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 articles
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 articles
just stumbled upon this by coincidence. Defenitely NOT! St Gereon is a decagon and not an oval. And the 'dome' is a centralized rib vault. With a bit of generosity one could call it an umbrella dome, but even that is slightly far feched due to the decagonal plan...This being said: of course you can find the description "dome" all over the web - but then, not everything you can find online is true. However, there are oval domes in the middle ages, maybe even earlier. Random example: transept of the abbey church in Solignac. But "oval dome" seems to me rather descriptive than a real distinct dome type (I mean there is no category for "flat dome" or "steep dome". not even for "round dome".
I did not write the above comment, but the technical definitions for "dome" that I have found leave a lot to be desired. Only the most vague, "centralized vault" definitions cover everything conventionally identified as a dome and, as a result, I have taken an agnostic attitude in the article by accepting as a dome anything that a reliable academic source has labeled as one. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I merged saucer dome and incorporated more pics, but this article needs sections on history and construction techniques. Now it is much better --Tysto01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I think cupola is not an exact synonym, but represents a subset of architectural domes, sometimes meaning a small or ornamental dome. It's still a good candidate for merging, especially since both articles are currently headed by a photo of the same dome! —MichaelZ. 2006-08-10 17:27 Z
I'm thinking the same. At least the difference between a dome and a cupola should be specified better in the article. German Wikipedia has Kuppel and both "Dome" and "Cupola" link to it. --Hartz (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I have seen it used that way, as another word for the "intrados" or inner side of a dome. It is also used to refer to a small domed lantern. One of the frustrating aspects of this topic is the lack of a single standardized terminology across all of the sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I recall from my studies that the Duomo of the Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence is considered the first engineered dome, and was the world's largest for a long time. Don't know if I have that completely correct, but it bears mentioning. I'd like to see photos of the significant Hagia Sophia and the Duomo in this article. —MichaelZ. 2006-08-10 17:34 Z
Then the definition of "engineered" in this sense would mean "aided by mathematics" or "aided by technology"? In what sense then were previous domes "not engineered"? --Wetman18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe it was designed using mathematical or statics formulas to predict the loads and design the required structure, rather than using empirically-determined or traditional rules of thumb, or trial-and-error. This is from an old architectural history class, and I don't remember the exact details. It seemed significant, but I didn't want to add it to the article as mere hearsay. —MichaelZ. 2006-08-10 21:03 Z
Doesn't the dome of the rock predate all of these by over a thousand years? it was constructed in 691 and is the oldest islamic structure in existence, however the article states: "Domes that have been disproportionately influential in later architecture are those of the Great Stupa in Sanchi (actually, a solid mound with stone facing), the Pantheon in Rome, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (or in that time Constantinople), and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem" while stating that the original domes were constructed much later?
Either this needs to be clarified or something doesn't add up. I could be wrong but it appears there has been more Islamic influence in subsequent architectural styles in Europe and the Mediterranean than is being recognized if in fact credit for the original creation of the dome is being given to individuals like Vignola from the 1500's. ~
Vignola is being given credit not for the invention of the dome but for the invention of the OVAL dome. But you're right that this article is weirdly short on history--it says next to nothing about the historic context of the invention of the dome, or the adoption of coffering, or the use of steel or other materials, or the invention of the geodesic dome, or the use of computers in dome design. (Both the Pantheon and the Hagia Sofia predate Islam, by the way.) 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section recently added needs to be tweaked to make it more encyclopedic. Can any of this be rephrased as a report of what has been said in print? --Wetman (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article could really use a section on pre-Roman/non-European examples of domes in structures. The intro briefly mentions their use in the ancient Middle East without giving any examples. Certainly, the Treasury of Atreus should be mentioned, as well as more recent Native American dwellings like the Wigwam and Igloo.
Also, a pet peeve: I hate when topics of prehistory are written as if we have complete knowledge of the past. I changed the wording in the intro which states Nero's Golden House is the earliest domestic dome even though the same intro acknowledges domes extend back into prehistory. It is extremely likely that primitive peoples used domed dwellings well before Nero (see Wigwam above). AmateurEditor (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was an instance in the article (that I changed) where Hagia Sophia and Hagia Irene were translated as Divine Wisdom and Divine Peace. I've only ever heard of the Greek word hagia meaning "holy/sacred" when preceding an inanimate object or abstract concept, and the title "Saint" when referring to canonized individuals. "Divine" doesn't really mean the same thing, and it's definitely not the typical translation. 107.3.44.127 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I want to change the references system currently used in the article to one used on some featured level articles (such as this one and this one). It makes recording and later finding page numbers easier and separates notes, citations, and bibliography in a neat way. I am aware that Wikipedia discourages making this kind of change when a reference system has already been established for an article, but I think the advantages for others to check references in any upcoming class evaluation alone justifies it. I just want to be sure that there are no objections to me doing this when I can. It will will take a while to complete. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Un-cited use of this article's lede in an academic paper
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I agree. There is no "infinite" stress in a structure. Period.
