Talk:Rib vault

How's this different from groin vault?

Is it only because of the presence of molding? --76.102.243.117 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In a groin vault, the entire arch is structural (weight-bearing). Only the ribs are structural in a rib vault, allowing the rest of the ceiling to be much lighter. WCCasey (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This claim that the ribs are the main structural element is simply not correct, though it was a widely held view in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. In fact the ribs have almost no static/structural role once the vault is complete and in a number of cases don't even make contact with the rest of the vault (or 'web' as it is known). Ribs do however play a key role during the construction of the vault as the builders only need enough wooden centering to support the ribs - the webs are then built onto planks supported on top of the ribs (a method which was successfully tested in the 1920's during the reconstruction of the vault of Sens cathedral following first world war bomb damage). For details of how rib-vaulting works see the opening chapters of Christopher Wilson's "The Gothic Cathedral" or for a more specialist study, John Fitchen's classic text "The construction of Gothic cathedrals: a study of medieval vault" (1981). StuartLondon (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Angels and saints were visiting medieval churches!?

In the first sentence of section "Effect of rib vaulting" it can be read that

... also additional space was provided for visiting saints and angels.

It's a joke or a particular and esoteric dialectal variant in the English language allows for saint and angel to have a different meaning than the usual one? Carlotm (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, never noticed that before. I'm not sure if that was meant to be a joke or if someone was quoting some unreferenced source. As that first sentence was poorly written, I copyedited it, then removed the angelic visit bit, at least for now. I translated a few books on medieval architecture and have never heard of the upper reaches being meant for such visits. But now I'm curious... Eric ^talk 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is "figure 9"?

The article mentions "fig. 9" several times. Where is this figure? GS3 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@GS3: Ah, good eye. It appears that the bulk of this article was copied directly from pages 959 and 960 of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, in this case a bit crudely. This source may be an exception to WP's general policy against copying and pasting from other sites. I'll ping some other editors who'll likely know more than I regarding this. But in any case, those fig. 9s should go, or be replaced with refs to analogous images. Thanks for bringing this up. @Johnbod: @Ealdgyth: Eric ^talk 00:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The 1911 EB is ok to just copy - look at the bottom of the article & you'll see the template attributing the content. Very many WP articles began as pure copies of EB 1911 & lots have changed little since. On this subject it shouldn't have dated too much, but it is of course not ideal. Certainly "fig 9" should go (or actually be added, which we could do, or substituted). Hope that helps, Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There's also a reference to "Plate I. fig. 16" that should be removed. 2607:EA00:107:3C06:F436:D349:B475:209 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. Eric ^talk 19:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cefalù image

@Ealdgyth, Aa77zz, Johnbod, Suslindisambiguator, Magioladitis, and Elekhh: Hello all, I saw your names in this article's history and on WikiProject Architecture, and am pinging you for input. An anonymous editor using several Italian IPs has been reverting my revert of the addition of an image from the chancel of the duomo in Cefalù (accompanied by a linguistically challenged caption). Edit history here. While it is a nice picture, I do not find the Cefalù image to be an improvement over the previous primary image from Reims Cathedral. The latter is more clear and representative in my opinion. As I do not want to engage in an edit war, I'm posting here to seek opinions and/or help from others interested in the article. Does anyone know a procedure to ask for an admin's input when the edit-warrior is apparently one person using multiple IPs? I did not find anything in the guidance for dealing with that. Thanks in advance. Eric ^talk 17:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear wikipedians...I understand the question ... I noticed your post [1] and [2] and later [3] .... but the two images have been maintained in the text .... mainly because the image of Cefalu is very important in this text ...--79.47.83.108 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor: The links you provide in your above post are to article edits, not posts. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. We discuss issues in posts like these on talkpages. You have not provided a good reason for your multiple reverts of my edits. Nor have you provided a source for your claim regarding the rib vaulting at Cefalù. It may well be considered the earliest example of a Gothic rib vault, but you have not demonstrated that. In any case, the Reims picture gives a better view of the vaulting detail. Eric ^talk 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Rib Vault and Islamic architecture

