Jump to content

Talk:Manila Cathedral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Manila cathedral 2.jpg has been listed for deletion

[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Manila cathedral 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

50th Restoration anniversary

[edit]

I corrected some facts and added dates and name, with link: The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) announced the highlights of activities for December 8, on the occasion of the Cathedral's 50th restoration anniversary - the second Manila Cathedral Pipe Organ Festival on December 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ GMA NEWS.TV, gmanews.tv/story, Activities lined up for Manila Cathedral's 50th restoration anniversary

History Copy-violation

[edit]

This article was completely copied from http://www.manilacathedral.org/History/history.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjs gigantor (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the said section.--Lenticel (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the history section and reverted to the older text since all entries are copyvio.--Lenticel (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Statue in Gold prior to 1985. Authentic Photograph of the 1908 Incarnation of the Manila Cathedral, no longer in existence.

[edit]

First of all, THANK YOU for doing the clean-up on the article. I really do appreciate it per Wikipedia's guidelines of stylistic reforms etc..

1. Please do not remove the line on the Immaculate Conception statue being covered in gold before 1985. There is no other prominent way to reference or prove that the statue really was indeed painted in gold other than associating it with the surviving wedding video of renowned singer Sharon Cuneta or rare photographs of the cathedral from the 60's or 70's, which none can be found since they have all been expelled by Wikipedia due to copyright issues.

2. Regarding the 1908 Photo. That REALLY IS the Manila Cathedral before a newer and a newer and then another tower was constructed. It also used to have a side facade similar to the Church of Gesu in Rome but was damaged by the Earthquake and never made again. Only the front facade survives today. This is the only surviving photograph of the 1908 Cathedral as approved by Wikipedia since all the old photographs found on the Internet are not allowed on the artiel due to violation of copyright issues.

Perhaps you are unaware that the ENTIRE church collapsed and only the front facade remained in the last 400 years. Thats OK. The tower itself was rebuilt from scratch with a new design, another one from 1940's and one used in the present----both are entirely different from each other. There have been so many belfry towers erected on that Cathedral because every single damn earthquake, they make a new tower design... each having a different design completely different from earlier incarnation.

The 1908 Manila Cathedral photograph is accurate. I inherited a similar 3x4 inches celluloid photograph from my grandfather with this exact same tower and side-facade. Another facade is on the other side, which is the original. Should you have further doubts, the photograph does not portray the San Agustin Church either. That church was perfectly preserved and is standing from its original structure since the 1600's... and only one tower has collapsed, but both towers are identical to each other and it is not the tower displayed on the 1908 photograph. In short, this tower of the Manila Cathedral is no longer in existence as it was collapsed, damaged and thoroughly rebuilt after the earthquake.

Thank you for the clean-up. LoveforMary (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary.[reply]

The 1908 picture is incorrect. We have to base our statements here on Wikipedia on verifiable facts - Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Please read "The Seventh Cathedral 1879-1945" from the official website of the Manila Cathedral, specifically "The Earthquake of 1880" about more than halfway down the page. After the earthquakes of 1880 the sole tower collapsed. The tower, which survived the destructive 1863 earthquake (which also destroyed the sixth cathedral), collapsed after the 1880 earthquake and the seventh cathedral remained without a tower until its destruction in World War II. Please carefully inspect the facade on your 1908 picture and click the links on these three pictures of the Cathedral before the war and compare them with your picture: Manila Cathedral 1, Manila Cathedral 2 and Manila Cathedral 3. Notice the differences? Please read the History of the Manila Cathedral on its official webpage which include all the edifices that stood in that same location. Please read WP:CITE on why we need reliable and verifiable references. Also, please respect other editors, your edit on January 13 included a line saying "Reworded clumsy english wording by previous editors". Please treat other editors with respect. Please read WP:CIVILITY. We are all not perfect here. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think you're right. Lets just replace it with the other old photo. It's no use disputing, since the tower is no longer existing anyway. My grandfather was a sacristan and he served at the Manila Cathedral, this similar photo was in his possession and I have seen many pre-Spanish era sketches of the Manila Cathedral similar to the facade of Church of Gesu in Rome. Anyway, i'll take it down. and I wasn't insulting editors. It's not in my nature, unlike some editors here on Wikipedia who are just plain arrogant and condescending on NON-Americans. Just saying. LoveforMary (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary[reply]