Also, the stress at a point load can of course be very high, and reach the point where the dome fails locally by punching shear, just like concrete slabs (or any member akin to a surface subjected to out-of-plane loading for that matter), but that has nothing to do with being "parabolic" or spherical etc. it has to do with the curvature/thickness ratio.
Also, I am surprised of the claim of parabolic domes in ancient structures, because it is very hard to distinguish between parabolic and catenary in ancient structures, given that the difference between the two is often less than the tolerance of masonry dimensions.
Some references, based on accurate measurements, would be very interesting to support this point, if they exist.
Thanks.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have removed the claim that the "optimal shape" of a dome is a catenoid of revolution. For a solid dome, it may not be super important, practically, to optimize the shape as it is for an arch, because the horizontal circular cross sections lend stability, meaning that the vertical stresses don't have to independently balance the gravitational force. However, it is possible to calculate the shape a thin dome would need to have if there were no azimuthal compressive strength, only compressive strength in the vertical plane, (or if the dome were interrupted, with symmetrical cutouts with edges along radial lines), and the result of that calculation is a cross-section with a shape of the form of y = erfi(x) - erf(x) [some constants omitted]. erf is the error function, and erfi is the imaginary error function. This is NOT a catenary, whose shape is of the form y = cosh(x). I have not found a published source for this calculation, making it inadmissible OR, but best to remove incorrect claims about catenoids anyway.Rracecarr (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for stepping up on that and for not inserting your own conclusions. I hope you keep looking for a usable source. Maybe the better term here is "funicular", rather then "catenoid"? AmateurEditor (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This is an (externally) gadrooned dome - it's bumpy
The section on Dome#Umbrella_dome, which seems to have been there for years, seems to conflate at least two types of ribbed or segmented domes. St Peter's and Hagia Sophia do not have gadrooned domes. The explanation is unclear - what does the italicised bit mean: "these are a type of dome divided at the base into curved segments, which follow the curve of the elevation."? Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
It does, doesn't it? I think the sources do as well, so we should find better ones and that should definitely be made more clear. I believe the italicised bit is an awkward way to try to distinguish vertical segments from horizontal ones. That is, to distinguish the curves of an umbrella dome from those of the dome equivalent to something like the Trefoil arch. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
1) "misleading suggestion that domes are all circular or semicircular" - Disagree. The language "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" does not mean "identical to the hollow upper half of a sphere". The further language mentioning a "wide variety of forms" addresses this issue. Strictly speaking, domes may be other shapes than "circular, elliptical, or polygonal", but what united them as a group is their similarity to the archetypal "upper half of a sphere" shape. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: Sorry, I disagree fundamentally. A domed building. At right is an image of a dome which bears absolutely no resemblance to an "upper half of a sphere". Or any other half of sphere. A dome is a vault with radial symmetry. GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GPinkerton: Your example might be domed on the interior, according to this section, or might not, according to this one. The UNESCO page does not use the word "dome" as all. "Vault with radial symmetry" is very broad and is not mentioned in your source, which has a separate entry for "cone" that does not mention it being a type of dome. Should a flat iron disk and a vault shaped like an inflexed arch be labeled domes? Some sources might. Some sources would accept a cone as a dome, and others would not. We are probably at an impasse here because definitions of the term "dome" in reliable sources contradict each other. Very few sources bother to address, let alone try to resolve, the different definitions used between sources, so the article resorts to a source that does (the second one listed below), which seems reasonable to me. I looked for more sources and found the following excerpts in which you can see the contradictions for yourself (bold added); the first two sources are those referenced in the body of the wikipedia article, in the "Terminology" section): AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
How could a flat iron disc be considered any kind of vault? A vault is defined as an "arch the depth of which exceeds the span". And yes, surely one can have an inflexed arch dome. GPinkerton (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Replya series of tent domesan inflexed arch dome
Good point about vault definition, although it raises the question of how a circular-base dome can be a vault at all when the depth will equal the span. I have not heard of "tent dome" as a term that isn't referring to roughly hemispherical domed camping tents. Do you have a source that it is an actual term, since the image you posted doesn't use it and the term seems instead to be tented roof, where that image is used. The bottom line is: The Oxford source counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia but is demonstrably not a consensus definition and should not be used as one here, although it must be included in the article. Ideally we could expand on how the definition of "dome" has changed over time and varies today. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It should be obvious that vaults include width≥span, rather than merely width>span. Page 95 of Arthur Upham Pope's Persian Architecture uses "ovoid domes", "polyhedral domes", and "tent domes" to describe the 50-odd surviving tomb towers of a 700-year span of Iranian history. I disagree with the idea it is "demonstrably not a consensus definition", since it either agrees with, or widens the definitions used by the various less recent non-dictionary sources quoted. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
