Jump to content

Talk:List of Brick Gothic buildings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Important" Brick Gothic buildings?

[edit]

I'm not sure "important" is a good word here, esp. as the title. Perhaps "historically significant"? Or "Brick Gothic landmarks" still standing/in existence? --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. What about simply "List of significant Brick Gothic buildings"?
By way of explanation: I'd avoid "historically significant", as the significance of the structures discussed is in the fields of art history or architectural history, not so much in plain history. Similarly, I'd avoid the "still in existence", since at leat one listed object is not. I do think we should move to "significant", though.
The German page from which this is translated is called "Hauptwerke der Backsteingotik", literally "Main works of Brick Gothic", so "List of the most significant Brick Gothic buildings" may be a resonable title?
athinaios (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about simply "List of Brick Gothic buildings"? I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but I suppose the prose above the list can explain the 'inclusion criteria', how 'important' or 'significant' the buildings are to get on the list. I think you have written this in there already. --PFHLai (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'll move it now. athinaios | Talk 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess

[edit]

The list is messy in that includes a number of long-demolished and recently reconstructed buildings, whose original appearance has not been recorded (Trakai Island Castle, Turaida Castle), while omitting some well-preserved buildings who dominated the history of the region for centuries (e.g., Vyborg Castle). A note should be made on which buildings are original and which are rather fanciful reconstructions of today.

The page also should be purged of exaggerated claims along the lines of Trakai Castle being the only "island castle in Europe" (what's about Kuressaare Castle or Shlisselburg, among others?) --Ghirla-трёп- 09:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. Be bold and do it. It would indeed be useful to at least indicate which buildings have undergone major recent renovations or reconstructions, although to some extent, probably all buildings on the list have done so at some point. As regards Vyborg, isn't that mostly a fieldstone building? In that case, it woiuld not belong into a Brick Gothic list.athinaios | Talk 10:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish section seems to reflect an agenda

[edit]

I notice that nearly every place in Poland has appended to it a note giving a region of Prussia, along with a German name for the place and everything associated with it. Even Kraków, in no way, shape or form any region of Prussia, has its German name, Krakau, appended. Why? The city is unarguably Polish; the Polish name for the city is Kraków; this is an encyclopedia in the English language, and the English name for the city is Cracow. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

I agree. That was probably my mistake, made when I translated the original version of this list article. I think it is relevant to have the German names of places and buildings in those cases were such names were actually in use there, including when the monuments in question were built, but indeed there is no need to refer to names such as "Krakau". Originally, I had simply included the German versions of placenames in former parts of Prussia, but since someone else added Prussian regions incorrectly and inconsistently, I thought it better to at least correct those. Let me know if there are more objections. athinaios | Talk 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.To the 'Polish section seem to reflect an agenda' discussion above:

The building of the churches and other town buildings , which Wikipedia shows as in Poland, were not built in Poland. All of them were built in Prussia, and only with the Soviet Communist take-over in 1945, did they come under Polish administration. The buildings and the locations belong to Prussian history.

Buildings are listed according to the state they are currently in, i.e. what's in modern Poland is listed as such. In those cases, both Polish and German placenames are given. athinaios | Talk 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.Cracow/Krakow/Krakau/Cracovia was at the time the Brick Gothic buildings were built a Hanseatic city with German craftsmen building the city, living and trading there. For example the city charter for the craftsmen and guilds were written in German language see sample: [1], [2].Balthasar Behem Codex is at the Jagiellonian library.

3.The List of Brick Gothic buildings shows a number of buildings as located in Hamburg. However they are not located in Hamburg, but in Luebeck]. Please correct it, thanks. An Observer 26 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three buildings listed for Hamburg (St. Petri, St. Katharinen and St. Jakobi) are all indeed in hamburg, not in Lübeck. athinaios | Talk 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess 2

[edit]

After Athinaios's departure, the page has been steadily eroded, primarily by BurgererSF, who has inserted every second Polish church in the list, even the Wawel Castle. This makes the page worthless and unusable. I suggest we revert the list to this version. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have even a bunch of Ukrainian/Ruthenian Renaissance towers in an article about the Baltic Gothic style! One goes to this page in a state of constant wonder. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---I have not departed fully - I am just dormant (my life and obligations have prevented me from devoting time here). I'd be very happy to help with cleaning this list up, but I must confess that I am not and never was an expert. The initial version I provided (and yes, I think it has been eroded) was mostly an edited translation. Personally, I even regret the removal of the German placenames for now Polish towns (simply because they are relevant historically, not because I assume any claim of any type). If Ghirlandajo and others are willing to help, let's have a go at improving this. athinaios | Talk 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not complete

[edit]

It is a nice list, but it is not complete, not even concerning public buildings.--Ulamm (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be complete, it says so in the text immediately preceding the tables. Not even all of the structures currently included are significant ones, and some are only partly built in brick. For instance (as much as I am flattered to see a link to an article that I contributed to), the donjon of Mildenstein Castle is probably only an example of minor importance. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

The undiscussed move from List of Brick Gothic buildings to List of Gothic brick buildings makes little sense to me. What is a brick building? The point of the article is Brick Gothic, regardless of where. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Late answer:
  • Brick Gothic is a term mostly used in quite a narrow sense for Gothic brick buildings in northern Germany and its northern and eastern neighbours.
  • Gothic brick architecture is much more. It includes any building of medieval Gothic, in which brick serves both for the construction and for esthetical features (visibility).--Ulamm (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Gothic brick buildings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widths of th images

[edit]
  • In general, broadside photos are the best media for the illustrating file of such a long list.
  • And small shapes give the reader an impression, but avoid an inflation of bites.
  • For some buildings, especally for towers and for citizens' gable houses, only upright photos are available. If they are presented in the same width as broadside images, the give these buildings more weight in the list, though htes aren't more important than those buildings represented by broadside photos. Therefore the quality of the whole list affords to present them in a smaller width.--Ulamm (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Gothic brick buildings. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Gothic brick buildings. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hint for sporadic visitors of Wikpedia

[edit]
SEE MORE IMAGES – a hint for sporadic visitors of Wikpedia :
If you klick on any of the photos (on any photo in Wikipedia), you'll get in one or two steps to its envelope file in Wikimedia Commons, the fund of all graphic material. From that file you can get to a category with some more photos of the same building.

