Jump to content

Talk:Frauenkirche, Munich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Munich Frauenkirche)

Untitled

[edit]

hmm. this is from the skeptical enquirer [1]:

seems like the illusion is no more, and neither is the alleged footprint.

  • The next morning, while I examined and photographed the spot more extensively, Martin was able to strike up a conversation with the church warden. He admitted that the imprint was not genuine, stating that the floor had been restored and that the Teufelstritt was merely a reconstruction.

It appears that the story about the devil being angry is the sanitised version of the legend - I like the one where the architect made a deal with the devil to fund the church, on the proviso that he built it without windows, or forfeit his eternal soul. When the church was complete he then led mr mephisto to that spot to show him the windowless church. The Devil was so angry that he lost the wager that he stamped his foot, leaving the mark. --stib 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Translate better

[edit]

The english in the following paragraph is garbage. I would correct it if i had half a clue about what you were talking about. There's a bunch of germen words inserted in with no proper explanation, and the grammar structure is horrid.

20,000 available seats are surprising when one considers the construction in the city to end of the 15th Century only had about 13,000 inhabitants. However, the interior does for its size by no means overwhelming, because he ordered two-row by 22 high Achteckpfeiler cleverly structured. From the main portal of view seem to be the rows of columns, durchlichtete "walls" between the vaults, walls through which the light seems to shine. For the spatial effect of the church there is a legend, which is connected with a footprint in a square base plate at the entrance to the nave, the so-called vicious kick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.173.21 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral or not?

[edit]

Sorry, is Frauenkirche a cathedral or not? It is called both church and cathedral, kirche and dom in the text. IMHO this discrepancy needs to be explained. --Ghirlandajo 15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A cathedral is a church which serves as central church of a bishop. Thus, the Frauenkirche is a cathedral, seat of the archbishop of Munich and Freising (it's also a church, of course, just an important one). "Kirche" is just german for church. The german word "Dom" is more or less synonymous with "cathedral", although large churches which are not a bishop's seat also tend to be called "Dom". --Huon 12:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Gothic

[edit]

If the Frauenkirche is not an example of Brick Gothic, its omission might be explained for the reader. --Wetman 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It surely is a example of Brick Gothic, on of the bests in southern Germany. From the German Wiki

Powerpoint presentations and modern art?

[edit]

Just to say, when i visited this church (July 2006), I found it to incorporate powerpoint presentations in the aisles, and some rather odd modern art at the back (photocopies of pictures with paint sloshed over it in no discernible manner). I didn't take notes on this as such, and am not really equipped to expand the article. Should there be some kind of mention of the Frauenkirche's attitude to modernity? It was rather striking at the time.

Jameshfisher 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding aerial views of the church

[edit]

This is primarily to engage Reywas92 in discussion regarding the redundancy of his image on the article, due to a number of his reverts to my removal of his image from the article in the last couple of days.
My assertion is that this image has been made redundant by a higher resolution and clearer image, showing both greater detail and greater surroundings of the church. The view is almost identical and given that a comparison at 100% scale shows that the replacing image has significantly more detail, I feel that the old image's place in the article is no longer required as it offers nothing exclusive to the article and merely takes up article real-estate. The process of replacing lower quality images is not new and happens on a regular basis - an article should not contain more images than it needs to fully illustrate the topic. Even aside from the issue of redundancy, the old image is underexposed, very soft at 100% and the horizon is not horizontal. Comments from Reywas92 and anyone else is appreciated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Okay, you win, but I still don't see what is wrong with multiple images which are not the same thing. Perhaps a complete resizing or moving of the current pictures will reduce image clutter. Reywas92 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i like both pics. keep both in the article. 74.133.61.75 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Their design was modelled on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which in turn took a lead from late Byzantine architecture

[edit]

Now,personally, I can't see the connection between these domes and the Dome of the Rock (which by the way can be called either Late Roman or Early Byzantine but not Late Byzantine).I think a reference to a reliable source would be in order for this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.13 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munich Frauenkirche. 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) 09:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per reqest. Favonian (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Proper disambiguation (Frauenkirche). The churches are referred to as Frauenkirche in the sources, without any city names. — DaxServer (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs redoing

[edit]

The article is vey subjective and reads as though it was written by someone who is a part of the church/cathedral. (Whatever they decide it is) Wishingwellwishes (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tower severely damanged?

[edit]

I think this sentence may not be correct "one of the towers suffered severe damage [during world war II]" Looking through the photos of Munich after the bombings, while the church is essentially rubble, the towers seem essentially fine. See this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o93oIEzJUcU&t=155s Other than the domes on top the towers seemed to have been fine. The link that sites this also doesn't appear to be working either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:402:E394:BDA2:DBFE:10F7:32BB (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frauenkirche,_Munich&oldid=1202064834"