We must use sources literally and using width≥span wasn't included in the Oxford dictionary definition of vault, regardless of how obvious it was. But that is beside the point: no one and no source is perfect. Mistakes are sprinkled throughout everything. Just because a source seems to confidently assert a consensus definition doesn't mean that it is one. A definition of a term is not consensus - by definition of the word "consensus" - if it "agrees with, or widens the definitions used". At best, widening the definition could be an attempt to establish a consensus. I agree that it is a wider definition than many of the others found. In the end, I believe we will have to elaborate on the problems in defining the term "dome", which have been ongoing for a very long time, in the body of the article and then summarize that in the lede. I don't have exact language in mind yet and it may require more research. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Rounded vault covering an interior space. A very small dome roof, for example a lantern mounted on the eye of a dome proper (e.g. St Paul's Cathedral, London), is known as a cupola. In Italian cupola is used for a monumental dome. [...] A dome can either be composed of curved segments or be a shell of revolution. The dome at Florence Cathedral by Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) is segmental, octangular at every section. A shell of revolution is generated by rotating an arch about a vertical central axis. To produce a hemispherical surface the arch will be semicircular, but and shape of arch, similarly rotated, will give rise to a shell of revolution; and every horizontal cross-section is still circular. The simplest form of dome is that of such a shell of revolution: for example, the inner masonry dome of St Paul's Cathedral is roughly hemispherical, and has an open eye, while the main dome is conical; but both are shells of revolution, as is the surface of the timber outer dome. A dome can have either a single or a double shell." Colum Hourihane, "The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture, Volume 2", page 301.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This fits the perfectly the definition of vault with radial symmetry and refutes the idea that "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" is a suitable description for a dome. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this source is consistent with the Oxford dictionary definition and the inclusion of cones contradicts the "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" description, unless you really stretch your imagination, but that description is based on the other source used in the body of the article, which explicitly tries to find the common thread between various definitions of the term. But where are you getting "radial symmetry" from as part of a definition? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would argue that since you're arguing for an unsourced synthesis of multiple definitions of differing narrowness, I would argue "vault with radial symmetry" is better and more accurate than "like (but often completely unlike) a hemisphere". GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not arguing for an unsourced synthesis at all (see where I said "that description is based on the other source used"?), but your "vault with radial symmetry" phrase does appear to be unsourced synthesis on your part. I've asked you for a source for that and you haven't provided one. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Domes have been the subject of controversy for more than a century. The origins of dome construction and the ways in which it was applied have both been heatedly debated In the light of this, two questions arise. Have some scholars made too much of these matters, thereby creating unnecessary problems and a false controversy? And was there really any 'problem' as regards the dome and the square bay? The underlying issue, however, is that of terminology. Respected scholars have plunged into the debate, only to confuse the situation further by the omission of an adequate definition of terms. Where definitions are given, they are either inconsistent through the text, or do not correspond to those in general use. This leads to confusion, misunderstanding and 'problems with domes'. One thing that most scholars agree upon is that the dome is a kind of vault. R. J. Mainstone defines a dome as "A spanning space-enclosing structural element circular in plan and commonly hemispherical or nearly so in total form". R. Krautheimer defines it as "a hemispherical vault" and the Penguin Dictionary of Architecture gives the following definition "A vault of even curvature erected on a circular base. The section can be segmental, semicircular, pointed or bulbous". Thus it emerges that the term 'dome' is non-specific, a blanket-word to describe an hemispherical or similar spanning element. When such a vault is placed on a circular wall, as in the Pantheon in Rome, the 'Temple of Mercury' at Bala or the Tor de'Schiavi on the Via Praenestina, there is little disagreement or variation in the term applied to the roofing element; it is a dome. Problems start to occur in recent critical literature when such an element is placed over an octagonal, polygonal or square bay." Hazel Dodge, "Building materials and techniques in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Hellenistic period to the fourth century AD", Thesis submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, pages 265-266.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This fits the perfectly the definition of vault with radial symmetry and refutes the idea that "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" is a suitable description for a dome, as Hazel has rightly pointed out. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, the source very clearly states that the emergent definition of "dome" from the various definitions cited is "a blanket-word to describe an hemispherical or similar spanning element". This is very close to the phrasing used in the Wikipedia article, "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere", so it does not fit well with a definition that includes geometric cones and flat-sided pyramids and inflexed arch shells of revolution. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, the PhD thesis, about domes in the ancient eastern Mediterranean world exclusively, specifically divides domes into "hemispherical spanning elements" and "similar spanning elements", i.e., those which are not like hemispheres. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The excerpt posted above is about domes generally, not specifically in a narrower time period or geographic area ("Domes have been the subject of controversy for more than a century."). It quotes the definition found in the Penguin dictionary of Architecture, which is clearly a general definition not limited to the ancient eastern Mediterranean world. I think the only reasonable reading of "hemispherical or similar spanning element" is hemispherical spanning elements and spanning elements that are similar-to-but-not-identical-to hemispheres. This was paraphrased in the lede as "an architectural element similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere". I don't think there's a big enough difference between the two to argue about. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Architecturally, the dome may be seen not only as a structure but also as shelter, spatial enclosure, silhouette, or symbolic form with divers connotations stemming from past uses. To review all these aspects of its history would be impossible in a brief survey. [...] Structurally, I take the term dome to denote, as it normally does, a doubly curved form supported from below and acting primarily in arching compression as it spans the space it encloses.", Roland Mainstone, "Domes: A Structural Overview", in "Domes 2000: Papers from the Annual Symposium of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain", page 1.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