A recent edit to the article asserts that the rib vault was inspired by Islamic architecture, but gives no examples or illustrations. Unless this can be illustrated with pictures and examples of rib vaults predating Durham Cathedral and St. Denis, I respectfully think this should be removed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, we don't need "pictures and examples", we need WP:RS. That is how WP works. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I remember learning that medieval European pointed arch design was inspired by Moorish or Middle-Eastern architecture, not sure if it was specifically Islamic. Eric ^talk 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Arches & vaults are different. This weighty paper may shed some light], and this is more accessible. Another heavy one. Crossley's notes 4-6 are interesting. I'm not at home in this sort of area myself. SiefkinDR, perhaps it's time you put up some equally specialized sources saying the opposite? I presume that after the lead this article is all EB 1911? It certainly needs updating and referencing. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a quick comment I made. Did not mean to imply they are the same. I used to translate books on Romanesque architecture in another life, so I should know off the top of my head about the origins of both arches and vaults, but my head is much older than it was when I did that work. Will look it up when I get more time. Eric ^talk 23:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is the image which you were looking for https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zZJdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&dq=rib+vault+cordoba&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjogY7pvN7hAhW36XMBHWw6AsQQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=rib%20vault%20cordoba&f=false 2405:204:3399:50B1:D19C:FCBB:1D1B:7D94 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The rib vault and Islamic architecture

I'm afraid that I find the following recently-added sentence very confusing: "...the new use of rib vaults demonstrates the skill of the masons and the grandeur of the new ideas circulating at the introduction of Islamic architecture in the eight century,[1][2] and then adopted in Gothic architecture from the end of the eleventh century." What is the "grandeur of new ideas?" What buildings of Islamic architecture inspired the rib vaults of Gothic architecture? What evidence is there that Gothic architecture and rib vaults in particular were directly inspired by Islamic architecture? What sources mention this? This unfortunately sounds to me very much like original research. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for including the image of the ceiling of Cordoba Cathedral, now I have a better idea of what you're talking about. It would be good to include an image like this in the article, , along with the date the vault was constructed. I'm not sure it's comparable to the vaults in the early Gothic cathedrals, but it certainly gives a clearer idea of what you're talking about. Do you know the year that the vaulting was constructed? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

After looking at some other images, I think the Cordoba ceiling may actually be a groin vault rather than a rib vault, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Groin vaults go back much earlier, to Roman times, and it would make sense that they would be known in the Islamic world. Cheers,SiefkinDR (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be original research because many sources say the same like these

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=49prUvA-pvcC&pg=PT103&dq=rib+vault+cordoba+Islamic+architecture&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM8eXHxeDhAhUi73MBHYDqDOsQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=rib%20vault%20cordoba%20Islamic%20architecture&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Wu5oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA185&dq=ribbed+vault+andalusia+moorish&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_34KOnN3hAhXMvY8KHbA2AiAQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=ribbed%20vault%20andalusia%20moorish&f=false

https://archive.org/stream/AlAndalusTheArtofIslamicSpain/AlAndalusTheArtofIslamicSpain_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:1118:A3E:D4C2:A266:7184:94EA (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving the citations. They're very clear and helpful. They do make it quite clear that the Islamic rib vaults at Cordoba were decorative, and not load-bearing, like those in Gothic cathedrals. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see they are saying that at all. At the very least, they hold the roof up, which is as much as large numbers of Gothic vaults do (see the roof at Notre-Dame). Being load-bearing, as far as the general structure goes, is not a requirement of Gothic rib-vaults. Most of Crossley's very detailed account in his Yale History of Art volume is visible online, & should be read (and used as a ref) - see his Introduction & Chapter 1. Pretty dense though. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no difference between the function of rib vaults in Islamic architecture and in Gothic architecture? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but if you are calling vaults that only support the local ceiling "decorative", then that applies to vast numbers of Gothic vaults, in cathedrals as much as elsewhere. See btw Stuart London's 2011 cmt above - he has a doctorate on this subject. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please rewrite lead

