Talk:Grace Church (Manhattan)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phrasing[edit]

To any editor who reads this: I am confused by the wording of this sentence. Is Grace Church constructed with three types of materials (i.e. wood, plaster, and lathe), or two types (wood; and plaster scored to look like stone and lathe)? And I'm assuming the wooden sections are only framing or interior walls, and that the exterior is plaster and/or lathe. Is that true and is it verifiable? Also, I assume that the writer of the sentence meant to write lath and not lathe; I'd like to see a building constructed out of lathes.

Like Trinity Church, which was also consecrated in 1846, Grace Church was designed in the Gothic Revival style, and despite the wood, plaster scored to look like stone and lathe construction – as opposed to the stone construction of medieval Gothic cathedrals.

--24.246.112.51 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read it to mean that wood and plaster over lathing were used in the construction. I'll see if I can rewrite it to make that more clean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well now I'm rather doubting the whole thing. I think the original text came from this website; but this website and this website, both of which seem much more reliable, both support the idea that the exterior is constructed of marble. The NYC architecture site that I linked does support the first linked site that only the interior was made of wood, laths, and plaster.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do a bit of research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Both the AIA Guide to NYC and the Guide to NYC Landmarks (both definitive) say that the church is Sing-Sing marble. I'll go in and make the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I also found one other good source. Here is the link, it appears to be a book published in 1900. You can do a CTRL-F search to find the passage stating that Grace Church's facade is made of marble.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change, using the AIA as the source (since it was already a ref elsewhere in the article). I'm embarrassed now not to have caught that blatant error myself. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then is there perhaps somewhere that you want to add that the interior is made of wood and lath and plaster? This website supports that statement entirely, I don't know if you can do better.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can do better. I'll do it.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are my changes acceptable? Also, I'd like to put in a gallery like the one at the Washington Square Arch article, this page has photos going down past the references section, which looks rather clumsy.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they seem fine to me. I wouldn't add a gallery, there are enough images in the article already. I think I'll remove the final image in the right hand stack, the one with the church at dusk. It's pretty, but doesn't add much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(And I can say hat, because it's my image.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I merely want to arrange the existing images into a gallery, not add any more images. Your dusk image was not only the most visually appealing composition in the article, but it was the most comprehensive photo of the church within the article. I'd say to add it back; the steeple image does not contribute anything, as the dusk image shows all of the steeple and more.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put it back, but I still don't think a gallery is a good idea, since, even if you format the gallery for size (which I have no objection to, and do quite often), there's a limit the size the images can be presented at, and given the intricacy of the detailing in the design of the various buildings, I don't think they would be very effective in a gallery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I've always assumed that most of the readership have the knowledge and understanding that if they click on the image, it will open up the larger version. Honestly not sure how prevalent that capability is worldwide, so perhaps the absence of a gallery has its merits, but I couldn't really be sure.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think people are generally familiar enough with how the Internet works that most will click on an image if they want to see more detail, I just feel that we shouldn't be presenting images at small sizes that require them to do so. Those skimming or just lightly passing through an article should be able to get something out of the images at the size we show them, then if they or others want to see more, they can click. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

That sounds fine. My only other proposed edit is to the infobox. My proposed infobox is located here: User talk:69.119.255.1. It uses the NRHP infobox that's currently in the article, and adds the church infobox in order to list construction materials, which was my initial source of wanting to read and edit the page - I wish that more NRHP and church articles listed their construction materials in their infoboxes. The only informational changes between the current and proposed infoboxes is the addition of that construction information.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you swap it so that the church ibox is embedded in the NRHP ibox? I think it should take precedence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped so, but it does not work technically. But I can assure you that it is a standard that is commonly used. Featured articles like Hoover Dam, Pulaski Skyway, and The Avery Coonley School have the NRHP infobox embedded, as well as notable articles like Empire State Building and Alcatraz Island.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it buries the really important stuff -- i.e NRHP and NYCLPC status -- at the bottom, all so that a few fairly insignificant etails about the construction can be included in the infobox up top. That doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I had worried you were going to say that. Not only does adding the church infobox allow for the possibility of more parameters, ones that the NRHP infobox does not have, but adding the infobox makes the article closer in format to featured articles. If Grace Church is ever going to become a FA, it's going to eventually get a church infobox. In addition, I value the construction material content going in the infobox, as it is a great deal easier to find that detail there than to sort through paragraphs of history and church function looking for it. Finally, the only significant difference is that the NRHP banners won't be sitting on top, which sure, somewhat hides the fact from readers a bit more, but the NRHP designation is not something to be overly proud of, and if you just want it on top as a show-off point, I'd say that's in bad faith. But I'll assume good faith, yet still promote my proposed and constructive edit.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do assume good faith. The NHRP and NYC designations are important because they are unbiased certifications of the importance of the building. Certainly, Grace Church would have an article even if (for some bizarre reason) it had never been designated a landmark, but the designations are factual proof of the historic status of the church, which is really much more important than knowing from the infobox what the construction materials are. Because of this I really do think that the NRHP box needs to lead.

