[[Image:Lancaster University chaplaincy centre spire.jpg|thumb|A modern spire on the Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre]] A spire is a tapering conical or pyramidal structure on the top of a building, particularly a church tower. Etymologically, the word is derived from Anglo-Saxon, so it is related to "spear," rather than the Romance languages and "spirit." Symbolically, spires have two functions. The first is to proclaim a martial power. A spire, with its reminiscence of the spear point, gives the impression of strength. The second is to reach up toward the skies. The celestial and hopeful gesture of the spire is one reason for its association with religious buildings. As an architectural ornament, spires are most consistently found on Christian churches, where they replace the Steeple (architecture). Although any denomination may choose to use a spire instead of a steeple, the lack of a cross on the structure is more common in Roman Catholic and other pre-Reformation churches. (Note, in the photo at right, that the spire serves as a platform for three bare crosses in imitation of Calvary, marking the center as Protestant (Anglican).) The battlements of cathedrals featured multiple spires in the Gothic style (in imitation of the secular military fortress). [[Image:St-andreas.jpg|center|left|thumb|St. Andreas with 376-foot (114.5-meter) high spire, Hildesheim]] Spires are also common and notable as solo structures. After contact with Egyptian architecture and the mania for Egyptian artifacts in the west in the 19th century, towers in the shape of obelisks enjoyed a vogue. When original obelisks could be imported, such as Cleopatra's needle in New York City, they were, but spires as memorial structures were popular in funerary architecture and public monuments (e.g. the Washington monument in Washington, DC) into the 20th century. In the Modernism movements of the 20th century, office towers in the form of free-standing spires also began to be built. Some famous buildings, such as the Space Needle in Seattle, Washington, use the spire as a testimony of civic power and hope; in the case of this example, it is also a reference to Seattle's participation in aerospace. A 1,776-foot tall (541 m) "Freedom Tower" is a projected feature of the 9/11 Memorial in New York City, and is to be topped by a spire. Of course, the philosophy behind a spire on one side of the Atlantic Ocean can be quite different from the interpretation in Europe. In Europe a spire on a church or cathedral is not just a symbol of piety, but cynically, also a symbol of the wealth and prestige of the order, or patron who commissioned the building. Whatever the reason for their erection, spires were an astounding architectural phenomena during the medieval gothic period of architecture. Since that time nearly 700 years ago they have never really fallen out of fashion. In England, "spire" immediately brings to mind Salisbury Cathedral. Its 123-meter (403-foot) spire, built between 1320 and 1380, is the tallest of the period anywhere in the world, and in its way is as remarkable as the Coliseum in Rome or the parthenon in Athens. A similar but slightly smaller spire was built at Leighton Buzzard in Bedfordshire, England, which indicates the popularity of the spire spreading across the country during this period. We will never know the true popularity of the medieval spire, as many more collapsed within a few years of building than ever survived to be recorded. In the United Kingdom spires generally tend to be reserved for ecclesiastical building, with the exception to this rule being the spire at Burghley House, built for Elizabeth I's Lord Chancellor in 1585. In the early Renaissance the spire was not restricted to the United Kingdom: the fashion spread across Europe. In Antwerp the 123-meter spire was the tallest structure in the low countries for over five centuries. Between 1221 and 1457 richly decorated open spires were built for the Cathedral of Burgos in Spain, while at Ulm Cathedral in Germany the 529-foot (161-meter) spire was built in the imported French Gothic style between 1377 and 1417. Interestingly, the Italians never really embraced the spire as an architectural feature, preferring the classical styles. The gothic style was a feature of Germanic northern Europe and was never to the Italien taste, and the few gothic buildings in Italy always seem incongruous. That is not to say that no one ever attempted to blend the classical styles with a spire, but this occurred much later. In 1822, in London, John Nash (architect) built 'All Souls' Church Langham Place, a circular classical temple, with Ionic order columns surmounted by a spire supported by Corinthian columns. Whether this is a happy marriage of styles or a rough admixture is a question of individual taste. [[Image:Spikehenry.jpg|thumb|190px|The Spire of Dublin is an example of the use of spires in a modern context]] During the 19th century the Gothic revival knew no bounds. With advances in technology, steel production, and building techniques the spire enjoyed an unprecedented surge through architecture, Cologne Cathedral's famous