The new lead paragraph needs to be re-written in clear English, so that it summarizes the topics of the article. Thanks. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but may i know why are you creating different different sections in talk page :) You should merge the previous two sections2405:204:1118:A3E:B09C:6165:A83A:AB62 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed! Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of new problems and quality issues with the article as it is now, and with the related articles. it's probably easier to discuss them one at a time, rather than all at once. But whichever you prefer. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a big neutrality issue in the lead. The phrase "the new use of rib vaults demonstrates the skill of the masons and the grandeur of the new ideas circulating at the introduction of Islamic architecture in the eight century" was inserted into the leads of three articles, Gothic architecture, rib vaults and vaulting. It's not neutral, it's promoting a point of view. It's also not clear why the same sentence should be in the lead of three articles about Gothic architecture, rather than Islamic architecture. It needs fixing. cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The phrase should be edited but there is no problem if the place of origin of the vault appears in lead2405:204:1118:A3E:AB38:981:A624:254C (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is simply that the place of origin of the vault as stated here is disputed. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Confusions in this article

• 1.) Rib vaulting is not the same thing as rib vaulting with pointed arches.
• 2.) Rib vaulting is not unique to Gothic architecture.
• 3.) Rib vaulting is attested in Islamic architecture long before it appeared in northwestern Europe.
• 4.) Rib vaulting in the domes of mosques in Spain and North Africa are fully functional true rib vaults, and these were not even the first buildings to employ them, neither in Islamic architecture nor generally, though the oldest surviving examples today are found there. GPinkerton (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by what you say. I unfortunately couldn't read the full text of the article in the citation of the vault at Cordoba, but I read the summary of the citation. If the dome is supported buy pendatives, like Byzantine vaults, what function do the ribs serve? Do they go outside the vault? What do they connect with? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The ribs serve the same function they did for thousands of years. It makes it easier to build the vaults themselves with less need for wooden scaffolding. It's the severies themselves that are the structural elements, not the ribs. The article need to reflect this architectonic fact. Please understand that the rib vault is not an invention of the past millenium and has existed for many centuries prior. Ribbed vaults are easier and faster to build than groin vaults and require less timber formwork, and you can build at straight angles in the severies between ribs rather than properly making the perfect curve that characterizes groin vaulting. That's all. The ribs don't do much when the mortar is dry. In theory you could remove them. This is what I mean by confusion. Rib vaults are standard in Romanesque too and principle of abutment is a completely separate one. The ribs don't connect with anything except visually,and there is no need for them to, beyond supporting the weight while the severies are constructed. The idea that rib vaults somehow require flying buttresses or that either of these features is unique to Gothic is quite wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said that rib vaults or buttresses and pointed arches were unique to Gothic architecture; but many sources, such as Larousse and Britannica, say the combination of these is a key element of Gothic architecture.

About Cordoba, I'm afraid I'm still confused about what you're saying. What is the dome resting on in the Cordoba Cathedral? Isn't it on the pendentives? The Romans and the Byzantines and Islamic architects in Spain built their domes on pendentives, not on ribs. What is the actual function of the ribs in these buildings?

Are you saying that Gothic rib vaults have no importance, other than saving timber? Do you think that buildings like Amiens Cathedral could have been built without Gothic rib vaults? Could Gothic cathedrals have had such thin walls and large windows without them?

Are you saying the buttresses have no importance or connection with rib vaults? Do you think the walls of Notre Dame would be stable if you removed the buttresses? If so, why did they build them?