Generally, I don't believe in multiple infoboxes on an article, but I'm perfectly willing to consider the church infobox here so long as it can be embedded, and doesn't usurp the NRHP box. I think you are quite mistaken that the article must have a church infobox - in point of fact, I rather think multiple (unembedded) infoboxes would count more against the article than the lack of the church box. In any case, those are my thoughts: two separate infoboxes is not good, an embedded second infobox is fine, but the historic designation box should be the primary box. If we can't agree on this, we'll need to open the discussion up to hear some other opinions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after thinking about it a bit, some more input would probably be a good thing, so I've put neutral pointers on the talk pages of the three WikiProjects connected with this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not resolve this by creating a new NRHP CHURCHES info box ... something that combines the best of both the NRHP info box and the CHURCH info box. It could be used for all articles on churches that are listed on the NRHP. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent idea. Unfortunately I'm not much of a template writer, and my one attempt to duplicate the NRHP template (to create a template for NYC landmarks which are not on the register) was dismal. Maybe someone on the NRHP project is capable of it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blueboar's idea, but you have to ask yourself...which is more important for you in editing the article and presenting the information...highlighting the NRHP/NYCL designations, or highlighting the information about the church? Once you determine which effort is priority, then that can help determine the appropriate infobox. But if someone acts on Blueboar's idea, run with it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this idea, because it's essentially extraneous: we're able to get the job done with two infoboxes, and the two are separate enough in scope that we shouldn't create another one to merge them. Multiplying infoboxes is harmful when it's not necessary: to a human it doesn't really matter, but multiplying infoboxes complicates our metadata and makes Semantic Web participation harder, because bots and other non-human readers have a harder and harder time interpreting information when we increase the number of formats (i.e. infoboxes) in which that information is presented. Meanwhile, on the embedding thing: we pretty much always embed the NRHP infobox in the other one if we don't want to have two that are separate. While historic designation is important (I'm a WP:NRHP member; I'm not going to disagree with this idea :-), the core data about the subject is most important, and that's what you're going to get in the subject specific infobox, whether Infobox Church here or Infobox Lighthouse or Infobox Ship or Infobox Whateverelseyouwanttohave. Finally A response to the original question. Construction material isn't something that's really relevant to NRHP listing, so it's not something we should include in its infobox. Lots of NRHP locations weren't built; for example, what would you put as the construction material for Pikes Peak (yes, it's listed!) or for the Kappa V Archaeological Site? Such a field might be more relevant to the church infobox, but I don't really know anything about it. Post scriptum Double edit conflict; I began writing this response after Blueboar's comment of 22:51 but before BMK's comment of 22:54. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me the technical difficulty of embedding the church box into the NRHP box, rather than the other way around, and why it can be changed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, one of the reasons I find two infoboxes counter-producive is the amount of real estate they take up. The further down the article the infobox(es) go, the less accessible they are to the person just skimming for quick facts, and the more they squeeze out other material, specifically images and tables, which are much harder to present on the left side but are forced to be there by the infobox on the right. I am not opposed to infoboxes, I find to be very useful but I am aware of their downside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to embed the other way ends up like this User talk:69.119.255.1.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't doubting that it couldn't be done, just wondering what was preventing it from being done and coming out properly, i.e. why can the NRHP be embedded but not the church?Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK, maybe because it's earlier in the day than when this discussion started, but I just took another look at 69.119.255.1's proposed infobox, and I guess I should withdraw my objection to it. I would still prefer the historic box to be at the top, because I think it's more important and it immediately (and colorfully) flags the subject to the reader as historically important, but if that can't be done, so be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did just change it to switch the embedding (make church embedded in NRHP instead of vice versa), but it doesn't display properly. View its history to see the older version.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to withdrawing my object to this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add, but got caught in many edit conflicts - Thank you all for commenting. I agree with Nyttend's remarks the most, but I understand BMK's concerns and standpoint. I would be open to the construction of a new infobox, and would be open to attempt its construction. In other news, did anyone see that Grace Church was featured in today's WSJ?--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, alright, now I understand. I was trying to make it work so that the NRHP information could be at the top. But as you can see by my current talk page, I believe that something is blocking it from displaying more correctly - it appears unnecessarily wide, and nothing appears to be causing it to be that way.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you or another editor could fix that? I'm not sure how. Otherwise we could go with the previous infobox on my talk.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Unfortunately, I'm almost completely unable to help with BMK's question; I don't understand template coding much at all, so I don't have any solid clue why we can't embed Church in NRHP. All I can say is that NRHP has an "embed" parameter, without which (I think) it won't embed, and perhaps Church doesn't have such a feature? Or perhaps Church has a feature that permits something to be embedded in it, but NRHP doesn't have such a feature? Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like you're right - it fails to display properly because the Church infobox lacks an embed feature/parameter. I wonder if someone is able to add it.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, as a result of the discussion here, I've gone ahead and implemented 69's suggested change to the infobox, with a bit of tinkering of my own (moving "Episcopal Church" from the NRHP "governing body" field to the Church "denomination" field, for instance). It still would be nice if some smart coder could figure out the cause of the embedding problem, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose the next step would be to ask at the talk page of Infobox church, or even at Infobox religious building, to see if one of their local editors has the capability of doing that.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editors of the Church infobox managed to get it done. The Church infobox can now be successfully embedded in the NRHP infobox. I have it that way on my talk page, and I would copy it over, but I don't know if BMK wants to first change some things, restoring what he put as the 'tinkering of my own' in his comment above.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That was quick work - please pass along my thanks to the folks who made that possible. I've copied it over and, again, did a bit of tweaking. I think having this capability is going to be helpful in other NRHP church articles, and I'm floored by how quickly it was done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too was surprised, they really seem to know what they're doing. I suppose for them, it's far from reinventing the wheel, while for me it would be exactly that. Thanks for making that change - I saw earlier you changed the coordinates to a more concise format, do you still want it that way? And you changed the image caption to (2006), but it may be more appropriate with your older caption 'Grace Church from Broadway', or even 'side facing Broadway'.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grace Church (Manhattan). 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) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grace_Church_(Manhattan)&oldid=1207369609"