I'm so sorry but I also have to remove the 'Immaculate Conception being covered in gold' based on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Again Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts not because you believe them to be true. Please respect other editors (referring to your statement above). Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on this one----I am absolutely not wrong. It is not only true, but can be verifiable. The problem is everytime a picture of the Manila Cathedral inside is posted on Wikipedia commons is uploaded, it is rejected due to copyright issues claimed by the Manila Cathedral itself. The statue was covered in gold paint up to 1985. The live wedding videos from this date speaks for itself, most notably the wedding video of Sharon Cuneta at the Altar. I found it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/prazskejezulatko/461222205/in/photostream and http://www.flickr.com/photos/dennisraymondm32/3706300901/in/faves-paulus_magnus/ See this photo? The statue wasnt colored in realistic colors but in one single color----which at the time was gold. I am trying to find a copy of the YouTube video from this wedding. I remember seeing this distinctly when we used to go to this church when I was a young kid. But if I upload this picture to Wikipedia, it gets rejected because MLA cathedral wants to claim full copyright. LoveforMary (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary[reply]

I dont know how you are able to upload photos of the Manila Cathedral, but the ones I have uploaded using my old celluloid copies have been rejected as a copyright issue. Some stupid bullcrap about 75 years waiting period. Work around here would be so much easier if copyright for educational purposes were a non-issue. Just saying. LoveforMary (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary[reply]

You can only upload your own pictures, i.e., pictures of the cathedral taken by yourself. I have to remove the part of the statement about celebrity weddings per WP:SOAPBOX. The article is about the cathedral and should concern more about it. Perhaps, you could expand the golden statue information. Maybe elaborate why the statue was covered in gold? since when? why was it changed? who ordered it? Things like that. Please also read Wikipedia:Citing sources for referencing guide. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manila Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

[edit]

please make this article open for public editing Catholic Merchant (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Requests for reduction in page protection level can be made at WP:RPP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Cardinal Santos' Galero

[edit]

The current picture showing the suspended galero in the article predates the 2018 addition of Cardinal Santos' galero to the cathedral ceiling. It is probably better to use a more recent image. Yo.dazo (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2022 (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) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the reverted details about the High Altar (and the bronze Virgin up there)

[edit]

First, there's no subheading yet in the Details of the Shrine heading for the High Altar, even though it's a big point of attention in the snow-white bareness of the apse. (In fact, the "Details of the Shrine" heading could do with some more subheadings—Nave and Aisles, Chapels, stained glass, Sanctuary and High Altar, and so on—but that's beside the point.) Information about the Immaculate Conception image in particular would properly belong there, not under the Patroness heading.

Second, such information should have been cited. Here's a guide on how.

Third, the Facebook virtual tour of the Cathedral is almost certainly not a good source to use in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia lists Facebook as an unreliable source, for one. There's also the danger that, unless properly archived in the Wayback Machine or something similar, the virtual tour could be taken down and the source could become a dead link. But the biggest issue is that the virtual tour has almost certainly collected its information from other, more primary sources. It is only good practice to use those primary sources instead.

Apologies for the trouble, but this is necessary work. Yo.dazo (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this article's... funky? structure

[edit]

EDIT: Viewing this in the mobile app breaks the tables. It works well in mobile browsers though.

As far as I know there is no article template for churches, but there is a general pattern that many follow. To illustrate what I mean, here are the headings (excluding subheadings and anything past See Also) of other churches comparable in importance to Manila Cathedral.

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral Uppsala Cathedral Manila Cathedral
History History History
Exterior Architecture Patroness
Interior Interior Shrine Rectors
Restoration Interred Notables Burials and Funerals
Cultural Value Open to Visitors Details of the Shrine
Gallery

I will have to point out, of course, that Manila Cathedral is not a shrine at all, and that "details" as a word is vague enough to conceivably include everything in this article. Also, is the incomplete list of rectors more important than the architectural details of the church itself? Should it even be included, considering its incomplete state?

As a further example, here are the subheadings under "Interior" for the same churches.

Mexico City Cathedral Uppsala Cathedral Manila Cathedral
Altars (has sub-sub-headings) Chapels Cathedra
Sacristy Windows
Chapels (has sub-sub-headings) Treasury and Artifacts
Organs Judensau
Choir
Crypt

Surely this article needs refurbishment too, if only to make it look like a properly normal church article. Yo.dazo (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manila_Cathedral&oldid=1247391128"