Talk:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour

message: *Is this church still the largest?  Or is it the Temple of Saint Sava in Belgrade?  "The (Orthodox) Temple of Saint Sava in Belgrade, Serbia is the largest Orthodox Church Temple currently in use".  This article should be updated to second-largest, or something, as it is not the largest.  Cheers, --Krytan 22:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest Orthodox church in use?

message: I think there should be a picture of the swimming pool in the article.  Also, the Russian article has a beautiful image of frescoes in the old cathedral.  Something should be mentioned about whether the walls of the new cathedral have also been decorated, and if so by whom. Esn 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swimming pool

message: Neither this article, nor Palace of the Soviets state whether the cathedral was rebuilt in the same location. One would assume so -- but then there's the old joke about "assume". (Cliche omitted for your reading pleasure.) Adding this piece of information would improve articles. -- llywrch 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location?

message: This building should be listed under a new category for replica buildings. See Talk:St Mark's Campanile. Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Replica Building

message: Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but in February of 1990, the Soviet Union still existed as a federation including Russia (where the church is), and the Soviet Government was the sovereign government of the time. Ignoring the disparaging tone of "...at the end of Soviet Rule", this is still contrary to the date itself, since the Soviet Government was not dissolved until late-1991. 
I've altered the statement accordingly. I hope this is a more accurate reflection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.87.73 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Contradiction in dates? 

message: That's a very slangy term for whatever sort of restaurant is there. Not knowing just what sort it is, I didn't want to edit it, but someone should. PapayaSF (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Food joint"?

message: I am perplexed by this sentence : "In the meantime Alexander I was succeeded by his brother Nicholas I. Profoundly Orthodox and patriotic, the new Tsar disliked the Neoclassicism and Freemasonry of the project selected by his brother."
It must be a mistake, Freemasonry cannot have played a part in the construction of this cathedral. If it is not an error, it definitely needs to have a source for what would be a very surprising element of the project. If no one cites a source for this statement within a week or so I will remove it. Smeat75 (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry?? 

message: I have removed the information about the recent "Pussy riots" events, which have nothing to do with the cathedral and little do to with an encyclopaedia. Please try WIkinews. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree, the Pussy Riot incident and trial has been of major interest all over the world and could now be said to be of historical importance, not a mere newspaper story, so I have put that back in. And could someone please answer my question as to whether the references to Freemasonic elements in the original cathedral are correct? Thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The chapter "Sale of icons and candles in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" is also mast be removed in same reasons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.110.108.135 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pussy riot 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Moscow July 2011-7a.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 11, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Moscow July 2011-7a.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: "During his visit and concelebration of Liturgy with Patriarch Kirill I, Metropolitan Jonah stated that there were about 16 bishops serving during the Divine Liturgy, although this number may have been greater than normal due to the visit of Metropolitan Jonah and the ordination of a new bishop that day." 
This sentence is followed by a reference linking it to an interview with Metropolitan Jonah.   However, Metropolian Jonah did not make the silly statement  although this number may have been greater than normal due to the visit of Metropolitan Jonah and the ordination of a new bishop that day."   This is the interpretation of the writer of the article. 
Personal interpretations like that are out of place.  Anyone who knows anything about the way churches function would not use a statement like "although this number may have been greater than normal".    
Of course it was greater than normal!    A cathedral has one bishop. 
The sixteen bishops were present for the reasons that the interpreter has surmised: firstly a visit from a metropolitan really is a big deal. Secondly, the ordination of a bishop really is a big deal.  Whenever the ordination of a bishop takes place, every bishop who can possibly get there will be present. Why? Because they are all part of the process of ordination. They affirm the new bishop, they bless the new bishop, they welcome the new bishop, and then they kneel before the newly ordained bishop to receive blessing. 
So a statement that sixteen bishops were present at the ordination is sufficient, without an interpretative line like: "although this number may have been greater than normal".  It was not "greater than normal" for an ordination service.
The best way to deal with matters like this is, if you are unsure of facts or procedures, then don't presume to interpret. A simple statement Metropolitan Jonah said that 16 bishops were present" is sufficient.  
Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. 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/20120305183445/http://www.galteh.ru/article_galvanotehnika.html to http://www.galteh.ru/article_galvanotehnika.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20101102100342/http://audio.ancientfaith.com/conversations/cmj_2009-06-02.mp3 to http://audio.ancientfaith.com/conversations/cmj_2009-06-02.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412173705/http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/christsaviour.htm to http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/christsaviour.htm
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) 05:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Savior" is used in this article 6 times, while "saviour" is used 9. We really need to standardize on one in this article, and we especially need to handle the mismatch of the article name with bolded content in the main section and the information box to the side. EpsilonCarinae (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savior vs saviour 

message: Could someone perhaps transcribe and translate the inscription around the central dome? I think this is something general readers would be interested in, akin to the famous inscription around the dome of St. Peter's in Rome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.53.96 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inscription around dome 

message: Simple request. Stylistically it is a mess. I will now give detailed reasoning as to why it is infeasible and provokes edit wars.
I believe that the Wikipedia article on tallest buildings establishes very good guidelines. First, the building must be "topped out":
The building is considered as architecturally topped out when it is under construction, structurally topped out, fully clad, and the highest finished architectural elements are in place.
The height, then is:
assessed by the building's highest architectural feature.
Now, when I read this sentence about the Cathedral being third-tallest within a specific subset of churches, I see it as inherently political and ideological. That is: it is important which church is highest, it always has been. The church is a physical representation of connection to a higher principle, and physical verticality is integral to this. 
And the problem is that a comparison of order according to whatever quantifiable criteria (aka ranking) requires an equivalent or convertible intrinsic measure. That is, regardless of what units we use, we have to decide what counts as the (vertical) "start" and "end" of the structure. This is like asking someone to define the "edge of town". 
It's inherently incomplete as it is— in such a way that it is misinformation. Such a statement requires qualifiers, modalities. Such as "from the lowest region accessible to the highest region inhabited"
Then we need to define accessible and inhabited. Maybe for all intents and purposes the cycle ends there. But this level of complexity makes such rankings inappropriate for use in Wikipedia outside of their respective articles.
 Freyheytlid (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we not use superlatives in introductions