Thinking of the Wikipedia reader, I ask whether a pendentive can really be usefully treated separately from dome? I am setting all this information at dome; aren't pendentives and squinches essential elements in a dome system? could they exist without a dome? could a dome exist on a rectangular structure without pendentives? shouldn't this be a redirect? --Wetman 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

A dome can happily sit on the floor, or on a circular supporting wall, without the need for pendentives or squinches. The Pantheon, Rome is a good example. I think there's sufficient distinction between the dome and its support to warrant a separate article. --VinceBowdren 09:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Breaking down articles beyond a certain point loses information, and the reader becomes as bewildered as the writer: reductionism. I shall look in from time to time and continue to ensure that all the useful information is also at dome. Tweaking this article is such harmless sport that I won't decry it. --Wetman 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I recently created an article on Muqarna - but on reflection redirected it to a subsection of Corbel. I'm inclined to agree with Wetman on this one - subsections of dome to incorporate, squinch, pendentive etc. Alternatively, there's probably an entire article examining the history and solutions to the dome on a rectangular base problem. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Earliest evidence

According to archaeological research in some part of Iran, the first successful use of this architectonical element are in the remains of settlements near the Sistani Province´s oasises.--205.211.225.99 16:38, 10 October 2007 (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) 01:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply