Talk:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow)

Requested move

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Moscow) → Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary – This is the only cathedral article with that name at the moment. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is uncontroversial. There are other cathedrals with that name (Perth and Port of Spain) but this is the most notable. If an article is created on one of the other cathedrals later, then renaming can be reconsidered at the time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Baaad decision! This was unwise and should be changed back. The article has a hatnote, and there are loads of other cathedrals, with loads of local languages, with this basic name. Given the unfamiliarity of the building outside (and even inside?) Russia, the vagaries of translation and the use of short names, the new title is both ambiguous and unhelpful for the reader. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden comments made by Wehwalt while copyediting

Here are the comments in the text; I will answer to all (version with all notes:

1. Canon law's not my thing but doesn't that require permission from a bishop? - I don't know, too. I will ask someone with knowledge in clerus and church

Yes, your are correct, but as there are no information about who granted permission to create this parish, but I can guess it was Paolo Pezzi, but he is an archbishop.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. maybe not the word, you decide - Yes, that is better
2. Do you mean "not used"? - I must have typed "used" in error. Removed
3. Father? Brother? - Isn't a priest a "Father"?

Yes, father is correct.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but some orders do surprising things, and things can get misunderstood or mistranslated.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. there is a problem here. Something that happens on 7 March cannot result from something which happened on 9 March! - Thanks. This date was actually predated.
2. check for accuracy, please - It's ok
3. you have to decide if you want "facade" or "façade". I recommend the former but be consistent either way! - Done. Changed to façade.
4. ah, aren't window's made of glass? - not all, as our article suggests

OK, then make it clearer by saying "translucent" or some such, or people will think you mean the windowframe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Done

1. anniversary of what? - The source does not say of what, but I think of the cathedral.
2. doublecheck capitalisation please, also please check for disambiguation links - Done
3. please doublecheck capitalisation - Ditto

Thanks for these useful comments. I will try to resolve the rest. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Canon law's not my thing but doesn't that require permission from a bishop? - Another good question! I really don't have a clue.
2. If you are going to mention that the institute asked for compensation, you should say whether they got it - I could not find any information about this.
3. Huh? - Not sure why you are surprised :)

Remind me of the context of htat.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"It was constructed entirely from red bricks, and was not rendered outside." ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. something should be done about the dual use of "bays long" but I don't feel I know enough about this field to change it - Allright, will ask.

I learnt after my post at the Reference Desk that "bays" is actually not a unit, so I reworded it.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. you need to say why it wasn't adopted, briefly - No information available. Maybe there is more information about this in the "Further reading" books, but I don't own these books. I will try to find a solution for this.
2. Something is missing here. Possibly "passageway"? - Not sure what you mean. The sentence describes where the crypta is located.
3. this needs explanation, do they now sit without regard to gender? - Yes. I added a clause.
4. This seems very contradictory, if the original had to remain in Switz, what was sent to Moscow? Also, the bit about the stop is probably worth not including. - a copy of that stop was created. I don't see any issues to include its name.

I did not read properly. Done.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. of what diocese - Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow. Done.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And now the very last hidden comments:

1. If this is not a direct quote from the Russian decree, it needs to be inline sourced - It is a direct qoute from the procatholic site: "возвести здание в отдалении от центра города и не в близком соседстве с особо чтимыми православными святынями"
2. You really need some material in here about the political change that was going on at that time. This applies to the first two paragraphs especially - I added information about Gorbachev's policies. I will add more content about the Soviet policies in the early years.

Added the same information from lead to the text [1]. I added "Marxist-Leninst", as theistic Communism exist (such as Christian Communism).♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think these were all hidden comments. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 22:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will go through it again once I clear up more pressing promises. Always remember the subject of an article needs context to make the reader understand why things happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

