Talk:Cologne Cathedral

Relevance of nearby attacks

On 31 December 2015, the Cologne Cathedral was near the site of mass sex attacks during New Year's Eve celebrations.[13]

How is this relevant for the Cathedral's 21st century history? --Pgallert (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

query the revolving door in the west front (1965)

when was it added, why, and when was it removed? thank you.70.31.166.50 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, please see Talk:Surroundings_of_the_Cologne_Cathedral#Translation_comments_and_merge_proposal. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Original Builder Saint?

Curious why no mention here of Saint Reinhold, they original builder?188.172.110.213 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Superlative statement in the lead is unsourced

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)

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.

Amandajm (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Does the section above called "Height to width ratio 5:1." help? Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

The possible contenders here are Beauvais Cathedral. Amiens Cathedral and Cologne Cathedral. If you check the measurements and do the maths, then you will know. Amandajm (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)