Your views here are interesting, and I see the point you're trying to make, but your definition of a rib vault is much broader than that used in other sources. You seem to dismiss them as of absolutely no importance, while other sources say they're an essential element of Gothic architecture. Gothic architecture as we know it wouldn't exist without rib vaults. I think the focus of the article should be on the Gothic rib vault, and how and why it it was used in Gothic architecture. Other kinds of vaults, such as groin vaults and crossed arch vaults, have or should have separate articles. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: Sorry, you appear to be confused. The vaults at Notre-Dame are cross vaults, as are all quadripartite, sexpartite, and most other Gothic rib vaults. They're called this because the ribs cross one another. The earliest surviving example of such a rib vault is in the Great Mosque of Cordoba. In both Notre-Dame and Cordoba, the load of the vault is carried mainly by the severies, and by the ribs, and in Cordoba's case also by pendentives, as is usual in Gothic and other domes, since the dome being round has to be carried on a rectangular set of walls and this problem has to be solved with squinches or with pendentives. As for your comments about Amiens and Notre-Dame, you appear to be confused again. The buttresses are necessitated by the principle of abutment: the taller walls are, the more wind-loading they must resist and thus the more lateral force they need to withstand. The flying buttresses do not support the vault, they support the walls laterally. The walls support the vault, whose weight is carried downwards, not sideways. (Gravity typically works this way.) The windows are enabled by the flying buttresses, since without the additional abutment the walls would have to be much thicker and the instability introduced by windows would have to be reduced. The vault is irrelevant to them; any building as tall as a mediaeval cathedral needs abutment, and some were provided with flying buttresses in the late middle ages, completely irrespective of the nature of the vault. Others were added in the 19th century. As I have before stressed, Romanesque churches very often had ribbed vaults but seldom ever had flying buttresses.

Ribbed vault: Any vault with an under-surface subdivided by ribs framing the severies or webs.

- Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (2nd ed.) 2006

Cross-vault: Intersecting barrel-vaults forming a groin-vault

- Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (2nd ed.) 2006

Rib vault: Form of constructing roofs in Romanesque and Gothic architecture whereby two or three barrel vaults intersect, with the edges producing a series of thin pointed ribs, usually of stone and highly decorated.

- Sir Banister Fletcher’s Global History of Architecture "Glossary" (21st ed.) 2019

As for Cordoba, the idea that the arches somehow do not support the dome is wrong and based on a very old (and wrong) assertion that the ribs were made of wood, and thus could not be load-bearing.

The powerful stone arches that form the ribs are supporting most of the weight of the vault. The constructive and structural analysis proves this beyond any doubt, contradicting old theories that have survived until today. ... The ribs fulfill, besides the structural role, other functions: they define the geometry, hide the difficult intersection of the webs and, finally, play an architectural-decorative role in defining the space of the Chapel.

- Paula Fuentes & Santiago Huerta (2016) "Geometry, Construction and Structural Analysis of the Crossed-Arch Vault of the Chapel of Villaviciosa, in the Mosque of Córdoba", International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 10:5, 589-603.

In all, the article here is about rib vaults. Not what you're calling a "Gothic rib vault". The article needs to reflect all ribbed vaults, not arbitrarily exclude all vaults much later deemed not "Gothic". GPinkerton (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to add further confusion, here's another description a of rib vault from the current Encyclopaedia Britannica on-line: "Medieval European builders developed a modification, the rib vault, a skeleton of arches or ribs on which the masonry could be laid. The medieval mason used pointed arches; unlike round arches, these could be raised as high over a short span as over a long one. To cover rectangular areas, the mason used two intersecting vaults of different widths but of the same height."

It appears there are many different definitions of a rib vault, I think the one we're using here right now is a little too broad and should be narrowed down a bit, or split into separate articles or sections. We seem to be talking about some very different things. Unless we agree on what we're talking about, this argument will be endless and not very productive. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: No, they're all the same one thing. I fail to see where the Britannica's definition conflicts with all the concordant ones I have furnished, or where it says it was either unique or new to Gothic, or where it says anything about flying buttresses or the ribs having special structural purpose. Please explain. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all- I noticed this discussion, and thought a few links I have from my architecture bookmarks might be useful to it. A couple in English, the rest in German. Let me know if you want anything translated.

