Jump to content

Talk:Trinity Church (Boston)

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

Photos

[edit]

Just playing around with photo order to make the page more interesting. Obviously feel free to revert back if there's a problem with this set up Pnkrockr 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary photo for this article (in the infobox) is horizontally reversed from reality. The Library of Congress image from which it is sourced also appears flipped from reality. I presume this has something to do with the source being a "digital representation of a film transparency" -- which is to say a film negative that, if printed on paper, would have returned to correct orientation, but which has instead been digitally scanned and turned into a positive, thus remaining oriented backward.
Anyway, this is wrong and appears to have been wrong for more than a decade. That's a bit disturbing, to be honest, though I've been to this page many times before without noticing the problem, despite knowing the area well and walking by the church on a regular basis.
Since the photo is public domain, can one simply correct it by flipping horizontally, or would it be a problem that it would then differ from the (incorrect) "official" version in the LoC? (Frankly, the photographer should be embarrassed to have scanned and rendered a negative without appropriately correcting the orientation, and the Library of Congress should be appalled at having published an objectively wrong image in an official capacity.) If that is a problem, then it is time to source a new image for the article, one in which left is actually left and right is actually right.2601:182:CE00:3152:CA3:3525:B266:2277 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it's laterally (left-right) reversed. The large bldg in the background is the Old Hancock Building and is actually on the right. See Google street view. In an unrelated matter, the article says Trinity Church is "under study" for landmark status. What next? Will they be considering the State House for landmark status? How about Faneuil Hall? EEng 04:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

42.3499460,-71.0754610

(Later...) Done. BrainMarble (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

There are a lot of statements made that need to be cited and backed up with references. Chlopeck (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Canonization" of Phillips Brooks

[edit]

I quote from another Wikipedia article as follows:

"The Episcopal Church does not canonize individuals, holding instead that all baptized Christians are saints of God and have the potential to be examples of faith to others. Episcopalians pray for each other and for all Christians as members of the Communion of Saints, including both the living and the dead, since all are considered to be in the hands of God."

The foregoing is a fair and accurate statement as to the practice of "canonization" when it comes to the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. If you find the entry for Phillips Brooks on the church calendar, you will see no "Saint" or "St." before his name. Those people on the church calendar designated as "Saint" predate the Reformation.

Appointing a person's name to the official daily calendar of the Episcopal Church is by no means "canonization."70.231.242.151 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Structure

[edit]

It is nice to see that a Wikipedia church article does not reduce a church to a mere bunch of bricks but also describes the congregation it serves, but in this article it all seems to be a bit muddled up. First comes the music, for whatever reason. Then the service, and a long list of rectors. Finally, almost at the end, a fairly short paragraph on art and architecture.

Why is that so far at the end of the article, almost way down in the trivia section?
If this is to be an article on the church - not primarily on the congregation or on the musical activities - , I would expect that part to be the most important one right at the beginning of the article!
And is there really no more to be said on this impressive church building than that?

Also, I personally would expect the description of the organs to be part of the description of the church interior, not of the musical activities, but I guess there may be more than one opinion on that. --84.190.88.6 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trinity Church (Boston). 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) 11:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trinity_Church_(Boston)&oldid=1195730496"