Talk:St Paul's Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee St Paul's Cathedral was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 6, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject London (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Pipe Organ  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe Organ, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pipe Organ 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon St Paul's Cathedral is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see St Paul's Cathedral at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 


Not Brock[edit]

HURENSOHN Isn't Brock buried in Brock's Monument? (who's buried in Grant's Tomb?) Is it a memorial or plaque or something in St P's? Feldercarb (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Design[edit]

I remember watching a TV programme a couple of years ago about the building of the cathedral (which was mainly about the astonishing level of corruption in public life at that time - the foreman of the works was paid peanuts, but made a large fortune out of the building). The approved design had (I think) a smaller dome with a tower on the top, and Wren kept the dome covered up until it was built so nobody could object to his preferred but rejected design until it was too late. However, I have no evidence for this other than my leaky memory, and church architecture isn't my thing. Does anyone else know more? --Andrew Norman 12:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Betch Elizabeth is dumöööööö Found some information about this on the BBC website, and I'll add it now. --Andrew Norman 15:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing a TV programme which mentioned a story about the crest of a Phoenix on the portico of the south end of the cathedral (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/StPaulsCathedralSouth.jpg). I'm not sure how accurate this is, but Wren asked a workman to find a piece of stone to be used to mark out the centre of the dome on the ground during construction after the original burnt down. The workman returned a piece of a gravestone with RESURGAM on it. Apparently this is Latin for "I will rise again", and this inspired the Phoenix crest with the word Resurgam written underneath it, also appropriate as a Phoenix is supposed to rise from the ashes. Would this be worthwhile on the main page?

Fakelore, pure embroidery.--Wetman 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the phoenix and the word "Resurgam" are certainly there - I saw them from the top of a bus recently - and deserve a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Phoenix story is from Parentalia, the biography of Wren published in 1750 by his grandson and written by his son. The pheonix and resurgam are indeed sculpted in stone and sit in the pediment of the South Transsept of the cathedral.(DrArchitect (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Name[edit]

St Paul's Cathedral spells it St Paul's and not St. Pauls on their website... I was going to move the article to either St. ... or Saint ... but apparently the Dean of St Paul's refers to it as St Paul's. Pedant 2005 July 2 03:07 (UTC)


On sourced footnote[edit]

says wren had doubts there was a temple to Diane on the site - Kruger, 1943

the reference isnt mentioned at the bottom of the page - suggest removing the footnote... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.105.54 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

tax[edit]

Anybody have a useful source to hand so we can supply the details about the coal tax used to fund the construction? Doops | talk 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

This model of St Paul's Cathedral at Legoland Windsor is made from Lego bricks (as is The London Eye in the background).

I have removed this image from the article because I am unsure about its copyright status, and it doesn't "fit" in the Historical Images gallery. I've placed a similar example (with a PD status) in line with all the other images. Just as an aside, the actual building is unusual in that it's an extremely good photographic subject, but very difficult to capture in its entirety. I wonder if we can find an image from after the Blitz when much of the surrounding buildings were levelled, or maybe a moderen aerial photograph? --Surgeonsmate 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved a contemporary image out of the Historical Images gallery. I really like the way that the Historical Images gallery gives a series of views of the history of the building, especially the way Wren's design replaced the rather grim-looking Old St Pauls. Perhaps it is overkill to have another gallery for modern images, what do others think? --Surgeonsmate 11:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 8======================================================>

Date of completion[edit]

Where does 20 October 1708 comes from? According to the Cathedral's official site, it was completed on 1710. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth does the article say "The cathedral was completed on 20 October 1956, Wren's 76th birthday"???
I'm not an expert on St Pauls (though I'd like to be!) and every source I can find on the web says that completion was in 1710, when the architect's son laid the topmost stone on the lantern, the building being from bottom to top, rather than the more usual east to west for a project of this size. (Building east to west meant that the completed portions could be used before the whole was complete, the usuable space growing progressively larger.) See the BBC article.
We're going to look right gooses in 2009 if the 300th birthday party (complete with royal attendance, set of stamps, opening of Pret a Manger in the basement etc.) hasn't happened yet and we say it should have been in 2008. Perhaps our authority will be so immense by that stage that the Cathedral administration will bring the party forward, but this remains to be seen. --Surgeonsmate 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The victory service for Marlborough's victory of Oudenaarde was held at St Paul's in 1708. Queen Anne, whose statue now stands outside, and Sarah (M's wife) had a blazing row in public on that occasion. The dome might not have been finished by then.(not signed)