• en – Pevsner glossary – from this page, search for "rib-vault" – there will be several hits
• en – U of Oregon terminology definitions; scroll down to "rib" and "rib vault"
• de – Glossar - Burgendatenbank – rib vault definition; makes distinction between late Gothic and earlier
• de – In the nav panel on left, click on "Kreuzrippengewölbe" (rib vault)
• de – See no. 3 at this entry for Gewölbe (vault)
• de – Lexikon - Bautechnik, Baustile (archived) – rib vault definition

German vocab notes: Rippe = rib, tragen = carry (support), Last = load/burden, Druck = pressure/stress/compression, Grat = groin, Schub = shear, entlasten = relieve/unburden, joch = bay. Eric ^talk 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eric, if you see the section below, it's not definitions we lack, but a suitable wording that accurately defines without plagiarizing any of the sources' texts. GPinkerton (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I saw some question above regarding the load-bearing role of ribs in a vault. Eric ^talk 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's right, SiefkinDR has been led astray and believed a definition where Gothic vaulting is different to every other kind of rib vaulting and that that difference is in load-bearing capacity, whereas of course the ribs do next to nothing to stability and the load in rib vaulting is borne by the severies. I think SiefkinDR is also confused about the nature of "cross vaulting". It's good to note that in most instances where ribbed vaults are referred to, they are called "cross-ribbed vaults" in German. SiefkinDR was labouring under an illusion that cross-vaults are somehow different from sexpartite and quadripartite rib vaults, rather than being a larger category to which both ribbing systems belong. (The arches cross in the centre of the vault. So they're called cross-vaults ...) I hope this is cleared up now and thanks for your input. That bit about the stucco ribs in Late Gothic buildings is interesting and should be included! GPinkerton (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Did you look over the definitions I linked above? Most or all of them seem to address the load-carrying question. Eric ^talk 22:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening of lead needs rewriting

The first sentence of the lead needs to be re-written into clear English understandable to non-specialists, following the Manual of Style. Please re-write. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: I think it would be better to explain what the severies are somewhere in the lead. Or in the article at all, since they're the most important part of the whole vaulting system. The other difficult words are Wiki-linked anyway. It's not reasonable to try and define all the terms in the first sentence; it can hardly be defined more succinctly than it is as I see it: perhaps you'd like to propose a text of sentence to preface the existing sentence? GPinkerton (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The MOS says, "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" The lead sentence should say what the purpose of a rib vault is, and should not use technical terms that are not comprehensible to ordinary readers. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of possibilities without using technical terms. For example,

"A vault in which stone ribs carry the vaulted surface...The ribs provided a skeleton of arches and ribs along the sides of the area crossing it diagonally." (Encyclopaedia Britannica on-line - "Early Gothic")

"A rib vault has a framework of diagonal arched ribs" (Oxford English Dictionary).

"The rib vault's distinguishing feature is the crossed, or diagonal arches under the groins" (Gardners Art Through the Ages), (though you have to explain what a "groin" is if you use this).

All of these definitions apply to both Romanesque and Gothic rib vaults. SiefkinDR (talk)

I would suggest an opening sentence which combines elements of the cited definitions. I'd suggest something like this:

A rib vault is an architectural feature for covering a wide space, such as a church nave, composed of a framework of crossed or diagonal arched ribs. it was used in Romanesque and especially Gothic architecture. Thin stone panels fill the space between the ribs. This greatly reduced the weight and thus the outward thrust of the vault. The ribs distribute the thrust downward and outward to specific points, usually rows of columns or pillars. This feature allowed architects of Gothic cathedrals to make thinner walls, larger arcades, and much larger windows.

