Talk:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleLiverpool Metropolitan Cathedral has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Naming poll[edit]

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

Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral[edit]

  1. 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 03:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Further comment The official website of this cathedral says in its very first paragraph: "it helps avoid confusion to refer to one as 'Liverpool Cathedral' and the other [itself] as 'The Metropolitan Cathedral.' " [8]. Note there are exactly two cathedrals in Liverpool. -- Curps 20:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Use common name. Jonathunder 03:21, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  3. Rhobite 03:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC). Support shorter, more common name.
  4. Dan | Talk 04:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. for the same reason as Rhobite Thryduulf 08:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. violet/riga (t) 09:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Gareth Hughes 13:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • As the poll seems to favor Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, I have moved the article back to this name. If there would be a turn in the poll, we can always move it again, although I don't expect the poll outcome to change. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Michael Warren | Talk 17:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Within the city of Liverpool, Liverpool Cathedral is often referred to as the Anglican Cathedral
  • Support - If the UK is under the page name United Kingdom, then equally this should be under the shorter (and nicer) version of its name. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 01:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King[edit]

  1. This cathedral is knon offically as Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King. it has about twenty other names locally, so it best to use the offical.--Jirate 23:23, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


Alternative images[edit]

Nickname[edit]

I find the name of 'Paddy's Wigwam', derogatory and offensive and I don't care how affectionately the locals of Liverpool feel about it...It still remains a very derogatory and offensive comment...Today or even a hundred years ago...It's offensive! Remove it from WP...it does nothing for the article or add to the information, but insult people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfander (talkcontribs) 19:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's affectionately known as Paddy's Wigwam? Just googling the term shows that more than a few people besides me find this "affectionate" nickname to be pretty offensive. How about at least affectionately (if also derogatorily)? Then again, the Brits have always had such good relations with the Irish and the Native Americans, I'm sure no harm is meant by the name. aww 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Googling "Paddy's Wigwam" seems to reveal nothing of the sort, and show you to be in the company of a single musician (in the first 50 or so hits, anyway). It seems to be a complete non-issue in the city as well, a very large part of which is Irish in origin, probably because it is from the city and an example of scouse humour, not something dreamed up by scheming imperialists. Perhaps some knowledge of a place would be helpful before you start throwing these sort of accusations about. MAG1 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd tend to agree. The nickname is certainly common locally bt I'm not sure it is especially derogatory. Few of the Google hits suggest that it is seen that way, although the use of the term 'Paddy' could be seen as racially insensitive today. Rather it is the vein of locals poking fun at local landmarks: for example Dublin has the The Stiffy by the Liffey and The Tart with the Cart statue, along with numerous other examples, and London has the Erotic gherkin.
One of the Google references suggests that the Anglican Cathedral has the nickname "Dracula's castle", but I can't say that I've ever heard that one in common use - I'm not sure it has any real currency. -- Solipsist 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. That's why I asked here (and didn't make any changes to the article). Goes to show different things fly on different sides of the pond. Thanks. aww 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Its also known as the mersey funnel. Jcoatz 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anybody actually call it Paddy's Wigwam? the only place I've heard it is in books and articles, like here, claiming this is the popular name. I've never heard anyone actually use it. Or Mersey Funnel, either. Swanny18 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im from Liverpool and never once heard it being called "Paddy's Wigwam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsange (talkcontribs) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I call it Paddy's Wigwam whenn asked which cathedral. My parents do too and I have heard other people call it that too Sweetie candykim (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does the term "Paddy's Wigwam" not appear at all in this article, I would have felt that it should be in the lead. It is widely used in Liverpool as an affectionate name for the Cathedral. Petepetepetepete (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image caption[edit]

The caption to the last image tells us that "The roof is the largest of its kind in the world". Er, what does that mean? What is "its kind"? Could we have a source please? Cheers, DWaterson 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The lead as it is now is a bit brief, it needs to summarise the whole article. For instance, for a structure with such a complex construction history, no mention is made in the lead of when building started or the main phases.
  • If available, it would be good to include the expected and actual costs of each phase of construction. That way, when it's stated that Scott's 1953 design cost £4M the reader can compare it to earlier figures.
  • It's mentioned that Scott's design was criticised and abandoned, but it's not really explained what about it was criticised.
  • The Sir Edwin Lutyens Crypt section feels out of sequence and a bit repetitious. I think it should be integrated into the Lutyens' design section so that chronological order is restored and the article doesn't repeat itself.
  • What happened to the Lady Chapel while Lutyen's cathedral was in use? Is the cathedral now the parish church?
  • Lutyen's design is pretty unusual, has it won any awards?
  • It should be mentioned in the article that the cathedral is a Grade II* listed building.
  • Finally, I can't put my finger on what's missing and nothing particularly stands out, but the article feels a little "light".