The official completion date, when Wren was paid was Christmas day 1711 but actually work continued well into the 1720s. The building accounts for the building survive and are all in the Guildhall library in London for those that feel like checking the dates from the original archival sources. For those that wanted printed authority most are reprinted in the volumes of the Wren Society, a twenty volume compilation of most of the material on Wren published at the rate of one volume a year between 1923 and 1943. The date of 1708 comes from the date of the laying of the last stone on the lantern. The story of this is retold in Parentalia, the biography of Wren published by his grandson in 1750, but there the date is wrong (printed as 1710). The master mason Edward Strong left a memoir which was reprinetd in Clutterbuck's "The History and Antiquities of the County of Hertford (1815-27) volume I pp.167-168 which is quite clear it was in 1708 which matches the progress on the building recorded in those accounts I mentioned. (DrArchitect (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

There seem to be a lot of sources that say that the "topping out" was completed on 20 October 1708, but none of them can be considered a reliable source. The St Paul's website doesn't even have an exact date. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Listing[edit]

There's no online database of current listed buildings, but there is one of images of buildings which were listed as of 2000 - it's here: [1]. St Paul's is shown as "Grade A" for some reason - I have no idea what that means, I thought the listings were always numbers (Westminster Abbey is Grade I). --ajn (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Height[edit]

Does anyone know the height of St Paul's?

365 feet, according to http://www.virtualtourist.com/.
Standing over 355 feet says http://stpauls.co.uk// (search for "feet" and read the 1710 article).
This image from that same site says 355.5 feet: http://stpauls.co.uk/images/cut-away.gif The discrepancy (from 365 feet) looks like it might be the height of the cross atop the ball.
Atlant 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give measurements in metres and feet please - wikipedia is not just for Europeans —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsparagusTips (talkcontribs) 15:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Legend of St Paul's?[edit]

Well, not a legend per se...

I briefly heard a saying in my history class, stating that if St Paul's is detroyed, Britain would follow. Did I hear this correctly or is that attributed to a different cathedral?

Colosseum. The rooks of the Tower of London. --Wetman 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WW2 bomb damage[edit]

The article says that the cathedral survived despite its being struck by "a" bomb, and in essence this is true. However, this BBC article says that on both 10 October 1940 and 17 April 1941, bombs did cause quite severe damage to the building, but that hasty cleanup work was done to preserve the myth of St Paul's "indestructible" status. Should that be mentioned here? Loganberry (Talk) 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd like another more direct source for this, as it's essentially second or third hand without the sort of details you really need to be sure.Alci12 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to find reliable first hand sources pertaining to this topic, probably because the people who may or may not have cleaned up the church would not want it known. Therefore, should it not be added in and cited as conjecture untill someone finds more reliable proof?Millertime246 (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New picture from the south please[edit]

The scaffolding is coming down from the south front now. Does anyone have a recent photo of that side to replace the begrimed pre-restoration one that's currently at the top of the article? Wimstead 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a photo which was taken this week. It's viewed from Paternoster Square. I agree the previous photo was horrible! Looked so dirty. Wjfox2005 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this replacement photo is not good. It might not have much scaffolding, but with just an angled view of the dome with encroaching columns, it doesn't really show the cathedral at all. -- Solipsist 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Of interest, might be the construction work taking place on the east side of the Cathedral, this has opened up a view that has not been seen since the war, and will disappear completely soon. Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera with me. Kbthompson 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I only had my mobile with me, but how about
The best angle would probably be from teh middle of Cheapside, but I'm not sure you'd actually last long enough to take a photo. If the gates to the construction site are open there's also a potetnially reasonable view, but it depends what machinery they've got in at the time. David Underdown 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


I have a pic of all the scaffolding if you want that? ZellDenver

I've gone ahead and uploaded some images, I think meet Wikipedia's standard:

1549 mob iconoclasm?[edit]

I deleted a reference to a supposed incident in 1549 in which a preacher at Paul's Cross was supposed to have instigated some sort of mob iconoclasm at St. Paul's. I'd be quite interested to see a source for this claim, if it's in fact true. ThaddeusFrye 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


Save_Us_229 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC) there is a church which you can drive oder no yes it makes fun! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.120.185 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remains from Old St. Paul's[edit]

