Talk:St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney/Archive 1

John Hardman Powell
A valid redirect might be not John Powell, but (lacking an article on John Hardman Powell, none is listed in the disambiguation) Hardman & Co., maybe... Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardman and Co is fine. They were his rellies. Amandajm (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alignment
I also posted this on Amandajm's talk page.

I must say, I'm a bit lost as to why exactly you reverted the St Andrew's cathedral article back to the former layout. It seems to go against how articles are supposed to look, and to me gives a rather awkward impression to the page. I can understand in theory that the facade should face into the article as you said in your summary, but I just don't think the layout of the article looks any good the way it is because of it. Just my opinion though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been readjusted and looks better. Amandajm (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No complaints then. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions re boxes
Ancient Apparition added these tags without any comment, query or detailed criticism. I want to know why.


 * This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (June 2011)
 * Yes, a little could be said about the services, the music and the Heritage Listing.


 * This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links. (June 2011)
 * No. The information here pertains directly to the building, under the various listed sections. This is the way fine works of architecture are normally treated. There is no place to "relocate" the information to.


 * This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (June 2011)
 * This is nonsense. Joan Kerr and Joseph Kinsela are two highly regarded and totally independent architectural historians. The History of St Andrews was published by Angus and Robertson', Australia's foremost publisher at tat date. And there is rarely an historian better placed to write the history of a cathedral than a canon who has access to all the primary documents. The sources are impeccable.  Questioning them is just plain ridiculous!
 * I want to point out here that some information can only be found at a related site, not an independent third party site.
 * eg. If you want to know how many choristers are in the choir, you look up the Choir's webpage. That is where the information is.
 * If you want to know the date of the Dean's appointment, you look up his webpage. That's where the info is, unless someone has written a biography.
 * If you want to know the subject matter of the cathedral's stained glass, you can only find out by looking at the guidebook. No-one else has this information, except the primary document/order-form in the manufacturer' archive.
 * Complaining about information that's close to the source is ridiculous in this sort of context.


 * The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (June 2011)
 * There is nothing contentious in this article. I can assure you of that. It has born the very close scrutiny of Sydney Anglican Media, and the Precentor of the cathedral. It also satisfies the author of the article, who does not live in Sydney and has no direct association with either the cathedral or its staff.


 * This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * Agreed. The historical facts come mostly from one or other of the books cited, but haven't been detailed, except for the direct quotes.


 * Amandajm (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note re refs: I'll get back to sort this one when I have finished with another article needing much more urgent attention. Amandajm (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: will be moved, waiting for redirect to be deleted Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

St. Andrew& → St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney – The name of the article currently has a superfluous fullstop after the St (Saint). It isn't necessary, and hasn't been employed by StAndrew's for at least 50 years. Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Absolutely. Although American practice is generally to include full stops after abbreviations, practice in the rest of the English-speaking world is generally not to. We usually follow this divided practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By English convention, the fullstop is only used if the last letter of the abbreviation is not present, e.g.: "i.e.", "P.S." and "Ph.D." It isn't used for "Mr", Mrs", "Dr" or "St",  :-)   Amandajm (talk)
 * In fact, it's rarely used at all in abbreviations in the UK these days. I certainly wouldn't write Ph.D., for example, but PhD. Most British people likewise. i.e. is a different matter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support by the above; but, more importantly we use what the Church uses; if they choose to use a superfluous dot so must we, and in some cases they do so, but St Andrew's does not, so we do not (Crusoe8181 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)).
 * Not strictly true. We use the version that is commonly used, not necessarily the version that is officially used. They are not always the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (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.

Macquarie and Greenway's propsed building
I have just deleted the word "Gothic" in reference to the building proposed by Maquarie. I have done this, with full understanding that it is referenced. But this is patently nonsense.

Reasons:
 * Gothic Revival Architecture was in its earlies stages in the 1820s.
 * Macquarie had at his disposal an architect, Greenway, who was competent in the Georgian style. Greenway would have been able to insert windows that were pointed rather than round topped, but the building would have been essentially Georgian, not Gothic in Style.
 * The proposed building was square in plan, and herefore centrally orientated. Gothic churches are not square.
 * The replacement building, St James, King Street, is entirely Georgian with no traceof Gothic about it.
 * Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)