From User talk:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox13

Lead

1. Two Catholic churches in Moscow  included
2. 1894, voting for new church
3. Tomasz Bokhdanovicz-Dvorzetski architect  included
4. 1899, groundbreaking; 1901, work started - 1911, end
5. Money funded by Catholic perishes from Russia and other countries
6. 21 December 1911, consecration
7. 1929, Peter and Paul parish dissolved by Soviets
8. 1935, prosperty shortened
9. 1936, school on its prosperty
10. 30 July 1938, closure
11. Reconstructed to a hostel and lost parts to a residence
12. 1956, institute Mosspetspromproyekt entered
13. 1989, "The Polish House" asked for repatriation
14. 1990, first Mass since closure
15. 2 November 1995, orders by Yuri Lushkov for institute to leave
16. 2 February 1996, received permission to use the church for indefinetely time
17. 12 December 1999, end of reconstruction
18. Three-aisles neo-gothical basilica; build from red bricks
19. Facade based on designs of Westminster Abbey and Milan Cathedral
20. Organ one of the biggest in Russia; today's organ from Basel Münster; consecrated in 16. Januar 2005
21. Rest:  Done

First construction period

• next batch of edits, please check
  • You replaced "parish" with "population", but I don't think this is correct

• fair enough, just trying to avoid repeating parish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• following a submission of a petition by the Governor-General of Moscow — sounds odd to me, the governor petitioning the council. Is this correct?
  • Yes, it should be vice versa. Done
• 10 hectare — Do you need to give US conversions (just checking)?
  • Isn't it an international unit :P?

• Some projects are plagued by an insistence on conversion, if you can get away with it, that's fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• heavily downsized — does this mean "smaller"?
  • yes
• US$26,7630,13 and US$7,764,172.62 — I'm not happy with the two conversions.

• "Roughly" doesn't fit with conversions accurate to the cent. Conversions to eight significant figures are meaningless, two at most

• Rounded up

• The first figure has the comma in the wrong place, I didn't fix in case there was an omitted digit.

• Fixed

• I'm not clear why you have converted to USD instead of modern rouble values, although I'm willing to be persuaded.
• Manual conversion soon dates, why don't you use a template? In an earlier edit of my current FAC, Titchwell Marsh, I had — A 2002 survey reported that an estimated 137,700 visitors spent £1.8 million locally in 1998/9,<ref name = economy>Shiel (2002) pp. 6–16</ref> equivalent to £{{Inflation|UK|1.8|1999|r=2}} million, or £{{Inflation|UK|13.072|1999|r=2}} per head, at current prices.{{Inflation-fn|UK}} — replace UK with US, r is number of sig figs

• Done

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure and return sections

I made these edits to the next two sections and the image captions. A truss appeared from nowhere in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 no issues

Just looking ahead a bit, the disposition of the organ will been seen as over detailed, and its referencing is unorthodox. If you think the information is essential, move it to a subsidiary article. Galleries are discouraged, if the images are essential, find an alternative description, otherwise Commons is the place for image galleries. If you have not used the bibliography texts as references, "Further reading" is preferred Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done

renovation

ce last part of this section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

 looks good

Architecture

I made these changes]. Please check carefully since I may not have visualised the layout correctly. Are the holy water buckets really buckets or holy water fonts?

A holy water font. Done.

On my church FA, I was asked to add something on the congregation and services. Check also for overlinking, items should be linked at the first occurrence only, or once in the lead, and again at the first occurrence in the text.

There are not many information about this church, but I'll try to find something about the congregation and services.

I'll go through again in a couple of days, and have a look at the images and refs too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyedits so far! :)--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reread