What is impossible in Mainstone's brief survey need not restrict our definition on Wikipedia; it would be bizarre to confine the scope to what Mainstone needed to do in this singular paper. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think you misread the excerpt regarding "impossible". Mainstone is not saying that domes outside of his definition are impossible to address in his small paper. He was saying that domes are not just structures but shapes, etc., and he is only going to discuss structure. For example, London's Millennium Dome is a dome in shape and not in structure. He then gives a structural definition of the term dome which includes shape, stating that it is "normally" a "doubly curved form", which a cone is not. You could say that the word "normally" means he leaves room for inclusion of cones as domes, but you could also say that he only includes "doubly curved" forms in his structural definition and according to him most definitions by others do so as well. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I did not misread it. Mainstone is a specialist in Roman architecture and "doubly curved" is applicable to many of them and to the subject of his paper, which does not attempt to define domes per se. It would be quite absurd to exclude, or use any conference paper that doesn't not attempt to define domes at large to supply a definition of domes that excludes the Millennium Dome, which, as you rightly say, is a dome. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mainstone is a specialist in architecture and engineering. His paper does relate to domes per se, not just to domes in Roman architecture. His article covers domes from the earliest known prehistoric examples through the year 2000 AD. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"With iron, which lends itself to a wide variety of structural gymnastics, it is particularly important to define what is meant by the word 'dome'. The dome as considered here is in its purest form, that is with a regular figure, circular, elliptical or multi-faceted in plan, and a symmetrical profile (generally curved). Domed ends to barrel-shaped roofs or complex domes cut into by other roofs are excluded and so, for brevity, are structures never actually built.", James Sutherland, "19th-Century Iron and Glass Domes", in "Domes 2000: Papers from the Annual Symposium of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain", page 111.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Again, the concerns of brevity for a conference paper need not determine how Wikipedia's encylopaedic definition is formulated. Indeed, Sutherland here specifically refers to types of dome that are neither curved, nor complete, nor simple. Wikipedia need have no such constraints. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think you misread the excerpt regarding "brevity" and it only applies to "structures never actually built" being excluded for that reason, but I agree that a straight reading of his definition would include cones as domes (although the actual paper did not mention any). AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I did not misread. "Domed ends to barrel-shaped roofs or complex domes cut into by other roofs are excluded and so, for brevity, are structures never actually built" means the following categories are excluded "for brevity": 1.) structures never actually built and 2.) "Domed ends to barrel-shaped roofs or complex domes cut into by other roofs". In any case the paper, as the author points out, considers iron domes and not domes per se. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, the position of "for brevity" in "and so, for brevity, are structures never actually built" means it refers to the word "so", meaning "also", meaning it refers to just the structures never actually built. The others are excluded not for brevity but because they do not meet the "purest form" dome definition. You are right that the paper considers iron domes, but these sentences I excerpted are not limited to iron domes and are about the dome form in general. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"In the mind of an engineer a dome is structure with a very distinct behavior. It is a synclastically-curved, three dimensional surface, primarily stressed in compression under its own weight and applied loading, and made of a material resistant to such forces (usually masonry or some form of concrete). Circumferential tension forces that may occur at the base of a dome are usually resisted by a tension ring. However, a dictionary definition of the word dome may be less precise. For instance, in a typical concise dictionary a dome is defined as: -
'dome, n., & v.t.l. Stately building, mansion, (poet.); rounded vault as roof, with circular, elliptical or polygonal base, large cupola; natural vault, canopy, (of sky, trees, etc.); rounded summit of hill etc,; hence domed, domic(al), dome-like, domy. 2. v.t. Cover with, shape as, dome. [F. f. It. duomo cathedral, dome, (& direct) f. L domus house]'
In the past the stately building often had a masonry dome whereas, due to the rapid expansion in structural systems that have become available in the 20th century, this is now less likely to be the case. This has led to many modern large-span structures being described as domes when their primary load-bearing system does not exactly accord with the engineering definition. Some actually work almost entirely in tension, although they still may be more or less dome-shaped (for example the Millenium Dome in Greenwich). This paper, therefore, addresses the conflict that now exists between the precise engineering and more general dictionary definitions of the term dome by reviewing the development of various types of lightweight and tensile domes during the 20th century.", John Chilton, "When is a dome not a dome? - 20th-century lightweight and tensile domes", in "Domes 2000: Papers from the Annual Symposium of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain", page 131.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Another source that in no way conflicts with the "vault with radial symmetry" definition and again demonstrates that domes are a much broader category than suggested by the inadequate phrase "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere", GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The "synclastically-curved" part of this definition would exclude cones as domes. About the adequacy of "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere", would you be satisfied with "normally similar to a hemisphere" instead? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The "synclastically-curved" part of this definition is explicitly applicable "In the mind of an engineer" alone. The OED definition quoted here gives absolutely no preference to hemispherical domes being "normal" over the elliptical or polygonal bases it mentions, so there is no justification for alleging that plan is dome is more "normal" than any other. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