spires, designed centuries earlier, where finally completed in this era. Later in the 19th century, Art Nouveau produced the most bizarre effects when incorporated into ecclesiastical architecture. It reached its most exaggerated point in the phenomenal spires of Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. Designed and begun by Antoni Gaudi in 1884, they were not completed until the 20th century. A cross between a stalagmite and a melting wedding cake, they cannot fail to amaze. As described earlier, the spire as an architectural form has continued to metamorphose and develop into more modern and even more fantastic forms, which in turn have inspired such sculptures the Spire of Dublin) throughout the 20th century, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the 21st century. Architectural elements
Note to the future: All my art history began to evaporate from my mind as I got into the section on 20th century architecture. If anyone could be so kind as to add some other spire structures (as opposed to the rectangular skyscraper), it would probably help the article a good bit. User:Geogre 01:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Century links and spelling == What's the reason for making the article less formal by indicating the centuries with numbers and th's, and for linking to articles that are so weakly related to the subject of spires that it would be no less warranted to link to every non-preposition, non-conjunction, and non-pronoun in the article? - User:Centrx 06:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Because rightly or wrongly that's the way this site works. User:Giano 07:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::: On the contrary, that's not the way the site works. Links are for content that is relevant to the article, and formality is an appropriate end. - User:Centrx 03:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think the links have been overdone. For instance, the country names are pointless. I hate year links, but there is a lot of controversy. But most irrelevant links should go. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context User:Notinasnaid 17:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) :The purpose of century and year links is twofold. First, they allow one to see the thing (here the spire change) in a large context. If one needed to know what was going on in the 19th c., then a link there might remind one of the significant events (e.g. Napoleon's conquest of Egypt and then the British adventures there meant more sketches and paintings of Egyptian architecture hitting the west, and that introduced the exoticism). Secondly, one is supposed to see the link, go to it, and add material from this article to it. Thus, ideally, one would go to the article on the 19th c., go to the article on 19th c. architecture, and add "spires became a common element of funeary architecture." The fact that few people do the former and fewer do the latter doesn't negate the usefulness of the practice. :As for the formality, I'm afraid that that horse left the barn years ago. There isn't much that can be done about it. A site with an article per Pokemon and which is dominated by authors of the same is going to be unable to even agree to "1970's," much less replacing dates with written out terms. Insisting upon formality in such a minor point is going to do nothing, I think, but be disruptive, since everyone else has adopted the common usage of the site, and not necessarily by preference. User:Geogre 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: It seems that linking to centuries yields an orthogonal (and so rather single-planed) connection to the vast region that is an entire century. It is not relevant to spires that Darwin "revolutionized biology" or that Karl Marx was significant sometime in the same century as something that is linked to so tangentially in the article. If indeed it is important to spires that Napoleon's conquest and British adventures introduced spires or a certain aspect of them, then that fact ought to be indicated in this article. Rather than linking to a vast region where the vast majority of information has no bearing at all on spires, the information about those centuries that is valid to spires ought to be put here in this article. As for adding relevant information to the century article, that seems to be a reason that makes information more convoluted to find than to make it easy like an encyclopedia should. This almanac approach is flawed. :: About formality, what can be done about it is changing text to be more formal, or at least not reverting changes that make text more formal. By the very same reason that you say linking to centuries should be done for its usefulness despite the rarity of the practice, editors should not revert formality changes by reason of the rarity of conformity on the site. - User:Centrx 02:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Century unlinking and other changes by Centrx== (Crossposted from User Talk:Centrx)