I've gone through again Check the second paragraph of "Architecture". What was there before didn't make sense, with the eleventh of ten steps, but I might have misunderstood. I'd suggest that you ask for a peer review or test the water at GAN next Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The first 10 steps symbolize the Ten Commandments, the last Jesus Christ. Done.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Following a quick coptedit, I note this phrase "The construction of the cathedral was proposed by the Czarist government in 1894" is that certain that it was proposed by the Czarist government, or should it be during the time of the Czarist government? Secondly, Gothic architecture (revival or genuine) is not my principle forte or interest, but I don't see any influences of Westminster Abbey there other than the most general. Duomo di Milano is undoubtedly an inspiration for it, but I do question Westminster and would suggest checking the source again for relaibility. Giacomo Returned 13:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1. No, it is correct that it was proposed by the Czarist government. Nicholas II himself accepted the construction
2. Its official website is currently off, I was unable to find any archives. But as you can see here, it is correct.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid, I don't see there that it's correct, I can read the Cyrillic alphabet, say good morning, how are you and farewell (and also something very rude) in Russian, but beyond that rather monotonous conversation that is about it, so I will take your word for it. Giacomo Returned 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence clearly states the architect was influenced by the architecture of Westminster Abbey: "По различным свидетельствам, автор проекта Богданович‑Дворжецкий, использовал при его разработке архитектурные мотивы двух известнейших европейских произведений готического зодчества - соборов в Милане и в Вестминстерском аббатстве." (from the mirror site [2])--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am happy to beleive you; it's just that I personally question the claim. I expect the explanation is in the ground plan rather than the style and interpretation of the Gothic - that is definitely from Duomo di Milano, but this building appears from the photographs to be more cruciform than Milano and that I expect is the answer. More importantly, I feel that the page could do with a couple of paragraphs as a concluding section - it's left rather hanging in mid air - perhaps some of the more recent happenings coul dbe taken from their existing place and rewritten to form a definite finale. At the moment, we are reading happily about the bells, then suddenly we come to an abrupt end. I have made some minor alteration to the lead (which had all the information there already) so that it clearly wraps up that section - the article needs to follow that same pattern. Just a suggestion. Giacomo Returned 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok :). Yes, I somewhat agree with you, but the official website should be reliable. However, as it the site is down (hopefully not indefinitely) I can't do much anyway, but I'll try to find some more information at procatholic.ru or on other sites. Thanks again for all your work! :)--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's any help, I ran across this when I translated a page for my post below: The project has developed a well-known church architect of Moscow, a Pole by birth, Thomas (Tomas) I. Bogdanovic-Dvorzhetsky, a teacher at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. The building was designed in the Gothic style. According to some researchers, a model for the main (east) facade facade of the cathedral began in Westminster and the multifaceted unusual dome, topped with high spire, was inspired by the famous dome of the cathedral in Milan. Three-dimensional solution of the church refers to psevdobazilikalnomu type (average height than the nave side, but devoid of windows) and is elongated in shape ("Latin") of the cross, culminating in a multi-faceted apse, surrounded by a two-story volume sacristy. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Organ and bells

I did some things in this section...please feel free to change any or everything! Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

About the translation for the largest bell, are you certain that it is not Our Lady of Fátima? Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a better translation --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

After editing the organ & bells section, I've now got this stuck in my head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PyBWLALFLQ -- Rock and/or roll! Ryanwould (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Drats! My computer sound is not working so I can't hear what they are singing. About the largest pipe being built into the new Basel organ... I would love to this information returned to the article - it is so interesting to me that they kept the largest pipe from the old organ to be built into the new one. I suppose it was done for sentimental reasons, but who's to say that it was not a mystical "pearl of wisdom", so as to speak, decision? The mystics do speak of music - see here [3] ;P Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan: LOL

@Gandy: I assumed that the 32' pipe was not transported because it was too big to be practical. My secondary notion was that it was kept by the Swiss for sentimental reasons so they could say the new set of pipes had "something old" in it. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

History section newspaper account translation

I question the translation of the newspaper account. Some of the words, such as solidity and palpable, sound odd. Here is how it now reads:

In the filthy, wretched Malaja Grusinskaja Street, forsaken by God and the city, there rose the wonderful, artistic solidity of the new Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary. Tremendous in magnitude and height, [...] the newly-built chapel left a deep impression. [...] [Every detail] look impressive and eminent: there was no slightest stylistic taint visible and palpable.[3]

Here is a google translation for comparison:

The dirty, shabby, forgotten by God and the City Small Georgian street rose a magnificent, highly artistic array of new Roman Catholic church in the name of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary ... The huge size and height ...

Any thoughts on this? Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• How about: "A new Roman Catholic church has been built in the shabby, dirty God forsaken and Council forgotten Malaja Grusinskaja Street. Dedicated to the Virgin Mary, the new church, a large solid (sturdy/stolid?) edifice without any pereceivable faults in its design and style, creates a favourable (deep?) impression."