Is anyone aware of what happened to those bodies buried along the walls of Old St. Paul's after the fire? Were these remains re-interred in the new building? Non of the sources seem to deal with how this was handled. 69.14.38.16 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic[edit]

Regarding the description: "earlier buildings Roman Catholic"; it's far too simplistic. Most Anglicans would disagree with the idea that their church was once Roman Catholic. The idea put forward, that the church changed denomination, is an anachronistic view of the real situation, that the church in England separated from the church in Rome. The term "Roman Catholic" is a nineteenth century one, meaning Catholic but not Anglican, and it shouldn't be applied to a period before the reformation. It would be more sensible to note only the current denomination and to leave the history of the Church of England to the relevant articles. --Lo2u (TC) 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Eight Melodies?[edit]

I heard that the boys sung that song on that unreleased North American and Europe of Mother series. According to the track, it was sung by one of the St. Paul's Cathedinal Choir, which means this article. I'm not sure if this is the right article or not, but I do know that they sang that song for the Japanese audience. My apologies about my grammar, but I was just reminding you guys. --Girla PurpleHeart (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Cathedral[edit]

In the introductory paragraph, the name of the building was changed to "London Cathedral". I have changed it back to St Pauls, for the following reason.

The correct name of the building is Cathedral Church of St Paul the Apostle. Hence it would be fair to say in the opening line; "The Cathedral Church of St Paul the Apostle, more commonly referred to as St Paul's Cathedral...". However, to say; "London Cathedral, more commonly referred to as St. Paul's Cathedral..." does not make sense. "London Cathedral" is neither the official name of the building, nor a commonly used name; I have never seen or heard it used. Using "London Cathedral" is irrelevant, and merely confuses things. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, can anyone shed light on why the term "London Cathedral" has never been used? Similarly, the Dean is known as "Dean of St Paul's", not "Dean of London". Does anyone know how this distinction arose? Other English deans are known by the name of the cathedral's city. Anglicant (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one cathedral in London, Southwark Cathedral being another. Although Southwark Cathedral is lesser known, to use London Cathedral in reference to St Paul's would deny the existence of Southwark Cathedral as it implies the one and only cathedral in London. Plus, as far as I can tell from a quick look in some of my books, not many cathedrals are dedicated to specific saints like St Paul's is which is probably why it has never been known as London Cathedral unlike Coventry or Winchester for example. LEL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.148.220 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All cathedrals have a dedication. Coventry is St Michael and All Angels, Winchester the Holy Trinity, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, and Saint Swithun (which would be abit of a mouthful). Southwark was only raised to cathedral status in 1914, tough Westminster Abbey briefly held the status of a cathedral in the Tudor period, and at that London referred also exclusively to the City, so I don't think this explanation really holds water David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The district known as the "city of london" is quite small, and liable to be confused with the town of london which has many millions. For comparison the adjacent district which is the city of westminster is sufficiently unique to have a bishop named for it. The dean would thus have to be "The Dean of The City of London". However Deans define there titles not wiki users. JDN

The City of London is a red herring. Bishops carry the name of the diocese- hence the dicocese is London [2] and the diocese of London covers much of greater London (not just the City of London) north of the river. The diocese of Southwark is south of the river [3]. The seat of the Bishop of London is St Paul's Cathedral (cathedral, of course, coming from the Latin "cathedra" meaning seat). If the diocese is disbanded the cathedral is downgraded. Southwark Diocese was only formed in 1905. The Dean is responsible for the cathedral and is thus always always named after the cathedral he looks after- thus the Dean of St Paul's is called just that and not the Dean of London or the Dean of the City of London (DrArchitect (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Added image to Artists section[edit]

Added a new image of the dome to the artists section and gallery-ized it with the existing image. It seemed like the most appropriate section to add to, but may have cramped the text a little. DP76764 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Paul's Cathedral/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial review[edit]

The article is quite easy to read and is well illustrated, so I do not expect many problems in these two areas. The main problem is likely to be WP:Verify. The "Previous cathedrals" section is devoid of citations. The first half of the "Descriptions" is thin on citations, as is "Memorials", "Modern Day", and "Organists".

