Talk:Liverpool Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Not Victorian 2 boyd? 3 Diocese of Liverpool 4 Name 5 Naming poll 5.1 Liverpool Cathedral 5.2 Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool 5.3 Discussion 6 Image

[edit] Not Victorian

Although Giles Gilbert Scott was born during the reign of Queen Victoria, I think it is misleading to describe him as 'Victorian'.

Through the influence of his father (George Gilbert Scott) he was well versed in the neo-gothic style, characteristic of the Victorian museums in South Kensington. However he was only 23 when he won this commision. Gilbert Scott's later work is largely modernist. Solipsist 09:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] boyd?

Is "boyd" correct, or a tyop for "body"? If it isn't boyd (which my dictionary doesn't show) I'm dissapointed :) - we do need a word for "the main hall of a church", but I refrained from saying "body" myself, as it can mean "congregation". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, carp. Clearly a tyop, I'm afraid. I was aiming for "body" to avoid the rapid-succession repetition of "space", but you're right abõut the possibility of body/congregation confusion. Perhaps "nave" was the word we were both struggling for. –Hajor 01:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

No, the nave is just the central part of the long axis - see the (most excellent) Cathedral diagram. Body may have to do. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

(Yes, excellent diagrams.) I've just tried a wording with "spacious" and "interior". Pleae play about, revert, experiment. –Hajor 01:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

That's an excellent improvement, thanks (although it does sound ever so slightly estate-agenty) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Diocese of Liverpool

In the process of editing I removed the following information on the diocese of Liverpool, largely because it seemed too much detail before any mention of the cathedral.

It is the seat of the Bishop of Liverpool, whose diocese covers Merseyside (except Wirral), Warrington, and West Lancashire.  It is part of the Anglican province of York.

Is this sufficiently covered in List of Church of England dioceses or should it go somewhere else? -- Solipsist 09:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I confess I put that in for wont of something "overview"-y to have in the opening sentence. I'll link the first mention of diocese to that, which should be fine. Nice job on the Bodley article, btw. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This building has several names the offical is Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool, so that is the one to use.--Jirate 23:26, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

[edit] Naming poll

Please indicate whether this article should be named "Liverpool Cathedral" or "Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool". Note that the article has been named "Liverpool Cathedral" until very recently, so unless there is a consensus for "Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool" it should be moved back to "Liverpool Cathedral".

[edit] Liverpool Cathedral

1. Rhobite 01:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
2. My reasoning is noted at User talk:Irate. — Dan | Talk 01:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. It's the common name. Samboy 01:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. Chris 73 Talk 01:44, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
5. Geni 01:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. –Hajor 01:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Lpool Cathedral (this one). And Lpool Metropolitan Cathedral (the other one). Compare the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster, the article on which is at Westminster Abbey.
7. Naming conventions suggest an article should be at the most commonly used name (so people can guess the correct link when wiki-linking). I would also argue that the policy should be changed for buildings, as with ships, such that we use the official or proper name for a building. A few buildings, such as this one, have more than one name and a couple of nicknames too, but in this case 'Liverpool Cathedral' seems to be both the most common and one of the official names. The only other name worth considering is 'Liverpool Anglican Cathedral'. - Solipsist 01:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
8. Use common name. The opening paragraph clearly distinguishes it from the RC cathedral in Liverpool. (See Talk:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King for a discussion on the name for that page.) Jonathunder 02:02, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
9. Use the common name. --Carnildo 02:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. Use the common name; that is Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
11. User:Irate has also been moving Manchester Cathedral and Bristol Cathedral. When Wikipedia policy on using common names was pointed out to him, he immediately responded with an unprovoked personal attack along the lines of "only cretins like you" use common names (see [1] in the "Cathedral names" section). As proof of common name usage by local media, see for instance http://www.icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk and do a search on "cathedral". For instance, [2], [3], [4] (these are all very recent newspaper articles, if they have disappeared from the site's archives by the time you read this, just do your own fresh search). In contexts where it is necessary to carefully distinguish between Liverpool Cathedral and the Roman Catholic Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, Liverpool Cathedral is sometimes called the "Anglican Cathedral", but usually it is simply called "Liverpool Cathedral". When the Roman Catholic cathedral is mentioned alone, it is locally called by the common name "Metropolitan Cathedral" [5] [6] [7] (again, these are all very recent newspaper articles, do your own fresh search if they have disappeared from the site's archives by the time you read this). -- Curps 03:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    Further comment There are exactly two cathedrals in Liverpool and the other one (the Roman Catholic cathedral) says in the very first paragraph of its official website: "it helps avoid confusion to refer to one as 'Liverpool Cathedral' and the other [itself] as 'The Metropolitan Cathedral.' " [8] -- Curps 20:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

