Talk:St Paul's Cathedral

Add topic
Active discussions
Former good article nomineeSt Paul's Cathedral was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 20, 2008, October 20, 2009, October 20, 2010, October 26, 2013, October 26, 2014, and October 26, 2015.

New photos of the interiorEdit

I was recently granted special access to photograph the interior of St Paul's Cathedral with a tripod. Here are the final images I was able to take. Unfortunately I wasn't given access to the crypt or the gallery and the time allocated was fairly limited, but hopefully these images will expand greatly on our limited existing interior imagery:

As there's not currently enough space in the article to accommodate all the images and there is probably no need for all the similar choir-based views, I didn't want to make any executive decisions on how to incorporate them. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Diliff. I will include some. Could you please do me a crop like the first one, or upload one that is similar? This is my low- res crop as a sample. Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent pic of the gates, despite the light behind them.
  • I wasn't particularly happy with the lighting in this photo, but I did what I could. Perhaps there was something to the left of the camera that prevented me from taking a front-on photo of it (it probably would not have avoided the light behind the gate though) At this point in the visit, I had just a couple of minutes before I was to be ejected, so this and the St Michael & St George Chapel were somewhat rushed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you manage to get a front-on image of the organ, by any chance? It would be useful for a different article.
  • I wasn't able to get a front-on image of the organ without looking up at it from quite an angle (the choir is not very wide) so I decided to compromise by taking the photo from further back but somewhat from the side, opposite the pulpit. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The second image here is my response to the extreme distortion that happens at the outside of the images, when the vertical perspective is removed. In order to demonstrate the architecture, I would prefer to use the inner sections of some of the pictures. I tried to upload a couple of adjustments, to show you what I want, but I am having connection problems, and only one worked.
  • I still don't think the distortion is extreme on the sides of the choir image looking towards the high altar, but I suppose we'll never agree on this. ;-) I think it just comes down to taste, and what one's brain can comfortably visualise. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
One or two of your wide views ought to replace the current very low resolution image 360* image. Which would you prefer? Amandajm (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Of these images, I suspect the first image is more 'representatitve' of the expansiveness of the cathedral. The image of the choir is more intimate, and probably better suited to the choir section of the article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: second image. My process of adjustment is:

  • upload to Photoshop
  • add extra size to canvas
  • locate camera/eye level and shift the image in the canvas so that the canvas pivots around the eye-level, rather than the centre of the image.
  • Go to Adjustments and add the slightly curved perspective that the human eye actually sees.
The result of this is that although the verticals take on a slight lean, everything that has been stretched, suddenly becomes its correct shape. i.e. the domes become round, the arches are no longer flattened, the Duke of Wellington's horse is no longer 2 metres long and 1 metre high, and all the little red lampshades are the same shape.
  • I then cropped the central, vertical section.
If you could do me a few crucial images that are similar vertical crops, I would love it.
However, I suggest that a couple of the wider fews go in as well, probably on looking each direction.
Next question. Did you get a photo from further west than the one with the equestrian memorial? That image shows part of one of the domical sections of the ceiling, of which there are one larger one at the narthex, then three before the dome. A photo of the nave that shows at least two of those little domes would be very useful. It could replace the current image of the nave which is poor quality.
I want to use the picture taken directly under the dome as well, but I want to team it with a crop that shows that diagonal view, as requested above, and is focussed on the arch rather than the dome itself, so I'll wait, and do them both together as I will also have to adjust the caption.
  • Unfortunately what you see above is all that I was able to take. As I said the other day, every image takes 5-10 minutes to shoot (from setting up the tripod, finding the correct exposure, and then shooting each of the many component images). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a high resolution crop as per your low resolution framing. It's available here. I tried to match your framing as close as possible. Hope that's what you're after. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I was just rewriting all this into a tidier form. As you can see, I have added quite a few images. I'll take a look . Amandajm (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. It's looking better already. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Diliff, totally brilliant! Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK! Now, what I want is:
  1. A vertical crop of the choir the same format as chancel. Because a) I want to put them together b) I don't like the distortion at the sides. See my notes above.
  2. Did you take a pic of the nave from further back? Otherwise we live with what we've got, but it would be nice to have one back far enough to show one of the circular vault compartments. I know.... you are going to tell me that there was a queue, a counter and a font in your way.... no excuse! Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right- Just reread that. This is the only Navish picture. I'll add it then, and think about what goes in a gallery below. Amandajm (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Precisely! The photo of the nave the very first photo I took when I entered the building, and it was directly in front of the font (in fact my tripod was as far back as I could get, on the raised marble that surrounds the font). I wanted to take that one first before too many people arrived. Actually even though I arrived for the opening, it wasn't truly empty as there were cleaners and other staff pottering around. I would have liked to have taken more photos of the nave from different people but as people were starting to pour in, I wanted to get as many photos as I could of different parts of the building before they too became impossible. And by the time I got back around to the nave again, there were throngs of people and I was running out of time anyhow. It's amazing how quickly an hour goes. Actually I was lucky to get an hour. Apparently I was only supposed to get 30 minutes, but when I protested and said that the email promised an hour, they said it was a mistake but that they would honour it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Diliff, St Paul's is not exactly user-friendly. You were very lucky that you got the extra time. Half an hour wouldn't have been anywhere near enough. You'll find most other cathedrals are easier, in part because they are not so swamped with tourists. The other one that is difficult is Canterbury, because they have crowds of school children coming across from France on excursions. The volunteers in the cathedral are wonderful, but the crowds of rude French teenagers are a nightmare.
On one occasion Gibson and I ran into an American woman with a teenage daughter outside the medieval gateway of the Cathedral. nearly in tears because they couldn't get in. They had come on a school English excursion, but the rest of the kids wanted to go to MacDonalds instead of the cathedral, and the teacher who was supposed to pay their entry had not done so, and they had run out of cash. The poor teenage girl was pleading with the dragonish woman in the gatehouse. I don't know how she could have been so unkind, since, really, they are allowed to use their discretion. I flicked a pass in font of her face and said that they were visiting the cathedral as my guests, and that we were all going to pray in the crypt and visit the tomb of the saint and that was that. The woman said "You can't do that!" I said, "Oh yes I can!" and off we went, with the girl saying that Yes, she really did want to pray in the crypt.... They can't keep out bona fide worshippers. She was such a sweet girl.....seemed to have walked out of the 19th century.Amandajm (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of cathedrals seem to have really business-oriented managers running them these days. I suppose they feel like they need to in order to attract the visitors needed to maintain the cathedrals, but at what cost to the actual purpose of the cathedral in the first place!? Yesterday, I put together a little table of the cathedrals on the circular road trip I showed you, and did some research on their websites about the policies on photography. Many of them said, "Sure, photography is no problem!". Others said "Photography is permitted, but we charge you £3 for a photography permit". Others said "No photography allowed except by prior approval", so I emailed these people (yes I know it may be more constructive to call them, but I wrote a generic email and did my best to explain what I was trying to achieve). Two cathedral managers have replied, both of them rather suspicious and wary of what this photography might expose them to. One of them, Hereford Cathedral, seemed positive, but quite concerned that once the images were published, they would have no ability to track or control the images. The other, Chichester Cathedral, wanted to know the exact details of all the places on the internet that the photo would be published, which Wikipedia articles I would be editing, etc. I had to explain that Wikipedia is collaborative and I cannot control how the images are used, nor can I even limit them only to Wikipedia. I'm still in discussion with both cathedrals but to be honest, it wasn't all that promising. They seem more concerned with protecting their interests than encouraging people to learn about the cathedral. I strongly suspect that quality images in the articles (and potentially used elsewhere in blogs etc) would have a wholely positive influence on visitor numbers, but convincing their management is another story. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The bells... the bells...Edit

Re 'Clock and bells' section: there used to be a useful and informative page on the change-ringing bells at the St. Paul's official website, but it has been "updated" and some info has gone which doesn't seem to exist except here on the Wayback machine from 24 October 2014. I wonder if the following info could be incorporated into the section:

Quote: "St Paul's has the second largest ring of bells in the world hung for change ringing. <NB the largest is in Liverpool Anglican Cathedral.> They were cast in 1878 and were given by the following donors:-

The Drapers Company (Bells 1 and 2)
The Baroness Burdett Coutts and Turners Company (3 to 6)
The Salters Company (7)
The Merchant Taylors Company (8)
The Fishmongers Company (9)
The Clothworkers Company (10)
The Grocers Company (11)
The Corporation of the City of London (12)

The smallest bell (number1), known as the Treble, weighs just over 8 hundredweights, while the largest, known as the Tenor, weighs over 3 tons (61 cwt). Bells are [always] measured by their weight in hundredweights, quarters and pounds. The St Paul's ring is in the key of B flat."

If the info is wanted/useful, one partial solution could be to expand the 'Details of the bells' table with a Donor column. This preview table doesn't appear to disturb the section layout too much.