We aren't talking about "hemispherical", we're talking about "similar" to a hemisphere. Yes, the definition is an engineering definition, but it is compatible with the "similar" to a hemisphere idea for domes and incompatible with cones as domes. The dictionary definition cited also says that domes are "rounded roofs" on what may not be a rounded plan, such as a polygon. This means that the word "rounded" refers to the vertical section, rather than the horizontal. So that dictionary's definition would also exclude cones but would include other shapes "similar" in various degrees to a hemisphere. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"A vaulted structure having a circular or polygonal plan and usually the form of a portion of a sphere, so constructed so as to exert an equal thrust in all directions.", Francis D. K. Ching, Mark Jarzombek, Vikramaditya Prakash, "A Global History of Architecture", page 761.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yet another source that shows the words "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" is quite wrong. A sphere can be polygonal in neither upper or lower halves. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Clearly this source believes that a dome can have both a "polygonal plan" and have a "form of a portion of a sphere", so I would say that this source supports use of the words "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere". The word "similar" is key and reasonable people can disagree about what amount of deviation can still be called "similar". I would say a disco ball could reasonably be called a sphere or similar to a sphere. More relevantly, geodesic domes can be similar to hemispheres but made entirely of flat or straight elements, and so polygonal in section and plan. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I argue that "polygonal plan" is exclusive of hemispherical domes and man polygonal domes are nothing whatever like spheres or hemispheres. See picture at right, a polygonal dome that looks nothing like a hemisphere, hollow or otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)ReplyA polygonal dome nothing like hemisphere, upper or lower.
Again, we aren't talking about "hemispherical", we are talking about "similar" to a hemisphere. An octagonal cloister vault with a semicircular vertical section is similar to a hemisphere. Even a dome on a polygonal base with a pointed-curve vertical section, like that of Florence Cathedral, is similar to a hemisphere (but not as similar, obviously). The picture you posted shows a pyramidal roof. I agree it does not look similar to a hemisphere. It would not be called a dome under many of the definitions posted here. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"A domical vault is not a true dome. A dome is a vault with a segmental, semicircular, bulbous, or pointed section rising from a circular base.", James Stevens Curl, "Classical Architecture: An Introduction to Its Vocabulary and Essentials, with a Select Glossary of Terms", page 220.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Curl's definition is the one I propose to use. Domical vaults are another thing again and should not be confused with domes, which are vaults with radial symmetry. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This definition actually conflicts with the one you proposed from the Oxford dictionary. Notice that Curl did not mention polygonal plans in this definition (which was included in the Oxford dictionary definition below). I don't think we should try to pick one definition when reliable sources use different definitions. We should acknowledge that the differences exist and write about them in the best we can within Wikipedia's policies, being careful not to engage in our own synthesis. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This definition does not attempt to define domes per se. It relates exclusively to domes in classical architecture, which narrows the field to basically hemispherical domes on aesthetic reasons. But the concept of dome is far from limited to classical architecture and should not be represented otherwise on Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The source is about classical architecture, but the sentences excerpted are about domes in general. And classical architecture also includes some very famous non-hemispherical domes, such as Nero's Domus Aurea (which is only similar to a hemisphere), so that limitation wouldn't really avoid the issue. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"*Cupola, essentially a species of *vault, constructed on a circular, elliptical, or polygonal *plan, bulbous, segmental, semicircular, or pointed in vertical *section.", James Stevens Curl and Susan Wilson, "The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture", page 236.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Curl's definition is the one I propose to use, being the one which actually written in a dictionary whose function is to define architectural terms and is also more recent than nearly all the sources quoted here. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is the one from the Oxford dictionary but it is not the only one here from a dictionary of architectural terms. Although also by Curl (and Susan Wilson), it differs significantly from his other definition above by also including elliptical and polygonal plans. The other Curl definition was limited to vaults "rising from a circular base". AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