(edit conflict) This translation was suggested by the Refdesk.

"На грязной, убогой, забытой Богом и городом Малой Грузинской улице вырос великолепный, высокохудожественный массив нового" - "массив" -> "massiv". There is "massif", but I am not sure if this is correct. I quite agree "solidity" does not fit here, as it describes the whole building, not how it was built.

"все это выглядит внушительно и значительно: не видится и не чувствуется ни какой погрешности в стиле..." - "чувствo" -> "feeling". Has two meanings: either physicial or psychic feeling, but it should be the latter form. Not sure what exactly "palpable" means, but maybe we should replace it to something like "sensible"?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "sturdy" or "stolid" are probably the correct words- even if it's not ones that would be used in such a context today. Giacomo Returned 14:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that I understand what the person that wrote the newspaper article meant. By saying that it had "wonderful artistic solidity" with not the "slightest stylistic taint visible and palpable", I think that he meant it had "artistic integrity". Dictionary meanings:

• Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
• The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
• The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How's this?

On dirty, shabby Malaja Grusinskaja Street, forsaken by God and the city, has arisen the magnificent, artistically xxx (pure/solid/authentic/perfect/?..) new Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary. Tremendous in magnitude and height, [...] the newly-built chapel leaves a deep impression. Every detail appears impressive and eminent, without the slightest stylistic taint visible or tangible.Gandydancer (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Better, but now we need to find a replacement for the triple x :). "artistically (solid) new ..." sounds odd, don't you think the same?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How about artistically exquisite? Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Artistically perfect" sounds most idiomatic to me, but I'm not a native speaker of English, so my judgment is not necessarily reliable. Perhaps "rounded" or a similar expression conveys the intended meaning better? "Artistically exquisite" isn't a bad suggestion, either. Or how about "artistically complete"? By the way, I think the usual transcription would be Malaya Gruzinskaya. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Florian. Yes, I believe you are right about using the word "perfect". Would you feel confident enough to make a judgement on the version now in the article and my version? Would you consider writing your version? I'm not sure - when one does a translation do they change the syntax somewhat to match that of the language that they are translating to? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My Russian is not nearly good enough to judge the closeness and appropriateness of the translation (though I could use a dictionary and try to slowly make my way through the text – about the way I might translate an ancient language), or to even propose a translation of my own, but it sounds fine to me. You can change the syntax – you can essentially change everything when translating – when it is inevitable in order to sound "right" (idiomatic, syntactically correct, etc.) in the target language. The translator's maxim goes "as close as possible, as loose as necessary". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, a buddy suggests the following translation (he included an additional sentence):

In the filthy, wretched Malaja Grusinskaja (Little Georgian) Street, forsaken by God and the city, there rose the wonderful, high artistic solidity of the new Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of Holy Virgin Mary. Tremendous in magnitude and height, ... with a plenty of conning turrets and towers with crosses. The new cathedral makes a deep impression.

For the remainder, I suggest: [Every detail] looks impressive and eminent: Not the slightest stylistic flaw could be seen or detected. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! This translation makes my spirit soar, as I believe was the reporter's intent. Orange, what do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like the new translation! :)--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! And now? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the new translation had already been added. My bad for not paying attention. The only thing I've changed is the spelling of the street – as mentioned above – to conform with the usual transcription, compare Commons for evidence.