Hello, Centrx. I saw your comments and edits at Spire. I ask you to please respect the original contributor's choice of style. In this case, the original way of writing centuries is in accordance with Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendations while your copy-edit is in violation of them, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Years.2C_decades.2C_centuries this dates and numbers guide]. If you don't approve, the appropriate action is to discuss it on the Manual of Style talk page and try to get consensus for changing it, rather than to insist on imposing your own preference on a random article (that you haven't contributed to in any other way). As for the date linking, I remind you of this conversation between you and User:Rmhermen, that I noticed higher up on your Talk page:
''On this page you removed links on dates. I replaced them because they are necessary for the date preference feature to work. Please don't remove them but instead add them when they are missing. User:Rmhermen 00:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) ''I was wholly unaware of this date preference feature and its requirements. I was only removing the links because I consider them inappropriate in terms of content, but will now change this practice. Thank you. - User:Centrx 01:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) Please also try for a courteous tone in Talk page and edit field comments. I assume your intentions are good and that you don't mean to disrespect the work of others, but speaking abrasively to serious and dedicated editors can only have bad effects.--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 23:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) : I removed only links that were on centuries and years (such as 20th century, and 1991), not specific full-length dates (such as December 25, 2001). As the style manual says, only those full-length dates are relevant to linking for the date preferences feature. Also, the tenor of my comments is not intended to be discourteous, only straightforward. - User:Centrx 02:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::As I said, I understand that your intentions are good. But I hope you'll give some good-faith consideration to my comment about the effect your straightforwardness has on other editors. For linking the centuries, see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked:]. --User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 07:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Spire:
Spire
Spire
Spirella
Spirella
Spirelli
Spirelli
Spirelli
Spires
Spire_(mollusc)
Spire_Christian_Comics
Spire_FM
Spire_of_Dublin
Spire_of_Dublin
Spire
[[Image:Lancaster University chaplaincy centre spire.jpg|thumb|A modern spire on the Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre]] A spire is a tapering conical or pyramidal structure on the top of a building, particularly a church tower. Etymologically, the word is derived from Anglo-Saxon, so it is related to "spear," rather than the Romance languages and "spirit." Symbolically, spires have two functions. The first is to proclaim a martial power. A spire, with its reminiscence of the spear point, gives the impression of strength. The second is to reach up toward the skies. The celestial and hopeful gesture of the spire is one reason for its association with religious buildings. As an architectural ornament, spires are most consistently found on Christian churches, where they replace the Steeple (architecture). Although any denomination may choose to use a spire instead of a steeple, the lack of a cross on the structure is more common in Roman Catholic and other pre-Reformation churches. (Note, in the photo at right, that the spire serves as a platform for three bare crosses in imitation of Calvary, marking the center as Protestant (Anglican).) The battlements of cathedrals featured multiple spires in the Gothic style (in imitation of the secular military fortress). [[Image:St-andreas.jpg|center|left|thumb|St. Andreas with 376-foot (114.5-meter) high spire, Hildesheim]] Spires are also common and notable as solo structures. After contact with Egyptian architecture and the mania for Egyptian artifacts in the west in the 19th century, towers in the shape of obelisks enjoyed a vogue. When original obelisks could be imported, such as Cleopatra's needle in New York City, they were, but spires as memorial structures were popular in funerary architecture and public monuments (e.g. the Washington monument in Washington, DC) into the 20th century. In the Modernism movements of the 20th century, office towers in the form of free-standing spires also began to be built. Some famous buildings, such as the Space Needle in Seattle, Washington, use the spire as a testimony of civic power and hope; in the case of this example, it is also a reference to Seattle's participation in aerospace. A 1,776-foot tall (541 m) "Freedom Tower" is a projected feature of the 9/11 Memorial in New York City, and is to be topped by a spire. Of course, the philosophy behind a spire on one side of the Atlantic Ocean can be quite different from the interpretation in Europe. In Europe a spire on a church or cathedral is not just a symbol of piety, but cynically, also a symbol of