12. as per policy on common usage. Thryduulf 08:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
13. violet/riga (t) 09:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
14. Either Liverpool Cathedral or Liverpool Cathedral (Church of England), the latter would clearly stop any confusion with the Catholic cathedral by those who don't know Liverpool. Gareth Hughes 13:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
15. Michael Warren | Talk 17:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool

1. Correct name, stand for ever, not confused with the Catholic cathedral, looks better at top of page.--Jirate 01:39, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

If the Catholic cathedral in Liverpool was to be placed under its popular nick name (common usage!) then there would be on confusion ;-O --Philip Baird Shearer

It does worry me the ambiguity. What also worries me is the search argument, if I was looking for something in a city, I'd first go to the city and look from there. Typing in Liverpool Cathedral requires knowledge of Liverpool and Christianity. If something has a proper name it's better to use that, rather than a nick name based on geograph and function.--Jirate 20:36, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think there is any real confusion or ambiguity here. The Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool is the more signifcant cathedral, architecturally, historically, by size and by priority - the Catholic Cathedral wins on the importance of its stained glass and the speed of its construction. In any case the opening paragraph makes it clear that there is an alternative cathedral to consider (although the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral article should be updated to clarify the reverse connection). There is no need to obfuscate the page titles and the vote looks pretty clear. -- Solipsist 22:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Irate, it is far more likely that someone will know that x city has a cathedral, than the name of it. In the past couple of years I have visited cathedrals in Bristol, Wells, Lincoln, Salisbury, Peterborough, Ely, Chichester, York and possibly others as well. I cannot give you the full official name of any of them. In the case of Liverpool where there are two cathedrals, the articles should provide any necessary disambiguation - which they currently do. Thryduulf 17:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. We are talking about how people find things on Wikipedia not in the real world. If soemone want to know about Cathedrals in Liverpool, they will first go to the page dedicated to the city, and then track it down. I think a lot of this shows a lack of understand of ergonomics and how people search on-line documents or even use index's in books. It just a pity that people on Wikipedia care more about their essays than they do about making the data accessable.--Jirate 18:34, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

If I was looking for information on Cathedrals in Liverpool the first place I'd look would be Liverpool Cathedral. If there was more than one, I'd expect either the article to alert me to this by the end of the first paragraph, or Liverpool Cathedral to be a disambiguation page. Thryduulf 13:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggests you no nothing about how people use these kind of systems, or computer systems in general, or indexed or catlogues.--Jirate 14:14, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Then enlighten me. What is more logical than looking for a cathedral in Liverpool under the name Liverpool Cathedral? Thryduulf 14:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Going to the city of Liverpool and then looking for a cathedral is what most people will do. They will use index, lists, search engines etc. There is no logic behind your assumtion that people will simple type in a phrase and expect that to take them to the correct page. The most logical approach is to ignore the random guessing phase, and start from a known. In this case the city. Large amounts of money have been invested in HCI labs to find out what people actually do in front of cimputers, because one things is sure, it's not what they think they are doing. This isn't just idle speculation I spent many years writting retail apps for PC's and did a lot of the UI.--Jirate 15:29, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

In my experience of Wikipedia, "Random guessing" has led me to what I was looking for, or to a page that directed me to there, in almost every case. The only examples I can think of recently are some of the place names I've looked up for user:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs (my reworking of List of songs whose title includes geographical names); and Telex which used to be what is now at Telex (band) but has since become a disambiguation page between the band and teleprinter. In the first case the occasions where I didn't get what I was after were caused by (in decreasing order of frequency):

• my needing the disambig page (see User talk:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs#Multiple places with the same name for why)
• the article not existing
• vandalism.

Anyway, this is beside the point that wikipedia policy says use the most common name for article titles. If you disagree with that policy, make your point on the talk page of that policy or at the village pump. Thryduulf 16:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A thought occurs to me. This might be deemed superfluous to some, but why not have a disambiguation page for cities with more than one cathedral, with appropriate links? Then set up a series of redirects so that anyone looking for cathedrals in those cities are redirected to this new page? Then we can remove any ambiguity once and for all. This seems to me to be a suitably encyclopedic approach, and also gives users the opportunity to jump to other like cities if they so wish at a single mouse click. Just a thought! Calilasseia 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I had to remove the image under detail, as it is non free and will be deleted. It shouldnt be hard to replace with lots of much better ones. Justinc 20:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)