Talk:Manchester Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] The drop becomes a trickle...and the dyke collapses, or something

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)

[edit] 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)