What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks good. I'd consider rewording "distribute the thrust" to "transmit the load". Eric ^talk 14:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be: "A rib vault is an architectural design for vaulting a space in a building and composed of a framework of panels with arched ribs. Rib vaults are used especially in Romanesque and Gothic architecture. This type of vault greatly reduces weight and like groin vaults transmits the load mainly on the corners of the vault where it can be supported by piers or columns." The existing phrasing can continue from there with a few changes: "Rib vaulting is a type of arcuated vault in which the webs or severies - the angled panels of the vault's underside - are separated from one another by ribs which conceal the groins. Rib vaults were, like groin vaults, formed from two or three intersecting barrel vaults; the ribs conceal the junction of the vaults. They were especially common in Romanesque and Gothic architecture." Then we can add "architects of Gothic cathedrals to make thinner walls, larger arcades, and much larger windows. ", although what is meant by "larger arcades" is unclear and I don't know what it adds. Arcades of what where? What is larger? The span of the arches, their height? Which arches and how can rib vaulting make them "larger"? It certainly doesn't say anything about larger arcades in the Britannica citation you suggest, which I would caution against including very often since WP:RS advises against reliance on it and it's has long been a second-rate encyclopaedia that recycled its own content for a century or more. See: WP:BRITANNICA. I have, again, formatted your citations SiefkinDR, and removed the idea that rib vaults somehow need to be made of stone or only existed in the past. I also think you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to Gothic architecture, and especially to cathedrals, which I have often tried to explain to you have nothing to do with architecture, and considering ribbed vaults are entirely characteristic of Romanesque buildings and invented in neither. So the whole would be:

A rib vault is an architectural design for vaulting a space in a building and is composed of a framework of panels with arched ribs. Rib vaults are used especially in Romanesque and Gothic architecture. This type of vault greatly reduces weight and like groin vaults transmits the load mainly on the corners of the vault where it can be supported by piers or columns. Rib vaulting is a type of arcuated vault in which the webs or severies - the angled panels of the vault's underside - are separated from one another by ribs which conceal the groins. Rib vaults were, like groin vaults, formed from two or three intersecting barrel vaults; the ribs conceal the junction of the vaults. They are especially common in Romanesque and Gothic architecture. Architects of medieval Gothic buildings used rib vaults to make thinner walls and much larger windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your violent attack on Britannica as a source. I'm referring to the on-line version, which is very current, not the 1911 version. Bannister Fletcher, published in 1895 and cited here, is not particularly up-to-date. The lead I suggested is based on the OED, Britannica on-line, and Larousse, all updated.

I also think there is confusion here between the groin vault and the rib vault. According to Britannica (2020, not 1911), "A groin vault is formed by the perpendicular intersection of two barrel vaults." That is to say, round arches. Whereas "A rib vault is supported by a series of arched diagonal ribs that divide the vault's surface into panels."

The lead should focus on the rib vault, and not get into the groin vault and the barrel vault at this point. unless you're going to explain what they are and the differences. We should avoid like "severies" and "arcuated" in the lead. We shouldn't use technical terms not understood by general readers in the very beginning of the article.