That is because this is the entry for "cupola" not "dome". No-one is arguing cupolas can or can't have elliptical or polygonal plans; we are speaking about domes. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, this is the entry for "Dome", not "Cupola". The word "cupola" just happens to be the first word in the definition for "dome", as a synonym. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"A hemispherical vault supported by either a circular wall or, over a square space, by squinches or pendentives placed in the corners, the former transforming the square into an octagon, the latter into a circle.", Richard Krautheimer, Slobodan Ćurčić, "Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture", page 518.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This definition might be suitable for Roman building but it hardly covers the variety of domes that exist or have existed in the present day. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Of course I agree, but you can see that "dome" and "hemisphere" are so closely linked that one is said to be the other in an academic work's glossary! Although maybe it is significant that this definition excludes "inflexed arch domes" as domes, despite the dome(?) depicted at Al-Khazneh in Petra. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Again, this specialized work does not even attempt to arrive a general definition of "dome". It deals with Roman architecture, which, as we know, favoured broadly hemispherical domes on a circular base. Wikipedia need not confine itself to domes as used two millennia ago as a definition of the concept "dome". GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the source wanted to give a definition limited to the Roman era, it would have said that. And as I mentioned elsewhere, Roman domes were not just hemispheres, so even if this were a definition limited just to Roman architecture, we would still have the same issue of imperfect definitions. This excerpt comes from the glossary of the book, which includes lots of general architectural terms. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Dome: spherical-shaped vault, usually in the form of a hemisphere over a round floor plan.", Norbert Nussbaum, "German Gothic Church Architecture", page 260.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This definition might be suitable for medieval German building but it hardly covers the variety of domes that exist or have existed in the present day. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think most medieval German domes were octagonal cloister vaults, actually, but I could be wrong. There were definitely cones in the Middle Ages, though, such as the one over the Pisa Baptistery, and this dome definition would exclude them. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This definition of domes, as I have said, treats of domes in German Gothic, not in general, and this limited definition has no applications outside the narrow subject of the book: German Gothic churches. It is not proper to include it as part of general definition of "dome". GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The source is about German Gothic churches (and German domes were also not all hemispheres), but the sentence is about domes in general. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"A dome is a convex rounded roof covering the whole or a part of a building with a base on the horizontal plane which is circular, elliptical or polygonal. In vertical section the dome may be hemispherical, partly elliptical, saucer-shaped, or formed like a bulb (the so-called onion domes to be seen in eastern Europe).", Ian McNeil, "An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology", page 879. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure? This definition doesn't conflict with "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" at all, in my view. But then, I would accept an octagonal cloister vault as similar to a hemisphere. And this definition seems to conflict with the Oxford dictionary definition in excluding cones, pyramids, and inflexed arch shells of revolution. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Where does it say anything about a dome having to be hollow? Where does it say it has to be anything like a hemisphere? "Convex" and "rounded" is as far as the definition goes. Conical, tented, and polygonal domes are all included, shapes impossible to fit within the "hollow upper half of a sphere". See illustration of not-hollow dome at right. A dome which is not hollow
A solid mound is not a "roof". The use of "rounded roof" along with the inclusion of "polygonal" base means that "rounded" refers to the vertical section, so cones are not included. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Dome. Vault of even curvature on a circular base. The section can be segmental, semicircular, pointed, or bulbous.", "The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture", page 126.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree that bulbous domes are the least like "the hollow upper half of a sphere" and it stretches even my imagination a bit much to say they are similar. However, this dictionary of architecture clearly differs from the Oxford dictionary definition. Domes with elliptical bases are excluded, for example. It is actually close to Curl's other definition, ironically. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is a narrower definition than the Oxford Dictionary's, but its inclusion of pointed domes demonstrates that the idea of "like a hemisphere" is wrong. Hemispheres do not have points. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)ReplyA pointed dome on a circular base and nothing like a hemisphere.
"A vaulted structure having a circular plan and usually the form of a portion of a sphere, so constructed as to exert an equal thrust in all directions.", Francis D. K. Ching, "Visual Dictionary of Architecture", page 62.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This source states that domes are "usually" hemispheres, which is not at all in conflict with Dodge's point that common root of the disparate definitions is a "hemispherical or similar" shape, although some domes deviate more than others. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
This narrow definition does not invalidate the broader definition given in the Oxford Dictionary and is twenty years older. Dodge wrote decades ago and was therefore unable to use the Oxford definition or assess it in her postgraduate essay. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do you agree that the definition has had many variants over time and there may not be a consensus on what is and is not a dome? If so, I think we can agree to disagree about our personal preferences and try to achieve consensus on the language for the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Dome, in architecture, hemispherical structure evolved from the arch, usually forming a ceiling or roof.", The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Encyclopaedia Britannica", "Dome".AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