I've made these edits, mostly copyediting. Some of the references were used more than once. When this happens, there's no need to use the same wikicode; what can be done instead is give one reference (usually the first occurrence but it doesn't particularly matter) a name, ie: <ref name="any name at all">{{cite web...}}</ref><nowiki>. Then when the same source need to be referred to later, you can just use the name, like this: <nowiki><ref name="any name at all"/>. Putting the / at the end is important to end the reference, otherwise it messes up the formatting of the page. I think the article is in decent shape, and oince the points I've raised are addressed it may as well be taken to WP:GAN to see what happens. Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image[edit]

Is there a reason why the featured picture of this cathedral is stuck at the bottom in the gallery section, and a slightly grainy picture is in the main infobox? Bob talk 09:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think its because the featured image doesn't represent what the cathedral looks like day-to-day and that its night-time in the image. Tsange talk 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few post-Peer review comments[edit]

I have read through the article again and can see that work has been done, but there is still much more to do by way of further improvement. I really don't have time for a full review, but will point out a few areas where attention is required:-

  • In the lead
    • Untidy and repetitious opening in which the word "cathedral" occurs four times in the first sentence-and-a-bit. Needs to be written more economically. Fixed (finally!)
    • The term "Northern Province" needs to be explained in this context. Fixed (apparently; no mention of "Northern Province" found)
    • "This building is also one of Liverpool's many listed buildings, more specifically as Grade II*." It is not clear what "this building refers to, since you last mentioned the Anglican cathedral. The word "also" is redundant. Fixed
    • The words "As it is today" at the start of the second paragraph are unnecessary Fixed
    • The words "or even started" are misleading since work was begun on two of the three schemes thatb you list. Suggest end the sentence at "failed to be completed." Fixed
  • Elsewhere
    • Clarify Goss's position. You have described him, initially, as co-adjutor Bishop of Liverpool. The "Bishop of Liverpool" link goes to a list of Anglican bishops of Liverpool. Later, Goss is referred to, rather casually, as "then bishop". It would be clearer if you introduced him as "Alexander Goss, the co-adjutor or assistant to the Catholic Bishop of Liverpool..." and then "In 1853 Goss, by then himself Bishop of Liverpool,..."
    • The "Gibberd's design" paragraph, which deals with the long-term faults arising from this design, is out of place, since you haven't explained anything about how Gibbert won the design in the first place. You have also linked Gibbert's name twice in the paragraph. I also think the final sentence of the section is very awkwardly worded.
    • THe degree of detail given about the organ is somewhat disproportionate.
    • The "location map" is not particularly informative.
    • The images still lack alt text.

Please remember that this is not an exhaustive list of issues with the article, just a few helpful hints. It's as much as I can manage, but good luck with it, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cathedral steps[edit]

I think there should be some mention of the fact that the grand flight of steps leading up to the cathedral couldn't originally be built as there was a building in the way. They were finally constructed in 2003. Anyone know more about this and care to add it to the article? [9][10] JRawle (Talk) 22:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 2003? Have they been there seven years? This looks like the architects website, and is dated 2006 (though I can't tell if it's before or after); and this (a third of the way down) is the work in progress. The blog is dated 2009, though it doesn't say how old the picture is. Anyone know for definite? Swanny18 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was it not 2002? I have found the landscaping company who built the steps and on their site they say it was completed in 2002. Here is the page Tsange talk 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bloody hell! 2002! It’s all downhill to the bus-pass, now, isn’t it? Swanny18 (talk)
PS: And £3.2 million? Isn’t that what the whole of Gibberd’s building cost originally? A couple of million goes nowhere these days! Swanny18 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Costs in today's money[edit]

a rising cost from £3 million to £27 million (£1.17 billion in 2015) ... a smaller cathedral design with a £4 million budget (£97 million in 2015). One of the two 2015 figures is wildly inaccurate. (The ratio of 4 to 27 is 6.75; the ratio of 97 to 1170 is about 12.) Which one is incorrect? C0pernicus (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drone photograph[edit]

The photograph of the interior of the cathedral taken by drone is impressive, but

  • It is too large and upsets the balance of the other images;
  • There are already enough images on the page anyway;
  • The photograph is taken by a commercial enterprise, Lunar Aerial Imaging contains its trade name on the image, and as such constitutes advertising.

In my opinion the image should be deleted from WP and from Commons. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the same image appears at http://www.lunar-ai.com/, this appears to be copyright infringement and the photo could only be permitted if either the website carries Wikipedia-compatible licencing for that photo, or a submission is made via the OTRS system. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The watermark would also have to be removed to be acceptable. In addition, the uploader's name, User:Lunar Aerial Imaging, is a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy: you can't have a name that represents an organisation.
I also agree that it's far too large on this page and doesn't really add much.
I suggest going to Commons and nominating commons:File:Lantern Interior.jpg for deletion. I'd do it myself but I'm rather busy with some real-world problems at the moment and don't have the time. See commons:Commons:Deletion policy. -- Dr Greg  talk  10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it stood it was a bit too large. Whether it can be worked into the article, I'm not sure. It's a fine image but the article has a lot of illustrations already. The distinct issues with user name, watermark, and licence consistency are a lot to drop on someone getting to grips with Wikipedia for the first time. If LAI were to release some professional quality photos under an open licence that seems like a win-win. They would likely need a helping hand with these issues. Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool Metropolitan 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool Metropolitan 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool Metropolitan 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]