 
The south-west tower
Current details of the bells
Bell Weight Nominal Note Diameter Cast Founder
1 8-1-4 1461.0 F 30.88" 1878 John Taylor & Co
2 9-0-20 1270.0 E♭ 32.50" 1878 John Taylor & Co
3 9-3-12 1199.0 D 34.00" 1878 John Taylor & Co
4 11-2-22 1063.0 C 36.38" 1878 John Taylor & Co
7 16-1-18 784.0 G 43.75" 1878 John Taylor & Co
12 61-2-12 468.0 B♭ 69.00" 1878 John Taylor & Co
Communion 18-2-26 E♭ 49.50" 1700 Philip Wightman


Experimental details of the bells
Bell Weight Nominal Note Diameter Cast Founder Donor
1 8-1-4 1461.0 F 30.88" 1878 Taylor & Co Drapers Company
2 9-0-20 1270.0 E♭ 32.50" 1878 Taylor & Co Drapers Company
3 9-3-12 1199.0 D 34.00" 1878 Taylor & Co Baroness Burdett Coutts
and Turners Company
4 11-2-22 1063.0 C 36.38" 1878 Taylor & Co Baroness Burdett Coutts
and Turners Company
7 16-1-18 784.0 G 43.75" 1878 Taylor & Co Salters Company
12 61-2-12 468.0 B♭ 69.00" 1878 Taylor & Co City of London
Communion 18-2-26 E♭ 49.50" 1700 Philip Wightman

My interest stems from a previous edit to Baroness Burdett Coutts, who funded bells 3-6 in 1878. MinorProphet (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Edit: Added 'before & after' view. MinorProphet (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

CitationsEdit

There have been two glaring errors in the citations system for over two years now. It would be good if someone with a more intimate knowledge of the article and its sources could address these issues --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I have cleaned up most of the sources. I hope that in doing so I have fixed the problems you identified. If not let me know. -- PBS (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hart citationEdit

Two different Hart references were mixed in together. I have used Wikiblame to trace the original inserts:

-- PBS (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing clock?Edit

I have taken the liberty of removing the unsourced comment in the "Photography and film" subsection which reads: "...though it [the 1964 Mary Poppins film] shows the space from the missing clock, when that was caused by bombing during World War II, 30 years after the film was set". Presumably this is referring to the circular openings in the north west tower, corresponding in to the clock faces in the south west tower. As far as I can tell, there has never been a clock in the north west tower; this photograph dating from the late 19th century, shows the same circular opening that can be seen today. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg +5 to appear as POTD soonEdit

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg and five other images will be appearing as picture of the day on December 17, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The nave at St Paul's Cathedral, an Anglican cathedral that sits on Ludgate Hill at the highest point of the City of London. The seat of the Bishop of London and the mother church of the Diocese of London, the present church dates from the late 17th century and was designed in the English Baroque style by Sir Christopher Wren. It was the tallest building in London from 1710 to 1967 and remains the second-largest church building in area in the United Kingdom, after Liverpool Cathedral.Photograph: David Iliff

Entry fee - not encyclopedical ?Edit

When one enters the church, is something like "This is a house of our Lord in Heaven" written on the glass doors - then the Church of England want's £18 (!!!) just to come further inside. I find that to be of encyclopedic interest. Churches are normally free to visit. Boeing720 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It was the word "sadly" that I believed to be unencyclopedic. The rest will do. I wonder if they charge if you just want to go in, light a candle, have a quick pray and leave. Nortonius (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Attending services is free I think. For just praying, you could use the statue of Queen Anne outside, as Spanish nuns were reputed to do. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just been to London and visited the Cathedral. I can't say whether there are any fees on Sundays or at other events, but normally they take 18 Pounds. I've been there before, and in the mid 1980's was admission free. This time I went out as soon as I realised they demanded money, like it only is an attraction. And I think the fee is sad, but OK I shouldn't have used the word in the article. To Johnbod, thanks for the advice. But I can pray next to anywhere. I'm a sinner and a believer in Christianity. I'm born into Lutheran faith, but I sooner feel like being Ecumenical. Boeing720 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on St Paul's 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with citations!Edit

Is there an experienced editor who can fix the citations? There's something wrong with their format in much of the article and I'm not sure how to fix them. Foreignshore (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Should be good now. The templates {{page needed}} and {{unreliable source?}} were placed inside reference templates, instead of after them. Dairy {talk} 05:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm no expert. I was just reading the entry and something confused me. In the war history section it said it was bombed twice -- October 1940 and May 1941. Then the next paragraph it said a bomb hit it on September 10, but they were able to defuse it. Glad to here it was defused, but it's still a bomb. Doesn't that mean it was hit three times by bombs?

(I'm reading a YA fantasy trilogy, and right now the characters are running to that church on September 4, 1940. I had to check. And the series in Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, just in case anyone wants to read about this church in fiction. (Honest, just a reader. Don't know the author, just a good story.) 108.52.80.38 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Paul's 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Surveyor of the Fabric of St Paul's CathedralEdit

The list article Surveyor of the Fabric of St Paul's Cathedral may be of interest. Should there be more on the history of the architecture and the architects in the main article, or is that best covered in a separate article? Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)