You don't like the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Don't we want to see what tertiary sources have to say on this? It definitely agrees with "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere". AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Britannica is often worse than useless for architecture and is very often extremely narrowly-focused, not to say bigoted, in its approach to history of the arts. Its cramped definition is much older and less authoritative than Curl's. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Definition of dome (Entry 1 of 2) 1: archaic : a stately building : MANSION 2: a large hemispherical roof or ceiling 3: a natural formation or structure that resembles the dome or cupola of a building", Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "Dome".AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC) AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think the variety of definitions in the specialized academic works and the fact, mentioned by the sources shown here, that there are varieties/problems with definitions mean that we should not be taking the Oxford dictionary of architecture's definition as gospel, especially when other dictionaries of architecture have significantly different definitions. However, I agree that the Oxford source is a good one and its definition needs to be considered. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think we should follow the most authoritative, most recent, most specialized, and most general work and use its - the broadest - definition, and not try to insert any requirement for a dome to be hemispherical, hollow, or "normal". GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we need to impose consensus where there is disagreement. I think we should include the Oxford definition in the context of the diversity of definitions and how those have changed/developed over time, as best we can without synthesis or original research. No doubt the lede needs to change, but the lede should follow/summarize the content of the body of the article, so we should start there. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
2) "misleading suggestion that the Renaissance was not centuries before the early modern period" - Disagree. The language "spread from Italy in the early modern period" does not mean that the Renaissance started in Italy in the early modern period. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: It means that Renasissance architecture spread from Italy in the early modern period. This is false. Renaissance architecture was in may parts of Europe long before the early modern period. Why single out Italy in the lead at all? Why not mention Turkey or Iran or Spain? GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GPinkerton: We are talking about domes, not Renaissance style in general ("The domes of European Renaissance architecture spread from Italy in the early modern period, ..."). See source here. Can you point to an example of an Italian Renaissance-style dome outside of Italy prior to the early modern period? Italy is mentioned in the lede but not Turkey or Iran or Spain because the lede is trying to summarize the body of the article concisely and there is a subsection about Italian Renaissance domes and another about domes in the early modern period (and this is because, despite the overlap, sources often separate the Renaissance as its own category). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: "Can you point to an example of an Italian Renaissance-style dome outside of Italy prior to the early modern period?" Why would such a structure be called an Italian Renaissance dome if not in Italy? The point is that were domes all over Europe at the time of Renaissance, and the wording obscures that fact. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The key word there was "style": "Italian Renaissance-style dome", not "Italian Renaissance dome". Domes were all over Europe at the time of the Renaissance because they were all over Europe during the Middle Ages, but the renaissance style of domes spread outside of Italy later. This is consistent with the sources I have found and the examples I am aware of. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The phrasing I would prefer would be "the Renaissance, beginning in Italy, saw a revival of hemispherical domes on ancient Roman models which became more widely employed during the Early Modern period. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: Without clicking on the link, it appears Islamic architecture is not mentioned. Islam and Islamic architecture are not the same things and should not be presented as such. GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GPinkerton: It's not an ideal sentence, but I was trying to retain what you had contributed while also mentioning the many non-Byzantine and non-Islamic medieval European domes from that subsection in the body of the article. How about "Dome structures were common in Byzantine architecture and in Persia, which each influenced the domes of neighboring states in the Middle Ages." AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: I'd really prefer if tying down to particular territories and polities (i.e. "Persia") were avoided and the important point that Islamic architecture grew from the traditions of Byzantine and Sasanian architecture should be stressed. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's not appropriate in architecture. See picture at right. GPinkerton (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply"Byzantine" dome built in western Europe by a Roman Catholic king of an Arabic-speaking, majority-Muslim polity whose territory had not been "Byzantine" for more than 300 years.
A dome that has been influenced by Byzantine architecture is not literally a Byzantine dome. And as you can see by the use of squinches, there were other influences on that dome as well. I don't think it should be included in the History of Roman and Byzantine domes article outside of the "Influence" section, if you were suggesting that. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: The point is that you have interpolated a suggestion that "Europe" and "Islam" do not overlap. This is false. Sasanian architecture does not overlap at all with the middle ages, so it is worthless to insert this bizarre statement. The centre of the Byzantine empire was Europe. There is no reason to mention Europe here at all. Why not mention the other continents? Instead, it is more sensible to mention the types of architecture, not try to arbitrarily divide them by continent. Why mention Europe and Islamic architecture as though they were somehow separate or opposed? Many of the more impressive mediaeval domes in Europe are Islamic architecture. GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GPinkerton: Lets stick to strict interpretations of sentences, rather than our perceptions of what is suggested by them. I think the sentence is literally accurate, but I proposed an edit above that does not mention Europe while still acting as a mention of the "Arabic and Western European domes" section of the body of the article. There are no perfectly consistent subdivisions of the history here that do not have some overlap, unfortunately. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: Why are we now introducing the words "Arabic" or "Western European" when "Arabic architecture" is not really a thing and when the western parts of Europe were Arabic-speaking?