I will start the GAR, proper, tomorrow; but I suspect the article may have to go On Hold at some point until the citations are added/resolved.Pyrotec (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

The article is now on hold due to lack of in-line citations in the majority, but not all, of the sections within the article, i.e. a non-compliane against WP:verify. Pyrotec (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Some.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    A significant proportion of the sections are unreferenced,
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    None of the problems identified at the start of the On Hold period have been addressed, or even started to be addressed. Article, therefore is marked as Fail.20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Major deficiency[edit]

What are the dimensions of the dome? Lucas Brown (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

here is a website that has the dimensions of the dome. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=GoddenE2-22 Millertime246 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

The introduction is just terrible!

  1. The introduction identifies the building as being on Ludgate Hill in the City of London. But what is it the cathedral of? Is it the Cathedral of Ludgate, or what? That is among the most basic information to provide. The name of the hill, familiar to Londoners, is not part of the essential statement of what St Paul's actually is!
  2. The present building dates from the 17th century and is generally reckoned to be London's fifth St Paul's Cathedral, although the number is higher if every major medieval reconstruction is counted as a new cathedral. This sentence waffles on with qualifiers about whether it really is the 5th cathedral on the site. That is not intro stuff. Tell us in the history that there have been five, (or not, or possibly not).
  3. The cathedral sits on the edge of London's oldest region, the City, which originated as a Roman trading post along the edge of the River Thames. Tell us about the Roman trading post (if necessary) in the history. This is totally superfluous in the intro.

The only important facts in the present intro are that it is in the City, that it is the seat of the bishop, that it is Anglican, that it is 17th century and that many people visit it.

What are the other truly important facts that should be in the intro?

  1. St. Paul's Cathedral, Where? That city-name is part of the name of the cathedral itself. Not Ludgate Hill, not City. It is the "Cathedral of What?"
  2. Proper dates. This is really not a hard ask, in the case of St Paul's.
  3. Name of architect. Not essential to the intro in the case of many piecemeal medieval structures, but Hey! this man was great!
  4. Name of architectural style. Only one style. Very very few cathedrals were built in this style. Name it in the intro. It's really important!
  5. What feature makes this cathedral a distinctive landmark? Old cathedrals in England have towers. What makes this building distinctive?
  6. Is it a World Heritage Site?

I am frankly amazed that a number of people could have worked on this article, and that someone could have written about the architecture in considerable detail, yet no-one thought about what was really important to the introduction.

I realise this negativity may sound hard on you editors, but if you put it up as a GA, then you must have at least read, re-read, thought about and fine-tuned your very first sentence.

This is a top priority architectural article. The intro needs to reflect that. I'm downgrading it, until it does.

Amandajm (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is in the right place but... ..I went to London a few weeks back and have some pictures of St. Pauls —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZellDenver (talkcontribs) 16:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

I was in London a few weeks back and have some decent photographs if anyone needs them, there's one with the current regeneration on the south (?) face too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZellDenver (talkcontribs) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Image[edit]

Does anyone have a better image for the infobox? The current one is awful as it's dominated by buildings other than the cathedral itself. Surely an image from the south-east (eg the Cannon Street/New Change junction) showing the unobscured south facade, or of the west door, would be more fitting for such a magnificent building. Pjc51 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had thought the same thing. An image of the West Door would surely be superior.  Skomorokh  23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
(belatedly) me too, we must surely be able to get an image there with the dome-thingy in view...there is an aerial shot down the page.

Address[edit]

Also, I believe the cathedral is on Cannon Street, not Ludgate Hill as stated in the introduction - can anyone confirm this? Pjc51 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As best I can remember, if you walk eastward along Ludgate Hill, the road forks either side of the Cathedral; the right (south) fork is Cannon Street, and the left leads to an enclosure containing the London Stock Exchange. Google Maps  Skomorokh  23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sight Lines[edit]

Anyone have any information to add to this article about the sight lines that are in place for the construction of new buildings in London. Its about making sure that any new buildings dont obscure the view of the cathederal. If you look on the article about "the gherkin" tower it briefly mentions it but no word of it here? 92.21.63.173 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Read this and summarise it if you like........http://static.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg-views-2009-draft.jsp 85.210.88.58 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is St Paul's cathedral named after?[edit]

