Talk:Munich Frauenkirche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	Supported by WikiProject Munich
Additional information: This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, please remove the unref=yes switch of the {{WikiProject Germany}} template on this page. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

hmm. this is from the skeptical enquirer [1]:

seems like the illusion is no more, and neither is the alleged footprint.

• The next morning, while I examined and photographed the spot more extensively, Martin was able to strike up a conversation with the church warden. He admitted that the imprint was not genuine, stating that the floor had been restored and that the Teufelstritt was merely a reconstruction.

It appears that the story about the devil being angry is the sanitised version of the legend - I like the one where the architect made a deal with the devil to fund the church, on the proviso that he built it without windows, or forfeit his eternal soul. When the church was complete he then led mr mephisto to that spot to show him the windowless church. The Devil was so angry that he lost the wager that he stamped his foot, leaving the mark. --stib 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cathedral or not? 2 Brick Gothic 3 Powerpoint presentations and modern art? 4 Discussion regarding aerial views of the church

[edit] Cathedral or not?

Sorry, is Frauenkirche a cathedral or not? It is called both church and cathedral, kirche and dom in the text. IMHO this discrepancy needs to be explained. --Ghirlandajo 15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A cathedral is a church which serves as central church of a bishop. Thus, the Frauenkirche is a cathedral, seat of the archbishop of Munich and Freising (it's also a church, of course, just an important one). "Kirche" is just german for church. The german word "Dom" is more or less synonymous with "cathedral", although large churches which are not a bishop's seat also tend to be called "Dom". --Huon 12:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brick Gothic

If the Frauenkirche is not an example of Brick Gothic, its omission might be explained for the reader. --Wetman 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It surely is a example of Brick Gothic, on of the bests in southern Germany. From the German Wiki

[edit] Powerpoint presentations and modern art?

Just to say, when i visited this church (July 2006), I found it to incorporate powerpoint presentations in the aisles, and some rather odd modern art at the back (photocopies of pictures with paint sloshed over it in no discernible manner). I didn't take notes on this as such, and am not really equipped to expand the article. Should there be some kind of mention of the Frauenkirche's attitude to modernity? It was rather striking at the time.

Jameshfisher 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion regarding aerial views of the church

This is primarily to engage Reywas92 in discussion regarding the redundancy of his image on the article, due to a number of his reverts to my removal of his image from the article in the last couple of days.
My assertion is that this image has been made redundant by a higher resolution and clearer image, showing both greater detail and greater surroundings of the church. The view is almost identical and given that a comparison at 100% scale shows that the replacing image has significantly more detail, I feel that the old image's place in the article is no longer required as it offers nothing exclusive to the article and merely takes up article real-estate. The process of replacing lower quality images is not new and happens on a regular basis - an article should not contain more images than it needs to fully illustrate the topic. Even aside from the issue of redundancy, the old image is underexposed, very soft at 100% and the horizon is not horizontal. Comments from Reywas92 and anyone else is appreciated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Okay, you win, but I still don't see what is wrong with multiple images which are not the same thing. Perhaps a complete resizing or moving of the current pictures will reduce image clutter. Reywas92 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

i like both pics. keep both in the article. 74.133.61.75 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)