Talk:List of largest Eastern Orthodox church buildings

Church of Saint Sava not on the list

According to Church of Saint Sava article, the Church of Saint Sava in Belgrade, Serbia (under construction) will accommodate 10,000 people with area of 3,500 square meters. This article should be updated.

Coptic Orthodox

This page is obviously about Eastern Orthodox churches. So why does the intro state that Coptic churches can be included? That doesn't make sense. (And if Oriental Orthodox churches are to be included, why only Coptic ones? That makes even less sense.) 184.175.14.142 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cathedral Saint Isaac Saint Petersburg - the largest Orthodox church

The Cathedral is by its main dimensions of 111,3 x 97,6 m still the largest Orthodox church, although the interior space covers only 4.000 m² (from the official site), which surpasses only slightly the interior space of Saint Sava (91 x 81 m, 3650 m²). This is due to the volominous southern and northern portico at Saint Isaac. The exact surface area is not given. The sumtimes used numer 10767 is not correct as it results from multiplication of length and width. Now the exterior area of th People's Salvation Cathedral is known to cover slightly under 6.000 m² which is certainly lower to that of Saint Isaac.Orjen (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Volume insted of surface area

The usage of volume insted of surface area is arbitray and nonsens, as scientific publications don't use this dimension to compare buildings. Someonde here qho rents flat by volume and not groundfloor area. Maybe this category makes sense for ship-sizes as they float on water, mybe birds need volume, humans adhere to gravity and walk at groundfloor level. Only used here by :@Puldin: to have the Romanian Cathedral in first place. But even this is unsure as the volumes are not calculated from a comparative publication. So nonsense as he uses a dimension which is unsure to have significanace and which can only easily be calculated for cubes. Official cadastre also never use Volume, only exception is the air space in Manhatten, but that's a different story and has to do with business. Orjen (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Puldin: look up the List of largest church buildings, categorical feature is extant of its area not volume, which you simply invented to have the Romanian Church in first place.Orjen. And there's a big problem, as you worked also on the List of largest church buildings where Saint Isaac is given ahead of the Peopl's Salvation Cathedral. The global list gives floor area, and the Orthodox churches list the volume. Again you use arbitrary modes to push the Bukarest cathedral ahead of other buildings. Don's find such an intention appropriate. Scientifically this is falsification. (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And it is nonsense to use Volume for a list, as this category is no comparative meassure as the information is missing for most churches and if it is given, methodology is not clear, as you would need three dimensional models for which you have to calculate most complicated sizes and forms. The impracticability is obvious and no list can be formed based on this categorial feature. It simply is not functioning in a list supposed to cover a comprehensive amount of data. Again nonsense whose intention is only to have the favourized building in first place.Orjen (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In the intro of the article itself is stated very crear: priority is given to the volume. This ends the question. By the way, the same applies for the list of largest church buildings in the world - it also says clear in the intro that priority is given to the volume. The buildings (and the churches are also buildings) are 3-dimensional objects. So it is common sense that the volume has priority.

Absolutely every source possible states that People's Salvation Cathedral is the largest/biggest Orthodox church building in the world. This is also stated in all the sources recently provided by yourself.

Also. Look at the numbers you give by yourself. In terms of area People's Salvation Cathedral is also bigger than St Isaac's Cathedral. According to your numbers People's Salvation Cathedral has interior area of about 5000 square meters and St Isaac's Cathedral has interior area of 4000 square meters. It is obvious that in the matter of floor area People's Salvation Cathedral is also bigger than St Isaac's Cathedral. And it is much bigger - 1000 square meters more for People's Salvation Cathedral (if your recent numbers are correct/accurate).

It is clear that in this list the interior area matters and not the exterior area (just look at the headers of the columns - it says "interior area").

By the way, your numbers for Christ the Saviour Cathedral are wrong. Best wishes.Puldin (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You should not have invented an arbitrary category for the church you favour for which data can't be cited. You should change to groundfloor as in the global list. Why you think is the global list prioritizing ground area? Because it can be compared. You still simply can't reference volume for any church - no publication deals with its calculation and no publication has data methodology on volume. You took it from an interview for People's Salvation Cathederal, not an scientific publication with not published methodology (how precise is your information). So with no reviewed proof for complex three dimensional data you simply state on tourist information. So why have you chosen this kind of arbitrary method for which data are not given nor are cited in reviewed papers? The numbers are simply unproofed from cross ref publications. You simply have to show calculation methods for this volume idea, which you cann't and don't want. With this said, you don't proof nothing, as only with falsification of volume you try to proof that the People's Salvation Cathderal is the largest which by ground floor area it is not. And therefore you invented volume. Big lie as ground floor area is smaller thant Saint Isaac or Hagia Sophia, which you didn't list, but which is included in the global list. In the global list, you still use number for the old plan, while the executed church is smaller than that.Orjen (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Orjen, you talk to the wrong guy. :)

It is not me who created this particular list. It is not me who have created the intro, the volume criteria and so on.