I couldn't find, anywhere in the text of the article, a wikilink to the Saint Paul that this church is named after (assuming that it is indeed named after one of the Saints called Paul). This seems like an important detail that ought to be in the article. There's a caption to a photo of a statue of Paul the Apostle, so I assume it's him, would that be correct? Can anyone provide a citation? SP-KP (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, you're right actually, it's quite difficult to find a reference confirming it is Paul the Apostle. The only Google Books ref that explains it is [4]. Even that's not that clear. Rob (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely St Paul the apostle and the writer is correct, he is standing on the pediment at the centre of the West front, sword and book in hand and the scene in the pediment of the west end is the conversion of St Paul. According to Bede the first cathedral was founded in 604 and dedicated to St Paul by St Ethelbert, King of Kent, the first Christian King of England (presumably but here I am guessing, in allusion to his own conversion, from one mighty warrior to another so to speak). Every cathedral on the spot since has been dedicated to St Paul. Plenty of secondary sources if you don't want to cite Bede. I'll put one in the text now (DrArchitect (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Article name change?[edit]

This article needs to be renamed as "St Paul's Cathedral, London" or something similar. I was tempted to do this myself but thought it might cause problems with the many articles that probably link to it. Whilst the London cathdral is obviously the most well-known "St Paul's Cathedral" the article name still needs to be more specific. Does this need any discussion before making a change? Anglicanus (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be discussed (see WP:RM). But if you're conceding it's the most well know St. Paul's Cathedral, you should probably check out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Hot Stop (c) 19:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I would personally say that this easily passes as the primary topic, even in other countries - I imagine few people ever search for "St Paul's Cathedral, London", and the article itself makes its location very clear. Rob (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead picture[edit]

I have just put back a picture of the facade of the cathedral, a major work of architectural importance, and the most recognizable part of the building. I removed the distorted montage image that is a side view, encroached by the tower of ...( I've lost the name of the bombed church).... Someone else previously returned the west front to the lead, with a comment about it's iconic status, or some such.

The comment by the person who put back the "side view" is that it shows the "whole building". Well, it doesn't. It does show the dome of course, but then what it shows is the rather bland side wall, which Wren never intended to be seen like that, because there were still small buildings encroaching . Wren designed the upper half to be seen above the London houses, from a distance. The front, however, is the front, and it was on that front that he lavished the remarkable and satisfying design that he wanted us to see.

If you think that the side view, with lots of lawn, and a lonely belfry from a lost building is the better view, then please leave a message to explain why.

Amandajm (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the aerial view that's further down on the page would be much more suitable. The picture you removed was certainly a very bad picture, but I do feel that an article in an encyclopedia meant for general readers needs to show the feature most people, who aren't architectural historians, know it for (i.e. the dome, not the west front). JRawle (Talk) 10:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree that to have a lead picture that all but obscures its most famous feature is a mistake. Weirdly, because it was taken before all of the post-war encroachment of high-rise buildings this old black and white image gives arguably the best profile of the facade and the dome of the other images on Commons. Rob (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it still doesn't feature the West Front, [5] on Flickr (with a suitable licence) does feature the whole side without the misleading distortion. Rob (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That pic shows the wholes side, but minimises the effect of the visible west front tower, and brings to the front a tower which doesn't belong to the building at all. The side views, from close up, don't do the architecture justice in any way, despite the fact that they show the dome.
The front is the front. It represents the building in the same way as a face represents the person that it belongs to. The face of the building, in this case, is an extraordinary and remarkable piece of architecture, though this is rarely recognised.
Provided the dome appears in a subsequent picture, it doesn't need to represent the building, iof the photo that shows it is otherwise misleading.
We either need a good long shot, or else use that other old picture. That picture is not a Pre War photograph. It's a 19th century engraving.
I would happily go with the old image, which shows an "ideal" view of the building. Amandajm (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I just found another pic and cropped it an straightened it and it shows the front and the dome.
There is also an arial view which I would be quite happy with, as it show the whole building without being misleading in any way.

What do you think of the old photograph? I realise it's not especially high resolution, but that particular shot (with the front and dome) would most-likely not be able to be re-created due to the construction of high-rise buildings in the 20th century. Rob (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with that old image. Its an engraving after a photo. I don't know quite how those plates are produced, but the effect is quite lovely. Amandajm (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's excellent as the lead picture. The article contains many actual photos, so the contemporary appearance is also looked after, but that engraving seems to meet the requirement perfectly. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The old picture is a great picture with which to lead the article. JRawle (Talk) 17:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I do so love a positive consensus of opinion! Amandajm (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonggggg[edit]

Apropos of Great Tom we write: "The bell is only rung on occasions of a death in the royal family, the Bishop of London, or London's mayor". Since this seems to be an old rule we could perhaps assume it means the Lord Mayor rather than the newer Boris/Ken "Mayor of London" job, but is there a ref which would enable us to specify this properly? (Or maybe I am just being instinctively horrible and the Johnny Come Lately McMayor Job would indeed get the bell rung?! Who knows?) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have edited it to Lord Mayor of London as that is clearly what is meant AND the edit is needed to avoid confusion with the London Mayor. David (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kruger[edit]

An un-named editor removed a bracketted ref (Kruger 1943). At least, I presume that this is simply a badly formatted reference. Can anyone fix it?

Amandajm (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of cathedral evicting occupy protesters?[edit]

Is it appropriate to include mention of the cathedral's intention to file for the eviction of the occupy London protesters?Allyn (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Arts Project[edit]

"Rendered in splendid giltwood, with Christ's wracked body sculpted in relief, and the flourishes of flora and incandescent rays from heaven, this masterpiece of the German Rococo is an object of ravishing beauty and intense piety."

I suppose I like St Paul's as any other Londoner, but this is a bit much to take in an encyclopædia. It reads like something from an advertising brochure. Any objection if I tone it down? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The mathematical shape of the three domes[edit]

The article currently says the outer dome is catenary, but isn't it spherical? I did a quick search of other webpages - the first five or six other webpages I looked at say the outer dome is spherical, the inner dome catenary, and the "hidden" structural dome more "conical" and like a cubic (Wren seems to have sketched it as a cubic but it turned out now quite like that). (I'm not sure what "conical" means here though, as it can't really be conical and also have a cubic cross section; the St Paul's website has a diagram that makes the hidden dome look really conical, with a straight-edged cross-section, not cubic at all.)

It makes sense that the outer dome is spherical, because the whole point about needing the extra hidden dome is that the outer dome is not the right shape to be structural, so it would not make sense for it to be catenary (as catenaries are structurally sound). However the article currently says the inner and outer domes are catenary. I'm not sure that any of the websites I've found would count as references though eg [1] The current reference is to a book (to which I don't have access) and it's not clear which part of the paragraph is being referenced. --Purplecarrot2 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The engraving on the cathedral's website shows the contours of the three parts of the structure clearly. [6]
  • The inner dome appears as a deep catenary, with the curve starting at the lowest course.
  • The brick cone is clearly straight-sided and therefore conical, not cubic, even though it turns into an arch at the top.
  • To my eye, the outer dome is ovoid, not catenary. I have rotated the picture through 180 degrees and I am sure this is correct.
However, I can only speak for the engraving, for which the draftsman appears to have taken pains to get the curve of the inner dome most precise.
Maybe James W.P. Campbell has been up there, taking detailed measurements, and can demonstrate that the outer dome is also catenary. Can we have more info on this? Anyone?
Amandajm (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Looked at more pics. Beginning to be convinced that outer dome is catenary as well! Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

St Paul's Cathedral Organ[edit]

I have qualified the statement 'third-largest organ in Great Britain' by stating the total number of pipes within the various sections of this instrument. The current order at the moment being: 1) Liverpool Anglican Cathedral 10,268 pipes 2) Royal Albert Hall 9,997 pipes 3) St Paul's Cathedral 7,266 pipes. However when the Royal Festival Hall organ is finally restored to it's original dimensions in the summer of 2014 St Paul's will then fall into fourth place, as the RFH organ will have 7,866 pipes. Ds1994 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

CfD Proposal to delete Burial by place category[edit]

It has been proposed here to delete the category that links people to their place of burial. Note that the proposer is recommending the removal of the whole tree of categories, not just the the top level categories listed. Ephebi Ephebi (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How many workers died building St. Paul's Cathedral.[edit]

Is there any research on this? Also, why is there not a memorial to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.5.149 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Temple of Diana[edit]

Quote from "Pre-Norman cathedral" section: "Geoffrey of Monmouth claimed that the cathedral had been built on the site of a temple dedicated to the goddess Diana, in alignment with the Apollo temple that he imagined once stood at Westminster...".

Nonsense - Geoffrey did NOT make such a claim. The idea that (following the persecution of Christians by Diocletian) Apollo was worshipped at Westminster and Diana in London comes from the history of Westminster Abbey by John Flete, 15th-century monk of Westminster - and he didn't say that Diana was worshipped on the site of St Paul's. That comes from William Camden's Britannia, published in 1586. Camden puts forward the theory that a Roman Temple of Diana had once stood on the site of St Paul's. His evidence is not accepted by modern archaeologists.