@Mgiganteus1:, @Kevmin:, is there a rule that forbids this hint?

In articles on one single subject, it is no problem to place several photos of this subject.
In such a long list, more than one photo for an object must be a rare exeption.
For a lot of buildings in this list, there is no article at all. Several articles on single buildings use rather touristical than describing images.
Wikipedia mustn't be useful for nerts only.
Therefore, especially lists like this one have to help visitors to use their chances.

--Ulamm (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulamm: Its basic web usage, and yes there is a rule, External links are placed at the bottom of the page, in the external links section. Commons is external to en.wiki. The {{commons-inline|Gothic Buildings}} template has already created and is used widely across en.wiki. Not to mention that the grammar and spelling in the template is just not right. Also what exactly is a "nert"?--Kevmin § 04:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, a nert is a Wikipedian with lots of edtis, who does not only see the surface, but knows much of the structure of our project.
Thank you for the hint to the template! But it creates too much text.
The one word link "(photos)"
is shorter than " Media related to Saint Maurice and the Assumption of Mary church in Pyrzyce at Wikimedia Commons"
or " Media related to St Mary church at Wikimedia Commons".
But with the general hint "click on a photo and you'll get more", even the tedious "(photos)" in each line is avoided.--Ulamm (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the general hint avoids an inflation of the wiki code.--Ulamm (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal dislike of wikicode is irrelevant, and commons-inline creates much LESS text then your improvised banner and is already in-use across en.wiki. Your template is massive and out of place with much more text, plus you insist on putting it where it does not belong. Commons-inline supersedes it. (dont use "nert" just say editor)--Kevmin § 14:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dislike wikicode, I dislike its inflation by adding a template or free note to each line of this list. The major problem is that, using the template, the list as presented to the visitors would be spoiled by redundant text of at least seven words per line. But the list is more important than our dispute. And indeed, to improve the information of sporadic visitors on possibilities of navigation is a general task, not the task of this article.--Ulamm (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, please stop with the excessive line indenting in you comments. There is no need for one sentence per line. Two, there is absolutely no need for adding commons-inline each line,just add {{commons-inline|Category:Brick Gothic}} to the bottom of the list page, it links to the commons category tree that has all the images in the list, and causes less text then your header. Improvement of the visit is good, your header does not do that.--Kevmin § 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out into separate articles

[edit]

Hello! Pinging primary contributor Ulamm. Thanks for all of your hard work on this article. I wanted to ask, how do you feel about splitting it out into separate articles? I'm not sure the best way to organize it, but the issue this article is currently the largest page on all of Wikipedia (at least in the mainspace), almost a megabyte in size! On my new-ish, fast computer, it took quite a while for the page to load. It's so big that not all the images would even show. I had refresh a few times, after which my browser had cached the images, before I could see all of them. Some of my user scripts don't work, either. Just a friendly suggestion! — MusikAnimal talk 20:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that my (it was begun by somebody else, but meanwhile more than 90% of the objects have been added by me) list has reached the very top of the queue, one or two weeks ago.
I hope you have noticed that I have installed some instruments to improve navigation.
There could be more: Where one country is devided in several parts, between each two of these parts I could place not only national navigation boards, as I have done, but also the international naviagtion board.
The parallel German list, which still is a bit shorter (I am working on it), is devided into a group of lists.
But one list is easier to maintain.
And still this very long list can be read by my I-Phone :)
I do not strictly object against a division of the English list, too.
Of course, it would ease to compare differences and common features of the architecture of different regions.
Furthermore, the code will become longer if I accomplish the links to public cultural heritage databases.
But still, I am collecting buildings.
Another priority is the complete identity of both, English and German versions of the lists.
Therefore, I hope you are a bit patient.--Ulamm (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulamm: Sure thing. This is not a high-priority issue, but you should know for some people this article is unreadable. On mobile (such as your iPhone) it is fine, because images are lazy loaded on mobile, and much of the rendered HTML is stripped. Have you tried loading the article on desktop? It is painfully slow! :( Again there is no urgent rush to refactor this article. I just wanted to make you aware of the issue, especially if you plan on adding more to it. Regards — MusikAnimal talk 15:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that navigating the article isn't the problem. It's just overall so big that it is a really slow webpage. I think if you break it out into multiple articles, readers will have a better experience. Just my opinion! — MusikAnimal talk 15:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article this long certainly creates problems with navigation, although this article handles it as well it can for something this long. Clearly the article should be split, and this would probably be by country, right? Is this problem not as simple as moving the sections wholly into new articles? After that it would seem constructive to keep this article but as a simple sortable table without the images, which can instead be found in their respective articles and on their new list pages. Any objections or additions? Seems like this could be done in an hour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Brick_Gothic_buildings&oldid=1208214256"