Actually I have just changed the picture of People's Salvation Cathedral in this list recently (I put more recent photo).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but again: It is not me who placed People's Salvation Cathedral on the top of this list.

I do not know what exactly you have in mind when saying that I try to find a way to push particular building ahead (or whatever you have in mind in the lines above). It looks like some reproach.

In fact only the numbers and the sources matter here.

Also. As I see, you are the one who has a favorite building here and you are the one who is trying to push St. Sava ahead. :)

However. There is no problem if the floor area column is in the first place. I could agree with this. I still insist that the volume is the most important but in the same time I agree with you that it is suitable for the purpose of this list the "interior area" column to be first (as there is no data on the volume of too many church buildings). I will put the "interior area" column on first place. Best wishes.Puldin (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So If you didn't initiated this volume approach why do you justify it? It is not referencable as publications don't given volume area to build a quality thesis on. As it is not basic data and has to be retrieved through complicated 3D calculations. None of the churches is a storage hall for piling goods that needs volume as a catergorial figure. Second the list does not use the obvious ground floor parameter, it just leaves this one out? In researche on Russian resources (several months and years ago) to analyzing basic data on floor area and vault spans for Saint Isaac and Christ Saviour it was hard to get to them in relevant publications, and be sure, none gives volume.

The methodology and referencing of the list is based on presumed and fabricated data for volume which is producing anonsense. It even doesn't matter to the capacity of the building, as it doesn't matter in the building process or in planning. It is a derived scale originating from base area and the built structure above. As capacity is the imoportant figure you have to list groundfloor area. If you proofed your volume numbers, which you couln't, it would be a meassure. You even can't find relevant basic figures for the People's Salvation cathedral, plans of the executed church, precise figures for the vaults, the size of the exterior and interior ground floor area, and claim to insist on volume as a qulity meassure! This is nonsense - you miss the calculus for the assumption. And it is not a piling porblem but the capacity of the floor area which give a relevant meassure for size.Orjen (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And be sure to use the outer size factor, as it is this one which encompasses the size of the building - the approach in the global list has to be adapted? And be sure to give cross ref figures for People's Salvation cathedral on that one, the figures I used for Saint Save have all double proofing - multiple referenced publications, cadastial inquiries and project drawings - so nothing to critisize on that. Your numbers for People's Salvation Cathedral don't fullfill the same data quality. And yes, the ground floor area (exterior) of the People's Salvation Cathedral is not the largest, sure on that one, it might be the largest in its interior - but proof is missing.Orjen (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Man, I just use the way the list was created. I do not know who, when and why has decided to use the volume criteria. I do not think this decision matters here. (But it is a logical decision. 3-dimensional objects are compared with the volume at first place. Exactly this "large" means.) I edited the article in the way and with the criteria used in the article itself.

It's so simple.

Also. I think that all of your explanations and thoughts about the volume as criteria are irrelevant. Wikipedia uses sources. That's the way it works. If a source says that a particular building has a particular volume, we just use the source and the number there. Again - this is the way Wikipedia works.

I do not see much sense in all of your explanations and the discussion you started here. I do not say that everything you said in the lines abobe is wrong or something like that. I'm just saying that there is no need of all of this. As I said, it is irrelevant. Furthermore. As I see, the order of the list (or at least the most of it) is the same even after all of your edits and attempts to push St Sava church ahead. :)

By the way. It looks that we must discuss the including of Hagia Sophia here. I would say that it is very debatable. Just look above - even some Orthodox jurisdictions are excluded of this list (Coptic, Oriental, etc). And now you include Hagia Sophia which is now a mosque...

Also. You must bring the pictures back! The article is much better with pictures! Also. You must respect the work and the efforts of the others! I even would say that the deletion of all the pictures is a vandalism. I can not understand your reaction and your frustration, nor the reason for it.