Congrats for reaching FA status! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and WP:PRECISION, but without prejudice for a future revert (or move to better disambiguator per PatGallacher) if other "Cathedrals of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary" are later covered by Wikipedia articles. The fact that Wikipedia does not yet have article does mean that it is not yet ambiguous on Wikipedia. A hatnote pointing to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception can be added if there's a possibility of confusing this title with the entries there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary, Moscow → Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary – User:Johnbod moved it without discussion to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary, Moscow. There is only one Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary article in Wikipedia; all other has similar, but still different names, located on that disambiguation. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary is clearly a commoname and should be moved back. Also, as there is a hatnote on this article, it is even more redundant.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC) ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct Pumpkin. Can't you just change it back? I don't see why you should have to ask for "permission". Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's never incorrect to have a discussion, especially not when an experienced editor (Johnbod) is the one who made the initial move. Powers ^T 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support; unnecessary disambiguation. Powers ^T 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As far as I am aware there is no such thing as the Immaculate Conception of anyone other than the Virgin Mary. Therefore with all these other cathedrals it is at least implicit that their titles refer to the Virgin Mary. I am slightly sceptical about whether this really is the only cathedral where "of the Holy Virgin Mary" is part of the official title and not just implict, but even if it is this is not the best disambiguator. I propose moving this to something like "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow)". PatGallacher (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if one wants to stretch this out into the typical Wikipedia argument, as a matter of fact, Gods are always born to a virgin through immaculate conception. For instance, the Buddha was born from his mother's side. Oh...never mind...I'll keep my snarkey comments to myself. Let's hope that this discussion ends sooner rather than later. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Psst, Mary was immaculately conceived, not Jesus. Powers ^T 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Psst, Interesting! (something I think I once knew and one of the MANY things I think I've forgotten...) Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Russian churches often include redundant phrases. Examples are here. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply Gandydancer: wrong, the Immaculate Conception and Virgin birth are often confused but are not identical. Russian churches may often include redundant phrases, but I would be surprised if they are the only ones. PatGallacher (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • However, it is better to move it back, as there might occur some errors when its FAC will be archived.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, if that is the case then that is a problem with the featured article candidates archiving system. PatGallacher (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – it was moved as "uncontroversial" away from the title with "(Moscow)" on Jan. 3; but that Moscow is actually very helpful, since there's another with identical name in Horodenka, Ukraine (see [4]). The fact that we don't have an article on it yet doesn't mean this title is unambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • However, as per WP:COMMONAME it should be moved back. The official title is Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (search on German and Russian). If it does not have its Wikipedia article -> move back. (Also the link is dead). Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The function of an article title is to get readers to the page they want. So IMO the current redirect at Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary should point instead to the DAB at Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • However, the cyrillic name is "Собор Непорочного Зачатия Пресвятой Девы Марии" -> Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary. Although the Mary's Immaculate Conception is the best-known, there are some more "Immaculate Conceptions", such as that of Saint Anne. Also, as this is the WP:OFFICIALNAME, there is no reason why it should be moved to a confusing title. Regards.
• Oppose Why, for God's sake? The purpose of an article title is to enable readers to find it. Moscow Cathedral might make that easier, but I'm prepared to accept that the present title at least uses the official name, and includes the city, so should at least show up prominently in search engine results. Does the addition of the city as a disambiguator, even one that is technically unnecessary as far as Wikipedia rules go, really cause so much offense? It's never a good idea to assume that a building's name is universally understood throughout the world. You might get away with Eiffel Tower, Buckingham Palace or Empire State Building, but Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary??? Really??? Skinsmoke (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He can find it through redirects, that's not a problem. Your proposal to move it to Moscow Cathedral is ridiculous; you might want to read List of churches in Moscow and decide whether it is really a good idea (there are dozens of cathedrals in Russia!). Your examples possibly show that you never heard of the cathedral; "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary" is the most common English term for this church; other are just short, collegial names. Also, I am proposing a move from "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary, Moscow" to "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary"; the move was undiscussed. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"2.5 columns?" clarification needed

Howdy. This sentence—"Both side aisles are separated from the main aisle by pillar files, consisting of four columns and two half columns."—doesn't make sense; but it wasn't cited and I couldn't figure it out. Would anyone care to clarify? Is is 4 columns on one side and 2.5 on another? How is there a half a column? Please advise. Ryanwould (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It parses as two (half columns). A half column looks like a column cut vertically in half so it fits against a wall. See for example http://www.invitinghome.com/Columns/columns-in/half-column-1.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Address

Shouldn't the article include the address of the Cathedral? From Russian WP page: "Malaya Gruzinskaya Ul 27/13, near Krasnopresnenskaya, Ulitsa 1905 Goda, Belorusskaya (Koltsevaya Line) subway stations". Mhym (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is not necessary. One can click on or copy and paste the coordinates to eg. Gmaps. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Info box color

Could the background of the photo/info box be changed to blue ("Virgin Mary blue")? It would be a nice touch. Gandydancer (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Light blue is for Baptist churches, and dark blue for Coptic Orthodox, see Template:Infobox church/denomination. So it should be kept as is, and additionally it harmonizes with my username! :)GoP_T^C_N 22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha Orange, I thought it was just your name. Well, it was a good idea anyway and I do wonder why anyone ever decided on an "official" color in the first place? Seems rather silly to me. Great work on the article!