It seems to be the least worst option for that portion of the history. The problem is that "Islamic" overlaps with Persian/Iranian domes and Ottoman domes and Mughal domes in India, with are each better addressed separately in their own articles, as most of their sources do. Simply using "Middle Ages" as the frame has the same problem, since Roman/Byzantine domes are best understood together and overlap that period, as do Persian/Iranian. The "Medieval Arabic and Western European" frame is to accommodate those exclusions. Also, there was so much interaction between those two groups during that time that it works better with them together than separate. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
So why include the two together? "Arabic" includes many of the medieval domes of western Europe, so the term "Arabic" is redundant in those cases, while the "Islamic" domes are usually the ones in the regions in which Islamic architecture had its genesis: the Mashriq and the Mahgreb under the first caliphates but also encompasses those Islamic domes in western Europe. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
A) You introduced a definition of domes from a new source in the lede, rather than summarizing the body of the article in the lede as policy states. The actual definition of domes is unsettled and your changes ignore that in favor of your source. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: What definition of domes is in dispute and what source explains this? Why is the entirely unsourced and misleading "similar to the hollow upper half of a sphere" somehow more useful than the one sourced to a reliable source whose sole purpose is to define architectural terms. GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: I have seen the source above. An overwhelming plurality of them disagree with this idea that domes are hemispherical, particularly the more technical (i.e. architectural) sources and the ones that do not deal exclusively with Roman domes. If the sentence is sourced to those sources, it's misrepresenting those sources. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The particular source for that sentence, which itself references a few different sources and definitions, is the second one listed above by Hazel Dodge. It is not an editor's synthesis of multiple sources. About the plurality of sources above, I count 16 sources listed, of which 8 mention "sphere" or "spherical" or "hemisphere" as a key part of their definition (rather than as just an example, as Hourihane or McNeil do), with 10 either doing that or conveying the same idea using other words, such as "doubly curved" or "synclastically-curved". The lede should summarize/describe sourced text in the body of the article, rather than having its own source found nowhere else in the article, which was my objection here. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mainstone's and Krautheimer's definitions, which are pertinent to Roman architecture exclusively, appear in a non-peer-reviewed essay on Graeco-Roman architecture and giving such definitions pride of place in Wikipedia's definition or using this text to support a narrower interpretation than Curl's is completely undue, in my view. Domes were built by other people than the Romans and outside the period covered by Dodge four decades ago. GPinkerton (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
As I mentioned elsewhere, those definitions are not exclusive to Roman architecture, are not the only definitions mentioned by Dodge, and Dodge is one of the only sources to address the issue in any substantive way. Other sources I have found mention the issues in passing, so in terms of sources that describe the definitional problems of the word "dome", it's the best source found so far. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
B) You introduced details in the lede (relating to shape of plan and vertical section) that were better left to the body of the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: The plan and vertical section of dome is what makes dome a dome. Domes are defined by their plans and vertical sections, and definitions need to go in the lead. Not some vague (and wrong) claim that domes are somehow spherical. Or resemble spherical shapes, if you prefer. GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: There is no reason to mention medieval European domes as somehow separate from Byzantine or Islamic architecture. What domes might these be that some deserve mention in the lead, alone of any content or time period? Why do we not mention the vastly more numerous domes of Asia and Africa during Late Antiquity? Why not mention the numerous early modern of Iran? This is singling out of mediaeval Europe is completely undue, given the paucity of domes in medieval Europe outside the Byzantine and Islamic spheres. What non-Byzantine and non-Islamic domes are you thinking of? GPinkerton (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@GPinkerton: The reason to mention them is that they are mentioned in the body of the article in the "Arabic and Western European domes", which are the domes I had in mind writing that sentence. There are a great many domes from medieval non-Byzantine/non-Islamic Europe, although they are not well known. However, I proposed a different sentence above that does not mention the word "Europe", if you insist on that. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AmateurEditor: Apart from a few Romanesque copies of Byzantine and Islamic buildings, I can't see any examples that might fit the bill in that section. The Templar churches and the copy of San Vitale at Aachen is all that's there, and, well, they're derivative of Byzantine architecture and Islamic architecture. GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following sentence occurs, some emphasized:
The ellipsoidal dome is a surface formed by the rotation around a vertical axis of a semi-ellipse. Like other "rotational domes" formed by the rotation of a curve around a vertical axis, ellipsoidal domes have circular bases and horizontal sections and are a type of "circular dome" for that reason.
Right off, the Joe and Rika Mansueto Library has an elliptical base, 240 feet by 120 feet, not circular. That's an elliptical base, of equation x2/120 + y2/60 = 1.
dino, "ellipsoidal dome" is used to refer to a circular-base dome with a half-ellipse vertical section. The term for a dome with an elliptical-base would be "elliptical dome" or "oval dome", (the "oval dome" section mentions elliptical base domes). AmateurEditor (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Jalili1402, I've left explanations on your talk page about original research and edit-warring. I've clearly explained to you twice now that the source you cited and quoted does not state anywhere that the Achaemenids "used circular domes in their architecture". Both the quote and the full text speak only of tents that were possibly circular like those of Central Asian nomadic tradition, not of buildings (the source is here on p.81). Your edit, as is, violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and will be removed. If you have another reliable source that explicitly states this point, feel free to present it here (with the page number cited). R Prazeres (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_(5648684021).jpg)
_7.jpg)
_(April_2013)_(2).JPG)
_-_Kuppel_msu2017-0148.jpg)