I think the article needs to avoid technical jargon, be simpler, and stick more closely to the definitions in the Britannica and Larousse and the OED. Frankly, I think the first sentence as drafted by me and Eric is clearer and better, and I think we should go with it.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: All references to Banister Fletcher are to the 21st edition (2019), which is only a year old. It, which is a proper architectural history work with a glossary, defines rib vaulting thus: "Form of constructing roofs in Romanesque and Gothic architecture whereby two or three barrel vaults intersect, with the edges producing a series of thin pointed ribs, usually of stone and highly decorated." Your idea that barrel vaults necessitate round arches is quite wrong. Pointed or catenary arches are perfectly usable as well. The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture defines a rib vault as a vault {{tq|"with ribs framing the webs and concealing the groins". Groins are defined in the same work as "formed by the intersection at 90° of two identical barrel-vaults (also called cross-vaults) creating groins where they join". As I keep repeating, your predilection for Britannica does not overturn the actual academic sources or somehow justify your unique interpretation of the terms "rib vault", "cross vault", or "barrel vault". Barrel vaults are defined "as simplest variety of vault, really an elongated or continuous arch like half a cylinder (i.e. with a semicircular section and a uniform concave soffit), spanning the distance between parallel walls or other supports. It can also be segmental or half-elliptical in section". There is no reason to avoid the word arcuated in the lead, it's a common word and easily understandable and without it the explanation of the vaulting system would make no sense. Severy is technical term but needs to be used throughout the article so should be defined in the lead. The sentence you drafted grossly misrepresents the subject and contradicts the reliable sources. The OED's 3rd edition (2010) does not have a definition for ribbed-vaulting, as it is a compound word, but defines "rib" thus: "Any one of the transverse or oblique arches by which a compound vault is supported; the edge or groin of two intersecting arches in a vault. Hence: any of a number of structural or decorative bands framing the panels or webs of a vault; (in later use also) any projecting band or moulding on a ceiling resembling these." I see absolute no call for the use of French-language popular encyclopedia when ample adequate definitions exist already in academic and reliable English-language sources. Despite your claim that Britannica dates to 2020, that's just the date it's been accessed online. The text dates from the last edition in 1985, and it has never been a reliable or academic source. Not one of the articles dealing with rib vaults in Britannica has had its text updated since 2007, and only then in a very minor way. Please stop thinking it's somehow the best source for this or any other topic. On a separate note, I have removed your erroneous suggestion that Al-Andalus is somehow the same thing as Andalusia. They are not. Al-Andalus is the entire Iberian peninsula during the 500-year Islamic period. It is not just Andalusia and it is not all in Spain. GPinkerton (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm sorry to see you're back to your old style of fighting against every change and addition to your text in very aggressive language. I would like to change the first sentence, as agreed with Eric, because it doesn't meet the Wikipedia manual of style standards. It shouldn't be necessary to have to look up terms s like "arcuary", "severy" and "groin" in a the dictionary to understand what it's talking about. It needs to be written for non-specialist readers. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How about changing the wording of the lead sentence from ...is an architectural feature for covering a wide space, such as... to ...is a type of ceiling architecture over a space such as... ? Eric ^talk 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I really think the word vault is adequate. Severies are integral to this subject and we should not avoid using the word. Groin is wiki-linked, so a dictionary is not required. Ditto vault. "Arcuate" and "trabeate" are also the most basic words to classify architecture with. Here we are dealing with arcuated architecture, so avoiding mentioning the concept of arcades or arches is absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking we might define severy in the article somewhere. I'm no expert, but I did take a good course in Romanesque architecture, and translated a couple books on it and medieval architecture in general, and never encountered the word until here. GPinkerton, are you using the term as a synonym for intrados? Eric ^talk 17:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: Not at all, the intrados would be the undersides of the rib arches. The severies (also called webs) are the panels of material (often stonework) that sit between the ribs and are the structural component of the vault, taking the weight from above. The fact that severies can be built as flat masonry or curved outwards means that rib vaulting is far easier and quicker to build than groin vaulting, which requires that all the surfaces be exactly curved and for the entire vault to be supported to be supported with form-work throughout the building, whereas ribs can be put up with form-work and then the support removed. See, for instance, this article here. Severies are unique to rib vaulting, I think. The OED 1st edition defines 'severy' as "A bay or compartment of a vaulted roof. Also, a compartment or section of scaffolding." That was in 1919. But see also the 2008 Dictionary of Architecture and Building Construction book which calls the thing as a 'cell' but which lists 'severy' as a synonym. GPinkerton (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Yeah, I saw some defs for severy that were restricted to arches, others that included the inter-rib vaulting panels. There is a lot of overlapping interpretation out there in the vaultingverse that makes things fuzzy. FYI, the Google Books link didn't work for me. Eric ^talk 19:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: Yes art "history" and actual history often differ quite a lot! The book should be at this address, page 66. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Pillars, columns and "semi-reliable sources"