BTW, I see you are a big Otis Redding fan - me too. I remember from an interview of years ago him talking about his appearance in Monterey saying, "We were just doing the Holy dance", meaning his dancing around on the stage was just the way they used to do back in the Southern Baptist church when he was younger. Many years ago I attended one of the first jazz festivals in New Orleans and in the Gospel tent the white folks walked up to the bleachers for their performance. But when it came to the black folks, they just danced up to the stage! If one believes in such a thing as the "Holy Spirit", they were just overflowing with it! I was standing in the back next to two rather portly, middle-age black women (about my age at the time), and they were joyously dancing (in-place, but moving from head to toe - their bodies were alive!) to the music too. I remember one of them saying to me with a friendly grin and chuckle, "We just can't help it!". Many times I have said that we white folk should get down on our knees and thank the descendents of the African slaves that we brought to our country for the music and dance (and more) that they have given to us. When I was young it wasn't until Elvis came along that we Northern girls learned about Black music, and yes, I was one of the "screaming girls". :) Next came Little Richard, Fats Domino...I was hooked. Orange, you may enjoy reading and listening to the links at "my" article, Gandy dancer. You might also like another article that I greatly expanded, Yodeling. As I did the research on yodeling I was really surprised to learn that American yodeling is actually based on the contributions of Southern African Americans to the existing Swiss yodeling. Gandydancer (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

:) Thanks! The article was viewed 29.800 times on that day, and herewith broke the previous record, the lame 1023, when it was on the mainpage in the DYK box. --GoP_T^C_N 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The above message by Gandydancer is all very interesting but ought, surely, to be on a personal talk page. Amandajm (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction/renovation/restoration

I have changed both the section heading and the text to eliminate the word "renovation" in favour of "restoration".

When someone adds a a garret to the roof of their house and a turns the fourth bedroom into a jacuzzi, it's a renovation. When someone puts the spires back onto a church, as per the original form, its a restoration. Architects who meticulously conserve and restore historic buildings hate their work being referred to as "renovation. Amandajm (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426091712/http://mosarchiv.mos.ru/images/Putevoditel-TsANTDM/CANTDM-1.htm to http://mosarchiv.mos.ru/images/Putevoditel-TsANTDM/CANTDM-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908013207/http://www.art.umk.pl/zktajchman.php to http://www.art.umk.pl/zktajchman.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426091713/http://cargobay.ru/news/moskovskijj_komsomolec/2005/1/17/id_67252.html to http://cargobay.ru/news/moskovskijj_komsomolec/2005/1/17/id_67252.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330105846/http://www.artbene.ru/aboutorganeng to http://www.artbene.ru/aboutorganeng

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) 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120906042752/http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/archiv-news/717-aktuell/4446-kath-kathedrale-in-moskau-verlegt-gottesdienste-wegen-rauchwolke to http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/archiv-news/717-aktuell/4446-kath-kathedrale-in-moskau-verlegt-gottesdienste-wegen-rauchwolke

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) 05:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204020410/http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru/monuments.php?id=7710184000 to http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru/monuments.php?id=7710184000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415143218/http://catedra.ru/index.php?page=mass to http://www.catedra.ru/index.php?page=mass
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321153523/http://catedra.ru/index.php?page=catedra to http://www.catedra.ru/index.php?page=catedra
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329050613/http://catedra.ru/index.php?page=architecture to http://www.catedra.ru/index.php?page=architecture
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426092029/http://www.catedra.ru/index.php?page=gallery to http://catedra.ru/index.php?page=gallery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424043036/http://catedra.ru/index.php?page=video to http://catedra.ru/index.php?page=video

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) 08:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)