Best wishes. Puldin (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict again: ground floor area is basic data to cadastre - any building has this information. Volume is not basic data and not listed in cadastre information. Second you proofed yourself to verify ground floor area with google maps - any orthoimage can give this basic data - none can give volume for a building without having additional and detailed information to 3D structure. So you can simply verify ground floor but by no means volume without going into research. Basic as it is.

sorting of list

The sorting of the list was invented with this edit: [1] by @MIHAIL. The problem for sorting by volume is that data quality is not guaranteed. It is unverifyable as no methodolgy for calculation is provided. Needless to say that excellent primary data to calculate and calibrate volume has to be at hand. The sorting should follow gross area as is done in the global list for the largest church buildings.Orjen (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Everything you are saying about the volume as a criterion (the "problem" with it) applies for the floor area as a criterion as well! We face the same "problem" talking of the area. The volume (when a number for it is presented) is as much certain as the floor area.

Furthermore. There are number of church buildings the data for which is official, provided by official sources and/or trusted sources. And this data often includes numbers for the volume of the respective church building, as well as the area of the building.Puldin (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Data on volume is not available for most of the listed churches, you can't list the datasets on this entry with missing of more than 75% of data. Than you have even for those available no cross reference by multiple sources - the data entries are uncertain and not verifyable. The list can't be sorted or structured by two parallel criteria for which volume is available for only 1/3 of the structures and than chenge to floor area - you have to list it by one criterion first hand. Also no statistic is possible with missing data. The database has sufficient information on floorarea to be listed. Again if you think People's Salvation Cathedral is the largest it might have also the largest groundlevel. But proof it firsthand. Hagia Sophia is included in the global list, it is discussed there why it has been done. Discuss the inclusion/exclusion in the talk section for the entry of Hagia Sophia in the global list. I do not see why it should be included there and excluded here, the criterion is the same.Orjen (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ad pictures: the list is now interchangable to the database in the global list and entries can be transferred from one to the other without much makeover. You don't need the pictue section in the data list - it is a datalist/database. The images can follow beside the list as is done in other list articles. Again proof the statistics with complete datasets - volume is incomplete and insufficient for quality.Orjen (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Puldin reverted based on missing images - this has been added. List is interchangable to global list - data transfer possible. The old list didn't provide this interchangabilty.Orjen (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Kazan Cathedral - wrong image.Puldin (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the table

There is some problem with the table after the deletion of the pictures by @Orjen and the reconstruction of the table made by him after that.

Few minutes ago I tried to move the column with the pictures next to the names of the buildings but now the table is not sortable. I do not know the reason for this. There is some problem with the table.Puldin (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

fixed this which @Puldin could have done himsself, as Puldin changed the row numbering which led to the problem in first place. Than Puldin uses falsification for groundfloor area of People's Salvation Cathedral - he knows better than that,as he is informed that the executed church has changed size - the referenced number is 5760 m². It is not pssible to erase this given data even if you find another but has to reference both into the fieldOrjen (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The global list says 6100 square meters interior area for PSC. I even put this number as exterior in this list (the present one). It was you, who proposed harmonization with the global list, aren't you? :) I just follow your example.

Yes, I know that the plan of PSC was changed. I do not know if 6100 sq. m. is the actual number for the interior area. The final plan is from 2013. The cathedral (PSC) was consecrated in the end of 2018. I think (I'm not sure) that 6100 sq.m is the actual number.

About the source you use. I think that it is not accurate. Look at the rest of the numbers in the source you use for PSC. It says that the cathedral is 124 m long. But we know that it is 126 m long (colonnade to colonnade). The number for the height is also wrong in the source you use. The number for the width is also not accurate in this source. So, probably the number for the area in this source is not accurate too. In any case, the numbers are close. So this is not a problem.

By the way, don't you like that St Sava is two positions higher on the list now? If we do not use the volume criterion, then St Sava would be on the sixth position on this list. Now (taking the volume into account) St Sava is on the fourth position.

By the way, I didn't know how to fix the problem with the table nor the reason for the problem. Thank you for fixing it.Puldin (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Catedrala Înălțarea Domnului - Bacău.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Catedrala Sfânta Treime din Baia Mare (România).png (discussion)
• Михайловский кафедральный собор (Черкассы).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Храм Христа Рятівника (Ужгород).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Catedrala Înălțarea Domnului - Bacău.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Tbilisi Holy Trinity Cathedral (Sameba) IMG 8951 1920.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Catedrala Mântuirii Neamului - București (Iulie 2020).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Inflated numbers for Bukarest cathedral

We got inflated numbers for this cathedral, an area of 13.000 square meters is what St. Peter's size is. The Bukarest Cathedral is 127 m long and 67 m wide (rounded). This give a square with the area of 8500 square meters. Church has obviously side arms with the width of 67 m, and the width of the main aisle is much less (around 50 m). Someone should fix this inflation of numeber with the gross overstatement of its size. 2001:9E8:A594:400:47A:1DB4:F747:D957 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)