Talk:Manila Cathedral

Image:Manila cathedral 2.jpg has been listed for deletion
-

50th Restoration anniversary
I corrected some facts and added dates and name, with link: The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) announced the highlights of activities for December 8, on the occasion of the Cathedral's 50th restoration anniversary - the second Manila Cathedral Pipe Organ Festival on December 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

History Copy-violation
This article was completely copied from http://www.manilacathedral.org/History/history.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjs gigantor (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the said section.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the history section and reverted to the older text since all entries are copyvio.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate Statue in Gold prior to 1985. Authentic Photograph of the 1908 Incarnation of the Manila Cathedral, no longer in existence.
First of all, THANK YOU for doing the clean-up on the article. I really do appreciate it per Wikipedia's guidelines of stylistic reforms etc..

1. Please do not remove the line on the Immaculate Conception statue being covered in gold before 1985. There is no other prominent way to reference or prove that the statue really was indeed painted in gold other than associating it with the surviving wedding video of renowned singer Sharon Cuneta or rare photographs of the cathedral from the 60's or 70's, which none can be found since they have all been expelled by Wikipedia due to copyright issues.

2. Regarding the 1908 Photo. That REALLY IS the Manila Cathedral before a newer and a newer and then another tower was constructed. It also used to have a side facade similar to the Church of Gesu in Rome but was damaged by the Earthquake and never made again. Only the front facade survives today. This is the only surviving photograph of the 1908 Cathedral as approved by Wikipedia since all the old photographs found on the Internet are not allowed on the artiel due to violation of copyright issues.

Perhaps you are unaware that the ENTIRE church collapsed and only the front facade remained in the last 400 years. Thats OK. The tower itself was rebuilt from scratch with a new design, another one from 1940's and one used in the presentboth are entirely different from each other. There have been so many belfry towers erected on that Cathedral because every single damn earthquake, they make a new tower design... each having a different design completely different from earlier incarnation.

The 1908 Manila Cathedral photograph is accurate. I inherited a similar 3x4 inches celluloid photograph from my grandfather with this exact same tower and side-facade. Another facade is on the other side, which is the original. Should you have further doubts, the photograph does not portray the San Agustin Church either. That church was perfectly preserved and is standing from its original structure since the 1600's... and only one tower has collapsed, but both towers are identical to each other and it is not the tower displayed on the 1908 photograph. In short, this tower of the Manila Cathedral is no longer in existence as it was collapsed, damaged and thoroughly rebuilt after the earthquake.

Thank you for the clean-up. LoveforMary (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary.


 * The 1908 picture is incorrect. We have to base our statements here on Wikipedia on verifiable facts - Verifiability, not truth. Please read "The Seventh Cathedral 1879-1945" from the official website of the Manila Cathedral, specifically "The Earthquake of 1880" about more than halfway down the page.  After the earthquakes of 1880 the sole tower collapsed.  The tower, which survived the destructive 1863 earthquake (which also destroyed the sixth cathedral), collapsed after the 1880 earthquake and the seventh cathedral remained without a tower until its destruction in World War II.  Please carefully inspect the facade on your 1908 picture and click the links on these three pictures of the Cathedral before the war and compare them with your picture: Manila Cathedral 1, Manila Cathedral 2 and Manila Cathedral 3.  Notice the differences?  Please read the History of the Manila Cathedral on its official webpage which include all the edifices that stood in that same location.  Please read WP:CITE on why we need reliable and verifiable references. Also, please respect other editors, your edit on January 13 included a line saying "Reworded clumsy english wording by previous editors".  Please treat other editors with respect. Please read WP:CIVILITY.  We are all not perfect here. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think you're right. Lets just replace it with the other old photo. It's no use disputing, since the tower is no longer existing anyway. My grandfather was a sacristan and he served at the Manila Cathedral, this similar photo was in his possession and I have seen many pre-Spanish era sketches of the Manila Cathedral similar to the facade of Church of Gesu in Rome. Anyway, i'll take it down. and I wasn't insulting editors. It's not in my nature, unlike some editors here on Wikipedia who are just plain arrogant and condescending on NON-Americans. Just saying. LoveforMary (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary


 * I'm so sorry but I also have to remove the 'Immaculate Conception being covered in gold' based on Verifiability, not truth. Again Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts not because you believe them to be true. Please respect other editors (referring to your statement above).  Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, on this oneI am absolutely not wrong. It is not only true, but can be verifiable. The problem is everytime a picture of the Manila Cathedral inside is posted on Wikipedia commons is uploaded, it is rejected due to copyright issues claimed by the Manila Cathedral itself. The statue was covered in gold paint up to 1985. The live wedding videos from this date speaks for itself, most notably the wedding video of Sharon Cuneta at the Altar. I found it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/prazskejezulatko/461222205/in/photostream and http://www.flickr.com/photos/dennisraymondm32/3706300901/in/faves-paulus_magnus/ See this photo? The statue wasnt colored in realistic colors but in one single colorwhich at the time was gold. I am trying to find a copy of the YouTube video from this wedding. I remember seeing this distinctly when we used to go to this church when I was a young kid. But if I upload this picture to Wikipedia, it gets rejected because MLA cathedral wants to claim full copyright. LoveforMary (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

I dont know how you are able to upload photos of the Manila Cathedral, but the ones I have uploaded using my old celluloid copies have been rejected as a copyright issue. Some stupid bullcrap about 75 years waiting period. Work around here would be so much easier if copyright for educational purposes were a non-issue. Just saying. LoveforMary (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary


 * You can only upload your own pictures, i.e., pictures of the cathedral taken by yourself. I have to remove the part of the statement about celebrity weddings per WP:SOAPBOX.  The article is about the cathedral and should concern more about it.  Perhaps, you could expand the golden statue information.  Maybe elaborate why the statue was covered in gold? since when?  why was it changed? who ordered it? Things like that. Please also read Citing sources for referencing guide. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manila 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008020904/http://www.manila.gov.ph/cityhistory.htm to http://www.manila.gov.ph/cityhistory.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814162949/http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090813-220022/Notes-on-the-Aquino-funeral to http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090813-220022/Notes-on-the-Aquino-funeral

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Manila Cathedral Philippines.jpg
 * Manila Cathedral very old.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020
please make this article open for public editing Catholic Merchant (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Requests for reduction in page protection level can be made at WP:RPP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FvfManilaCathedral8410 06.JPG
 * FvfManilaCathedral9954 24.JPG
 * InmaculadaConcepcionngMaynilaFilipinas2012.jpg
 * Manila Cathedral Panorama.jpg

Pictures of Cardinal Santos' Galero
The current picture showing the suspended galero in the article predates the 2018 addition of Cardinal Santos' galero to the cathedral ceiling. It is probably better to use a more recent image. Yo.dazo (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Manila Cathedral Drone shot.jpg

On the reverted details about the High Altar (and the bronze Virgin up there)
First, there's no subheading yet in the Details of the Shrine heading for the High Altar, even though it's a big point of attention in the snow-white bareness of the apse. (In fact, the "Details of the Shrine" heading could do with some more subheadings—Nave and Aisles, Chapels, stained glass, Sanctuary and High Altar, and so on—but that's beside the point.) Information about the Immaculate Conception image in particular would properly belong there, not under the Patroness heading.

Second, such information should have been cited. Here's a guide on how.

Third, the Facebook virtual tour of the Cathedral is almost certainly not a good source to use in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia lists Facebook as an unreliable source, for one. There's also the danger that, unless properly archived in the Wayback Machine or something similar, the virtual tour could be taken down and the source could become a dead link. But the biggest issue is that the virtual tour has almost certainly collected its information from other, more primary sources. It is only good practice to use those primary sources instead.

Apologies for the trouble, but this is necessary work. Yo.dazo (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

On this article's... funky? structure
EDIT: Viewing this in the mobile app breaks the tables. It works well in mobile browsers though.

As far as I know there is no article template for churches, but there is a general pattern that many follow. To illustrate what I mean, here are the headings (excluding subheadings and anything past See Also) of other churches comparable in importance to Manila Cathedral.

I will have to point out, of course, that Manila Cathedral is not a shrine at all, and that "details" as a word is vague enough to conceivably include everything in this article. Also, is the incomplete list of rectors more important than the architectural details of the church itself? Should it even be included, considering its incomplete state?

As a further example, here are the subheadings under "Interior" for the same churches.

Surely this article needs refurbishment too, if only to make it look like a properly normal church article. Yo.dazo (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)