the wealth and prestige of the order, or patron who commissioned the building. Whatever the reason for their erection, spires were an astounding architectural phenomena during the medieval gothic period of architecture. Since that time nearly 700 years ago they have never really fallen out of fashion. In England, "spire" immediately brings to mind Salisbury Cathedral. Its 123-meter (403-foot) spire, built between 1320 and 1380, is the tallest of the period anywhere in the world, and in its way is as remarkable as the Coliseum in Rome or the parthenon in Athens. A similar but slightly smaller spire was built at Leighton Buzzard in Bedfordshire, England, which indicates the popularity of the spire spreading across the country during this period. We will never know the true popularity of the medieval spire, as many more collapsed within a few years of building than ever survived to be recorded. In the United Kingdom spires generally tend to be reserved for ecclesiastical building, with the exception to this rule being the spire at Burghley House, built for Elizabeth I's Lord Chancellor in 1585. In the early Renaissance the spire was not restricted to the United Kingdom: the fashion spread across Europe. In Antwerp the 123-meter spire was the tallest structure in the low countries for over five centuries. Between 1221 and 1457 richly decorated open spires were built for the Cathedral of Burgos in Spain, while at Ulm Cathedral in Germany the 529-foot (161-meter) spire was built in the imported French Gothic style between 1377 and 1417. Interestingly, the Italians never really embraced the spire as an architectural feature, preferring the classical styles. The gothic style was a feature of Germanic northern Europe and was never to the Italien taste, and the few gothic buildings in Italy always seem incongruous. That is not to say that no one ever attempted to blend the classical styles with a spire, but this occurred much later. In 1822, in London, John Nash (architect) built 'All Souls' Church Langham Place, a circular classical temple, with Ionic order columns surmounted by a spire supported by Corinthian columns. Whether this is a happy marriage of styles or a rough admixture is a question of individual taste. [[Image:Spikehenry.jpg|thumb|190px|The Spire of Dublin is an example of the use of spires in a modern context]] During the 19th century the Gothic revival knew no bounds. With advances in technology, steel production, and building techniques the spire enjoyed an unprecedented surge through architecture, Cologne Cathedral's famous spires, designed centuries earlier, where finally completed in this era. Later in the 19th century, Art Nouveau produced the most bizarre effects when incorporated into ecclesiastical architecture. It reached its most exaggerated point in the phenomenal spires of Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. Designed and begun by Antoni Gaudi in 1884, they were not completed until the 20th century. A cross between a stalagmite and a melting wedding cake, they cannot fail to amaze. As described earlier, the spire as an architectural form has continued to metamorphose and develop into more modern and even more fantastic forms, which in turn have inspired such sculptures the Spire of Dublin) throughout the 20th century, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the 21st century. Architectural elements
Spire
Note to the future: All my art history began to evaporate from my mind as I got into the section on 20th century architecture. If anyone could be so kind as to add some other spire structures (as opposed to the rectangular skyscraper), it would probably help the article a good bit. User:Geogre 01:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Century links and spelling == What's the reason for making the article less formal by indicating the centuries with numbers and th's, and for linking to articles that are so weakly related to the subject of spires that it would be no less warranted to link to every non-preposition, non-conjunction, and non-pronoun in the article? - User:Centrx 06:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Because rightly or wrongly that's the way this site works. User:Giano 07:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::: On the contrary, that's not the way the site works. Links are for content that is relevant to the article, and formality is an appropriate end. - User:Centrx 03:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think the links have been overdone. For instance, the country names are pointless. I hate year links, but there is a lot of controversy. But most irrelevant links should go. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context User:Notinasnaid 17:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) :The purpose of century and year links is twofold. First, they allow one to see the thing (here the spire change) in a large context. If one needed to know what was going on in the 19th c., then a link there might remind one of the significant events (e.g. Napoleon's conquest of Egypt and then the British adventures there meant more sketches and paintings of Egyptian architecture hitting the west, and that introduced the exoticism). Secondly, one is supposed to see the link, go to it, and add material from this article to it. Thus, ideally, one would go to the article on the 19th c., go to the article on 19th c. architecture, and add "spires became a common element of funeary architecture." The fact that few people do the former and fewer do the latter doesn't negate the usefulness of the practice. :As for the formality, I'm afraid that that horse left the barn years ago. There isn't much that can be done about it. A site with an article per Pokemon and which is dominated by authors of the same is going to be unable to even agree to "1970's," much less replacing dates with written out terms. Insisting upon formality in such a minor point is going to do nothing, I think, but be disruptive, since everyone else has adopted the common usage of the site, and not necessarily by preference. User:Geogre 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: It seems that linking to centuries yields an orthogonal (and so rather single-planed) connection to the vast region that is an entire century. It is not relevant to spires that Darwin "revolutionized biology" or that Karl Marx was significant sometime in the same century as something that is linked to so tangentially in the article. If indeed it is important to spires that Napoleon's conquest and British adventures introduced spires or a certain aspect of them, then that fact ought to be indicated in this article. Rather than linking to a vast region where the vast majority of information has no bearing at all on spires, the information about those centuries that is valid to spires ought to be put here in this article. As for adding relevant information to the century article, that seems to be a reason that makes information more convoluted to find than to make it easy like an encyclopedia should. This almanac approach is flawed. :: About formality, what can be done about it is changing text to be more formal, or at least not reverting changes that make text more formal. By the very same reason that you say linking to centuries should be done for its usefulness despite the rarity of the practice, editors should not revert formality changes by reason of the rarity of conformity on the site. - User:Centrx 02:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Century unlinking and other changes by Centrx== (Crossposted from User Talk:Centrx)
Hello, Centrx. I saw your comments and edits at Spire. I ask you to please respect the original contributor's choice of style. In this case, the original way of writing centuries is in accordance with Wikipedia Manual of Style recommendations while your copy-edit is in violation of them, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Years.2C_decades.2C_centuries this dates and numbers guide]. If you don't approve, the appropriate action is to discuss it on the Manual of Style talk page and try to get consensus for changing it, rather than to insist on imposing your own preference on a random article (that you haven't contributed to in any other way). As for the date linking, I remind you of this conversation between you and User:Rmhermen, that I noticed higher up on your Talk page:
''On this page you removed links on dates. I replaced them because they are necessary for the date preference feature to work. Please don't remove them but instead add them when they are missing. User:Rmhermen 00:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) ''I was wholly unaware of this date preference feature and its requirements. I was only removing the links because I consider them inappropriate in terms of content, but will now change this practice. Thank you. - User:Centrx 01:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) Please also try for a courteous tone in Talk page and edit field comments. I assume your intentions are good and that you don't mean to disrespect the work of others, but speaking abrasively to serious and dedicated editors can only have bad effects.--User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 23:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) : I removed only links that were on centuries and years (such as 20th century, and 1991), not specific full-length dates (such as December 25, 2001). As the style manual says, only those full-length dates are relevant to linking for the date preferences feature. Also, the tenor of my comments is not intended to be discourteous, only straightforward. - User:Centrx 02:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::As I said, I understand that your intentions are good. But I hope you'll give some good-faith consideration to my comment about the effect your straightforwardness has on other editors. For linking the centuries, see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked:]. --User:Bishonen | User talk:Bishonen 07:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Spire:
Spire
Spire
Spirella
Spirella
Spirelli
Spirelli
Spirelli
Spires
Spire_(mollusc)
Spire_Christian_Comics
Spire_FM
Spire_of_Dublin
Spire_of_Dublin
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