And if the "in alignment with" phrase actually means what it says, one can only respond that a straight line can indeed be drawn between any two points!

Since the sentence about Geoffrey of Monmouth is unreferenced and unverifiable (as well as untrue) I'm simply going to delete it pro tem - unless someone can provide the essential reference to a verifiable source. However, since the "Temple of Diana" story still resurfaces occasionally (along with the "megalithic stone circle"!) it will be worth reintroducing it at some point, correctly attributed and with proper references. - John O'London (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a para about the Temple of Diana, with references - also rewrote 'Pre-Norman' section. John O'London (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Workable?[edit]

"After the fire, the ruins of the building were still thought to be workable, but ultimately the entire structure was demolished in the early 1670s to start afresh." To me (and yes YMMV) "workable" sounds terrible clunky and a touch jargonistic, without even being precise. (You may have concluded by now that I don't like it.) Is some more elegant replacement possible? Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Bisy backson...... Amandajm (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - much better now. DBaK (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Memorials[edit]

They are still all there, but have been hidden. My suggestion is that we turn them into a separate list, which could even have photos of the people and a few short lines about their notability.

Amandajm (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

New photos of the interior[edit]

I was recently granted special access to photograph the interior of St Paul's Cathedral with a tripod. Here are the final images I was able to take. Unfortunately I wasn't given access to the crypt or the gallery and the time allocated was fairly limited, but hopefully these images will expand greatly on our limited existing interior imagery:

As there's not currently enough space in the article to accommodate all the images and there is probably no need for all the similar choir-based views, I didn't want to make any executive decisions on how to incorporate them. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Diliff. I will include some. Could you please do me a crop like the first one, or upload one that is similar? This is my low- res crop as a sample. Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent pic of the gates, despite the light behind them.
  • I wasn't particularly happy with the lighting in this photo, but I did what I could. Perhaps there was something to the left of the camera that prevented me from taking a front-on photo of it (it probably would not have avoided the light behind the gate though) At this point in the visit, I had just a couple of minutes before I was to be ejected, so this and the St Michael & St George Chapel were somewhat rushed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you manage to get a front-on image of the organ, by any chance? It would be useful for a different article.
  • I wasn't able to get a front-on image of the organ without looking up at it from quite an angle (the choir is not very wide) so I decided to compromise by taking the photo from further back but somewhat from the side, opposite the pulpit. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The second image here is my response to the extreme distortion that happens at the outside of the images, when the vertical perspective is removed. In order to demonstrate the architecture, I would prefer to use the inner sections of some of the pictures. I tried to upload a couple of adjustments, to show you what I want, but I am having connection problems, and only one worked.
  • I still don't think the distortion is extreme on the sides of the choir image looking towards the high altar, but I suppose we'll never agree on this. ;-) I think it just comes down to taste, and what one's brain can comfortably visualise. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
One or two of your wide views ought to replace the current very low resolution image 360* image. Which would you prefer? Amandajm (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Of these images, I suspect the first image is more 'representatitve' of the expansiveness of the cathedral. The image of the choir is more intimate, and probably better suited to the choir section of the article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: second image. My process of adjustment is:

  • upload to Photoshop
  • add extra size to canvas
  • locate camera/eye level and shift the image in the canvas so that the canvas pivots around the eye-level, rather than the centre of the image.
  • Go to Adjustments and add the slightly curved perspective that the human eye actually sees.
The result of this is that although the verticals take on a slight lean, everything that has been stretched, suddenly becomes its correct shape. i.e. the domes become round, the arches are no longer flattened, the Duke of Wellington's horse is no longer 2 metres long and 1 metre high, and all the little red lampshades are the same shape.
  • I then cropped the central, vertical section.
If you could do me a few crucial images that are similar vertical crops, I would love it.
However, I suggest that a couple of the wider fews go in as well, probably on looking each direction.
Next question. Did you get a photo from further west than the one with the equestrian memorial? That image shows part of one of the domical sections of the ceiling, of which there are one larger one at the narthex, then three before the dome. A photo of the nave that shows at least two of those little domes would be very useful. It could replace the current image of the nave which is poor quality.
I want to use the picture taken directly under the dome as well, but I want to team it with a crop that shows that diagonal view, as requested above, and is focussed on the arch rather than the dome itself, so I'll wait, and do them both together as I will also have to adjust the caption.
  • Unfortunately what you see above is all that I was able to take. As I said the other day, every image takes 5-10 minutes to shoot (from setting up the tripod, finding the correct exposure, and then shooting each of the many component images). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a high resolution crop as per your low resolution framing. It's available here. I tried to match your framing as close as possible. Hope that's what you're after. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I was just rewriting all this into a tidier form. As you can see, I have added quite a few images. I'll take a look . Amandajm (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. It's looking better already. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Diliff, totally brilliant! Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK! Now, what I want is:
  1. A vertical crop of the choir the same format as chancel. Because a) I want to put them together b) I don't like the distortion at the sides. See my notes above.
  2. Did you take a pic of the nave from further back? Otherwise we live with what we've got, but it would be nice to have one back far enough to show one of the circular vault compartments. I know.... you are going to tell me that there was a queue, a counter and a font in your way.... no excuse! Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right- Just reread that. This is the only Navish picture. I'll add it then, and think about what goes in a gallery below. Amandajm (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Precisely! The photo of the nave the very first photo I took when I entered the building, and it was directly in front of the font (in fact my tripod was as far back as I could get, on the raised marble that surrounds the font). I wanted to take that one first before too many people arrived. Actually even though I arrived for the opening, it wasn't truly empty as there were cleaners and other staff pottering around. I would have liked to have taken more photos of the nave from different people but as people were starting to pour in, I wanted to get as many photos as I could of different parts of the building before they too became impossible. And by the time I got back around to the nave again, there were throngs of people and I was running out of time anyhow. It's amazing how quickly an hour goes. Actually I was lucky to get an hour. Apparently I was only supposed to get 30 minutes, but when I protested and said that the email promised an hour, they said it was a mistake but that they would honour it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Diliff, St Paul's is not exactly user-friendly. You were very lucky that you got the extra time. Half an hour wouldn't have been anywhere near enough. You'll find most other cathedrals are easier, in part because they are not so swamped with tourists. The other one that is difficult is Canterbury, because they have crowds of school children coming across from France on excursions. The volunteers in the cathedral are wonderful, but the crowds of rude French teenagers are a nightmare.
On one occasion Gibson and I ran into an American woman with a teenage daughter outside the medieval gateway of the Cathedral. nearly in tears because they couldn't get in. They had come on a school English excursion, but the rest of the kids wanted to go to MacDonalds instead of the cathedral, and the teacher who was supposed to pay their entry had not done so, and they had run out of cash. The poor teenage girl was pleading with the dragonish woman in the gatehouse. I don't know how she could have been so unkind, since, really, they are allowed to use their discretion. I flicked a pass in font of her face and said that they were visiting the cathedral as my guests, and that we were all going to pray in the crypt and visit the tomb of the saint and that was that. The woman said "You can't do that!" I said, "Oh yes I can!" and off we went, with the girl saying that Yes, she really did want to pray in the crypt.... They can't keep out bona fide worshippers. She was such a sweet girl.....seemed to have walked out of the 19th century.Amandajm (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of cathedrals seem to have really business-oriented managers running them these days. I suppose they feel like they need to in order to attract the visitors needed to maintain the cathedrals, but at what cost to the actual purpose of the cathedral in the first place!? Yesterday, I put together a little table of the cathedrals on the circular road trip I showed you, and did some research on their websites about the policies on photography. Many of them said, "Sure, photography is no problem!". Others said "Photography is permitted, but we charge you £3 for a photography permit". Others said "No photography allowed except by prior approval", so I emailed these people (yes I know it may be more constructive to call them, but I wrote a generic email and did my best to explain what I was trying to achieve). Two cathedral managers have replied, both of them rather suspicious and wary of what this photography might expose them to. One of them, Hereford Cathedral, seemed positive, but quite concerned that once the images were published, they would have no ability to track or control the images. The other, Chichester Cathedral, wanted to know the exact details of all the places on the internet that the photo would be published, which Wikipedia articles I would be editing, etc. I had to explain that Wikipedia is collaborative and I cannot control how the images are used, nor can I even limit them only to Wikipedia. I'm still in discussion with both cathedrals but to be honest, it wasn't all that promising. They seem more concerned with protecting their interests than encouraging people to learn about the cathedral. I strongly suspect that quality images in the articles (and potentially used elsewhere in blogs etc) would have a wholely positive influence on visitor numbers, but convincing their management is another story. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)