Talk:Classic Gothic

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	Architecture portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Restore "High Gothic"

The term "High Gothic" is the term used by Encyclopaedia Britannica and other respected English sources. The text should be restored to its original form. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, some of the previous version was obviously erroneous.

I have not deleted High Gothic, I have adapted it, explaining that there are two different phasings with different numbers of phases an different definitions:

Gothique primitif – Gothique classique – Gothique rayonnant – Gothique flamboyant
Early Gothic (Frühgotik) – High Gothic (Hochgotik) – Late Gothic (Spätgotik)

As I have now mentioned in several articles, the leading manual defines High Gothic by different criteria for France and for Central Europe. This way, for France, the term "Gothique classique" is translated with "Hochgotik", whereas for Central Europe, the cathedrals of Strasbourg, Cologne and Prague are called the major examples of "Hochgotik", which by French criteria are major examples of Rayonnant.

Wilfried Koch, Baustilkunde, 33rd edition (2016), Prestel Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7913-4997-8, p. 170.(*)

Normally, WP has to follow established literature, but it mustn't perpetuate obvious errors.

I've phoned on this problem to Günther Binding (whose timetable in Architektonische Formenlehre contains the same error) and to Matthias Untermann, the most influential German architectural historian in job. Both scholars admitted the mistake. Untermann did not like to publish something on this matter himself. He told me, I should write a correction in a periodical. I am writing the corrections in Wikipedia, instead. The evidence obvious enough.--Ulamm (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) + Ulamm (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(*) Nevertheless, though under the headline "HOCHGOTIK", Wilfried Koch correctly wrote,

Chartres, 2. H. 12. Jh. bis 1260, am Ende der Frühgotik. Sein 3-zoniger Wandaufbau (Arkade – Triforium – Obergaden) setzt sich ich der Hochgotik allgemein durch. Erhöhung der Arkade und (geringer:) der Fenster.
4-teiliges Rippengewölbe …

(Transalation:)

Chartres, 2nd half of C XII until 1260, in the end of Early Gothic. Its elevation of three levels (arcades – triforium – clerestory) became generally accepted/applied in High Gothic. Enhancement of the arcades and (less) of the windows.
4 area rib vaults …

The term Rayonnant is mentioned in the timetable – as a part of Late Gothic – but not in the text.--Ulamm (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) + Ulamm (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French phasing

Hi Johnbod, the problem is not that "Gothique classique" is a french word. The problem is that the French phasing distinguishes four phases, whereas the terms Early-, High- and Late Gothic divide the style in three phases only. Also the criteria used by French scholars differ from the criteria used by scholars from abroad. Therefore, attempts to translate the french terms into Early-, High- or Late Gothic create chaos.--Ulamm (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk, since you have duplicated this there. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

((TRANSFERRED FROM Johnbod's talk:))

Not really - what creates chaos is writing articles on distinctively French concepts as though they cover all of Europe, without explaining that they are only used in and for one country. The actual architecture is not all that variable, at least between England and France, and few of the phase transitions are as sudden as these schemes often pretend. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

((END OF THE TRANSFERRED POST))

Your point of view is principially wrong, but partly correct.

Consider English phasing; Tudor architecture is a kind of Late Gothic architecture, but it would be wrong to translate "Tudor" with "Late Gothic" (which I consider a primarily German term, "Hochgotik", as German scholars tend to devide any era into "Früh-/early", "Hoch-/high" and "Spät-/late" phases).

If we use the term "High Gothic", we have to mention that it is part of a phasing that differs from the French phasing of French architecture. And we have to describe the differences of the definitions. "High Gothic" mustn't be used as a translation of "Gothique classique/Classic Gothic" nor of "Rayonnant".
The other thing is: We can and should mention, which buildings outside France fit the criteria of this or that French style, but we should not try to enforce French phasing on the architecture of countries, where most buildings have to be categorized by other criteria.--Ulamm (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to choose one set of terms, and mostly stick with them, at least for England and France, where the actual architecture is similar enough. Tudor architecture is both Gothic and Renaissance, extending to 1603. Really it would be better to rename this article "Gothique classique", making the status of the term more clear. I presume you've never tried a google books search on "classic Gothic"? You should do one - you might be in for a shock. Sondergotik and other articles keep the local language. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Gothic is a word-by-word translation of Gothique classique. As an international project, Wikipedia has to integrate a lot of informations that outside only are available in publications with regional, sometimes local, horizons. Therefore, Wikipedia is full of such "new" word-by-word translations.

If there are several national phasings and one that in some languages is used internationally, we have to present both kinds of phasing. And we have to tell the readers/visitors, if a building fits the criteria of two interferent phases of two different timetables. Wikipedia has to explain things understandably, but it mustn't publish false simplifications.--Ulamm (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on Tudor style opens a good approach: Tudor is somehow a part of Late Gothic, but has also other elements. The preceding Perpendicular style is a kind of late gothic, but not all of it. A German publication may call a Perpendicular style building "spätgotisch", and it may call a Tudor style building "spätgotisch", but it mustn't call the Perpendicular style "die englische Spätgotik", nor translate Tudor style with this term. Furthermore, the spectrum of Spätgotik in Germany comprises some forms nowhere found in contemporary England, and many forms of English architecture of its time aren't found in German Spätgotik. On tracery, Günther Binding's book "Maßwerk" describes inverse developments in England and in the Continent.--Ulamm (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "Classic Gothic is a word-by-word translation of Gothique classique", but you need to realize that this is a very weak argument for using it as an article title on the English Wikipedia, where WP:COMMONNAME rules title choices. I don't know what German wp does, but English wp rightly discourages home-made translations. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a weak argument, because the term High Gothic comprises only a part of Classic Gothic, but in addition the whole Rayonnant Gothic.

If the term Rayonnant is acceptable in English WP, the term Classic Gothic is acceptable, as well.--Ulamm (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will find terms that don't really fit well with English architecture, like Rayonnant, Flamboyant and Sondergotik, are used in English sources, but Classic/classique Gothic is just not. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod that "Classic Gothic" is not the right title. If you Google "Classic Gothic", it takes you to articles on Classic Gothic Literature, the genre that includes novels such as "Dracula" and "Frankenstein"; that is the most common English usage of the term.

A large part of the "Classic Gothic" article is copied directly from the article on "High Gothic". High Gothic is the most common English term, used in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and other respected sources. The article on "Classique architecture" can make it clear that "Classique" is the French title for a distinct style similar but not identical to High Gothic. The article on High Gothic should mention that as well. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should not be having large scale duplication. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gothic Classique" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gothic Classique has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 10 § Gothic Classique until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]