Talk:Manchester Cathedral

Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Manchester Cathedral is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester High‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page history

Pimpin'...
Started work on this because someone pointed out in #wikipedia that it contained no actual article text (though some nice pictures and a link). This isn't good for one of the more notable of English Cathedrals. Mostly pulling history from the cathedral's website, which has an extensive timeline.

Yay, assistance has arrived in the form of the indefatigable User:CatherineMunro. Thanks for adding, let's see this trickle become a stream. :-)
nsh 05:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Queries

These are all questions which are probably answered somewhere on pedia that I'm too lazy to find, but I had some questions when adding content:

Do we have a naming convention for notable UK families (aristocracy, houses)? I made one up, but it'd be nice if there was a policy on it

We do -- see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — Catherine\^talk 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The name is The Cathedral and Collegiate Church of St Mary, St Denys and St George in Manchester

Not Manchester cathedral, wiki policy is to use the offical name. If you doubt it's the offical name explain why it says this on the offical web site.--Jirate 21:24, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

That is indeed the official name. However, the policy of the English Wikipedia is that the titles of articles should generally match the most common unambiguous name, and this is not an exception; the relevant convention is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --rbrwr ^± 22:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WHat happens when the cathedrals have different names to different groups?--Jirate 23:36, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

We try to find the one most commonly used by English speakers, and mention the others in the lead section (although not necessarily in the first paragraph). These are also bolded as alternate names, explaining how common the usage is, and redirects should be created from those names. What other names did you have in mind? — Catherine\^talk 23:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who is this we? It wasn't actually cathedral I had in mind. In Liverpool refering to the Anglican or Protestant Cathdral is the norm and Catholic for the other. The names being used here are not represntative, it makes senese to use the full name and then redirect from all common versions. It also looks better in the layout. The full name in big type gives more of a feeling of the history and complexity of the building, in this case. --Jirate 00:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

There are exactly two cathedrals in Liverpool and the very first paragraph of the official website of the Roman Catholic cathedral says: "it helps avoid confusion to refer to one as 'Liverpool Cathedral' and the other [itself] as 'The Metropolitan Cathedral.' " [1]. Local media in Liverpool (eg, http://www.icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk ) also seem to follow this simple common-name convention. In actual practice, there is no confusion. And what are we to make of "The full name in big type gives more of a feeling of the history and complexity of the building" ? Your idiosyncratic naming criteria, alas, are not part of any official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), on the other hand, is. -- Curps 22:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The we is the Wikipedia community. I disagree that the full official name looks better in large type, imho the most common name should be in the largest type. The full official name can be given in the first paragraph. Thryduulf 12:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So basically what your saying is the Munro believes she speaks for everyone on Wikipedia? Sounds like fairly typical bullying.--Jirate 13:09, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

What Catherine is doing is not bullying, she is expressing a mix of policy and convention that is used on Wikipedia by the Wikipedia community, which has developed through consensus editing. As a member of the Wikipedia community, she is entitled to use the pronoun "we" to describe actions performed by the community. Thryduulf 13:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No what she was doing was bullying, claiming that she represents all wikipedians. As I said bullying. It's faily typical play ground stuff You wrong and everyone thinks so etc. It typical coward activity.--Jirate 15:02, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misread me, Jirate, I certainly wasn't trying to impose my will (or the semi-mythical "will of the majority") on you -- I was just trying to answer your question. I read "WHat happens when the cathedrals have different names to different groups?" as a sincere question about "what do you -- the folks who have been on Wikipedia for a while -- do when there's more than one name?" That's all I tried to answer, with what "we", meaning the people just like you, have been doing in the past. It's a consensus decision, reached with lots of discussion by people just like you who offered their opinions on the best way to do something. No cabal, no conspiracy, no bullying. The decision we/they came to is that common names are more useful and understandable to the average researcher than full formal names (which virtually no one is going to type into a search engine), and since all full and alternate names are mentioned right in the lead section (and created as redirects), there's no loss of clarity. Since you weren't here when that consensus was reached, you're welcome to comment on the policy, and see if people are willing to change it now that Wikipedia has grown a bit more.

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Again, these are not rules being foisted upon you from on high, but guidelines written by an individual like you, and then debated and polished by others -- all of us seeking the kind of behavior that is most conducive to writing an encyclopedia. A better way of doing things will be recognized as such on its own merits (eventually), but you can create a lot of unnecessary obstacles for yourself by not striving for a little bit of tact and grace in the way you present your ideas, and by attacking those who ultimately have the same goals you do -- clarity, completeness, and accuracy. It's only natural that some people disagree on the means to those ends, but rational discussion has triumphed so many times on so many difficult subjects here that I have developed great faith in the policies I linked above in helping people to overcome their differences.

As it happens, I agree with you that we need a better distinction between the Anglican and Protestant cathedrals, now that you've explained the problem more thoroughly -- there was very little for me to go on when you asked your question. I'm still not certain that the full formal title is the best solution, but I'm interested in hearing your opinions on the matter. — Catherine\^talk 21:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this wiki should be updated...

< http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070610/tc_afp/britainanglican;_ylt=AhbzZKt3M1BdTedixC3VhPMK77EF >

Computer Game Controversy

The Very Reverend Rogers Govender,

"Somebody told me that there is a game in the making that is based on the roman inquisition with graphical depictions of the 16th century. Nonetheless, the game is based on killing people who do not agree with the rationality of the church, you can get extra points by taking little boys to a back room ( I do not know the point of the back room) ..... I do not know the creator of the game but I will found out for you....."

thanks D

P.S. : I also found this other information, maybe you want to do something about it!

The Manchester Cathedral was the setting for a marriage at the start of the 2006 episode of cracker. The series concerned a criminal psychologist : Eddie "Fitz" Fitzgerald a classic antihero, unfaithful to his wife, alcoholic, chain smoker, overweight, addicted to gambling, manic, foulmouthed and sarcastic; and yet cerebral and excellent at his speciality: getting into the heads of violent criminals. As Fitz confesses in "Brotherly Love": "I drink too much, I smoke too much, I gamble too much. I am too much."

Of course if the Church got paid....... do not take action against Granada television... lets do not forget that this is about money to help the millions of Africans dying everyday of hunger...something that your church has accuse the English parliament and had demanded action for years....Am I right very reverend.....

Two things. The Cathedral costs a lot to run and upkeep. Isn't it right that those wanting to exploit it for financial gain put towards this upkeep? Or were Sony going to donate all the money to the poor? Secondly, the Cathedral was asking for a donation to an anti-gun crime charity - that's hardly lining their own pockets. Pbhj 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it state that Sony have apologised, at no point did they apologise, they stated that permissions had been sought, and that it was wrong to blame a science fiction game set in an alternative 1950's reality for the social issues in contemporary Manchester 82.17.95.44 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony's apology - "As a result, it is also clear that we have offended some of the congregation by using the cathedral in our science fiction game. It was never our intention to offend anyone in the making of this game, and we would like to apologise unreservedly to them for causing that offence, and to all parts of the community who we might also have offended" Mr Stephen (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that comment didn't get anywhere near as much publicity as it should've, I apologise for being misinformed 82.17.88.43 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choir

Not sure if this image is worth including in the article, so I've placed it here for consideration. Russ London (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gig venue

Is it worth adding a section about its use as a gig venue. I think it is reasonably notable that they have had a series of rock/pop bands play there. --194.36.2.100 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchester 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) 11:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]