Thank your for correcting the terms for the columns supporting the vaults; I was confusing the French word "pile "(a pier) and pillier (a column). Thanks for straightening that out. And thank you also for retracting your comment on my talk page, about my "Favourite (semi-reliable) web sources." referring to the on-line editions of Encylopaedia Britannica and Larousse Encyclopedia. I'm glad you agree that's not an appropriate comment. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We agree on that point at least. Still, the two encyclopaedias are not the best sources for as detailed a topic as this. Britannica doesn't have an article specifically on rib vaulting, so information gleaned from other articles in the Encyclopaedia are not necessarily representative of rib vaulting as a whole, for which more in-depth, less casual, longer pieces of work specifically about the subject should be consulted, and tertiary general sources like Britannica and Larousse can't be used to argue down proper published academic research and analysis. Otherwise there is danger of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not an academic article, and it should not be written as one. And it would be appreciated if you could wait a a few minutes before you start deleting and criticising the text I'm writing. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It should also not be written as a poorly plagiarized Britannica and Larousse, and just parroting these sources and old fashioned books will leave the article not only out-of-date and inaccurate, but actually misleading. It should be written using academic articles. Four edits have been made to this page since you last edited it. One was mine, eight minutes after yours, three were not. All four dealt with removing typos, mistakes, or poor sourcing. Had they not been done, the errors would have remained. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't agree with your assessment of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on-line and Larousse Encylopedia on line as out-of-date and inaccurate, and old fashioned. The online versions are regularly checked and updated. You say there are no on-line articles in Britannica on Rib vaults, but there are detailed sections on the topic in the articles on Gothic Art- Vault, Construction- Romanesque and Gothic , Architecture - Rib vault. You need to subscribe to get the full articles. Despite what you say, They are current, reliable and respected sources.

I also disagree with your statement that Wikipedia articles should be written only with academic articles as sources. That's contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

I most strongly disagree with your statements that I have "poorly plagiarised" and am "parroting my sources". Those are false, offensive and insulting accusations, and have absolutely no place in Wikipedia. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: Where have I said that? Please read my comments again. I said the two encyclopaedias are not the best sources for as detailed a topic as this. Britannica doesn't have an article specifically on rib vaulting, so information gleaned from other articles in the Encyclopaedia are not necessarily representative of rib vaulting as a whole, for which more in-depth, less casual, longer pieces of work specifically about the subject should be consulted, and tertiary general sources like Britannica and Larousse can't be used to argue down proper published academic research and analysis. and also It should be written using academic articles. I have not suggested by any means that "Wikipedia articles should be written only with academic articles as sources", as you claim. And no, you do not need to subscribe to see the full articles. Please don't just assume I'm ignorant of the sources. I can read them as well or better than you, and that's how I've been able to correct your interpretation of them so often. You say there are detailed sections on the topic in the articles on Gothic Art- Vault, Construction- Romanesque and Gothic , Architecture - Rib vault but that doesn't mean you can then go and exclude all the rib vaults of the Roman Byzantine and Islamic worlds just because Britannica fails to cover them. The basic-level Britannica source can't be used to overturn actual academic work based on real research rather than anonymous Britannica editors from decades ago, reliant as they were on out-of-date information. Despite what you say, about "online versions are regularly checked and updated", as I have pointed out, none of the articles relevant on Britannica has had its text updated for more than a decade, and all were mostly written in the previous century. Please indent your comments in a consistent way, it too is tiresome to correct. GPinkerton (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that I "poorly plagiarized Britannica and Larousse, and just parroting these sources and old fashioned books". This is false and deeply offensive. I did not "plagiarise" anyone, and if you look at the citations you will see that I cite five other books, other than these two sources. Your endless stream of insults really has to stop, or I will have to once again bring this to the Administrators' Notice Board.SiefkinDR (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm very tired of this feuding, and I don't want to waste time on an edit war. Why don't we declare a truce? Please stop insulting and attacking me, and let me edit in peace. and I'll do the same for you. How does that sound? LEt's get these articles done and move on to something else. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Stellar vault" redirect

I think that Stellar vault should probably redirect to Lierne (vault), which mentions it prominently in the lede, rather than here, where it gets one brief mention in the body text. Thoughts? Moriwen (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Eric ^talk 15:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)