unless the the City of Lincoln is located 4650 meters AMSL, I don't really believe this point. I'm removing it, add it back with some explanations if it's really true. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
lincoln cathedral is approximately 140 metres AOD. most of the city of lincoln is barely above sea level, so its wrong. --Gothicform 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mont Blanc is not due east of Lincoln. The intention appears to be to say that there was nothing higher than Lincoln Cathedral in an easterly direction until the Urals. Sbz5809 13:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Although Lincoln is in the middle of Lincolnshire which is mainly flat, the city is on a steep hill with the Cathedral near the top. Nowhere near 4000 odd metres mind!
[edit] Uploading Images
I have Internal photos and no idea of how to post them! (Streethawk, Grimsby (Lincolnshire!) 19/11/05)
- Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. John 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tallest Church in UK
Wikipedia pegs both this structure and the Salisbury Cathedral as the tallest churches in the UK. I recently visited the Salisbury Cathedral and it still makes the claim. Does anyone in actual fact know which is the taller?
Dave
Lincoln is way down the list of tallest UK churches. Salisbury (123m), St Paul's (111m), Liverpool (101m), Norwich (96m) and several others are all taller than Lincoln's 83m.
On a slightly different note, I see this article makes the claim "The central tower rises to 83 m (271 feet) and remains the tallest cathedral tower in Europe today without a spire." This is not true either -- St Paul's and Liverpool Cathedrals do not have spires, and quite possibly several others in England and other countries. I haven't checked too extensively.
Ben Willetts
As far a I recall Lincoln Cathedral was the tallest Cathedral in Europe when it had a spire. Even at this height now that would not be true but back then it was 83.100.154.111 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
ben... st pauls has a lantern at the top of the dome and besides it doesnt have a cathedral tower. :) it has a dome. there is only one in the uk thats taller and that is liverpool anglican cathedral. furthermore i believe the only other cathedral tower taller in the world is the american national cathedral in washington d.c
[edit] "Tallest building in the world" claim
I'm extremely sceptical about the claimed height of 160m (before the spire collapse). Is there some hard evidence for that figure, or was it someone's wild guess? — Opie 05:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
why are you sceptical? the smaller malmsebury abbey was 130 metres tall, salisbury was 123. st pauls cathedral was only slightly shorter. york minster had a wooden spire that made it over 100 metres tall too, infact the shorter towers were over 100m tall at lincoln cathedral. its perfectly easy to take a church and double the height from roof to tip by simply adding a spire as chichester or salisbury show today. its much harder to get it standing up as malmesbury shows. everywhere says so except for one victorian author ranging from the cathedrals own records to the guiness book. --unsigned comment by 86.6.160.50
- Why I'm sceptical:
- The spire (above the main tower) would have to be about 40% taller than the one at Salisbury, on a base that is only slightly wider.
- The official cathedral site will only commit to saying that Lincoln Cathedral was the "tallest building in Europe," not the tallest in the world, which it would have been if it were 160m/525ft high (surpassing the Giza pyramid).
- Kendrick's book is the only source I was able to find that mentioned the reliability of the 525-ft figure; he called it "doubtful"
- I'm not saying a 525-ft height is impossible. But since the spire fell down centuries ago and its height can't be directly verified today, it would be nice to know the source of the original measurement/estimate, so that we might know how reliable it is. If you say the height is documented in the cathedral's own records, or is accepted by the Guinness book (I don't remember it being there) then please add the appropriate reference to the article, if you would be so kind.
- --Opie 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's documented records, I'm pretty sure it is, I'll have ago at badgering a tour guide or something next time i'm in the area - it could certainly be one of the highest tops of any being on top of a pretty high hill when you think about it from that perspective, there aint many, if any, that are built on top of hills --Streaky 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
it IS in the guiness book of world records. you will also find the list of the worlds tallest ever buildings replicated everywhere, for example on skyscraperpage or emporis, skyscrapernews.com has what is i believe the fullest list of britains big churches including ones that dont exist anymore, what happened to lincoln was not uncommon as york minster experienced. the extreme height would explain why it doesnt exist anymore, plenty of extremely tall buildings collapsed because of that! just to emphasise further - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=138268 "Old St. Paul's Cathedral became the world's tallest building in 1549, when the 160m (525ft) wooden central spire of Lincoln Cathedral fell down. This lasted until the 4th June 1561, when St. Paul's spire was itself felled by lightning and the title passed to Notre-Dame de Strasbourg in Strasbourg." given the tallest buildings in the world were all in europe it WAS the tallest in the world. notre-dame de rouen has a spire of similar dimensions to that of lincoln still standing by the way.
Just to add further to this discussion, the supports for the spire still exist in the tower today and you can see them on the tour of the central tower. They indicate from their dimensions and the weight they can carry that the spire was indeed around 160m tall. --Gothicform 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have very serious doubts too that the Lincoln Cathedral was over 160metres high. That would make that the spire-construction itself should have been about 77metres high on a floorplan of about 15 by 15 metres. To add to the story, the suggested spire-construction was standing for almost 250years(!). I cant take those claims serious unless someone with an engineering and construction background shows me how it could have been done in 1311 and maintained. No matter what the old documents until 1549 say, this matter needs in my POV serious recalculations nowadays to proof it, before it can enter the wikipedia as a solid fact. 06:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)sonty567 (architecture student for 5years) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.104.161 (talk)
Addon to my above comment : it seems the roofplan of the centraltower is nowadays roughly about 70metres above ground. This would make the suggested wooden spire on that central tower even more doubtfull because that would result in an approximate 90metres high wooden spire on the central towers rooffloorplan of roughly about 15 by 15metres. 83.83.104.161 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)sonty567
[edit] Too many pictures?
The page feels a little image heavy and really falls apart round about "Modern controversies" - I'd suggest either remove 4 or 5 photos or tag an image gallery onto the end and move all but two pictures into it. (Emperor 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
Soneone should put a picture of the Linclon Imp in instead of the view form the tower which is sort of out of place ... I think there's one on the Lincoln Imp page. (24.218.139.94 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Edit
I have tried to edit and clean up the article as best as possible. I have done the following:
- Reorganised the categories and changed the modern contrv. section to a trivia section, as well as reducing the number of overall sections to address a comment in the discussion. I have also edited the information in those sections.
- Added lots of information to the history section, rewrote it and reorganised it in a more chronological and coherent section - including more detail on St Hugh of Avalon and Eleanor of Castille
- Removed some information on the imp (because it has its own article).
- Created a photos page as suggested above, and moved most of the photos from the article to the photo page.
LordHarris 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Floor plan
Isn't there also an attached library and chapter house? The floorplan doesn't have them. (24.218.139.94 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Reformation?
The History section unfortunately ends before the Reformation. Was there much change or destruction in the cathedral during that time? -- 85.179.175.225 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture of tower please
Given that this was the tallest building in the world when it had its tower, the article could do with a picture of that tower. Beorhtric 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
