Talk:Sagrada Família/Archive 1

Archive 1

Material and cost

What material does the building consist of? Also, what is the estimated cost of construction, and who is paying it - the government? The local archdiocese? Vatican? Funnyhat 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We visited this stunning building two days ago on 22 June 2006. It appears that multiple materials are in use. There is a great deal of seemingly traditional stone masonry, such as you might find in mediaeval cathedrals, but also clearly visible evidence of reinforced concrete work with masonry facings, use of various glazed and plain tiles and tile fragments (such as can be found elsewhere in Parc Guell), and in some places the decorative work also includes broken bottles. If you are interested in the construction process then I heartily recommend a visit - it is a very active building site with a lot going on and much to see.

I know nothing of the funding / costs involved.

Al 13:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The funding of the construction (since its beginnings) is obtained only through private donations of individual persons. That's why the works were delayed some times on the inicial stages: there weren't enough donations. Nowadays there's little problem because the incomes from the visits to the temple provide enough founds to keep going with the construction.

No institutional help is being provided (in fact some of the decisions from the public authorities do not help the cause a lot). RR 14 July 2006.

Foto very old

The photo in which the city goes out of barcelona and to the bottom(fund) the Sacred family is very ancient. It is not from recent Barcelona, at least it is 20 years old. Barcelona has changed very much and is a great city, not since like it goes out in the photo. To look for the current photo that there are many

-> If you're talking about the "Sagrada Familia and Eixample viewed from Montjuic" photo you're wrong, I took this picture myself in June 2006, as specified in the caption --Jullag 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tower spires influenced by cubism?

Re: "the towers on the Nativity facade are crowned with geometrically shaped tops that were probably influenced by Cubism".

I am not convinced that this is true. He was a master of geometric form long before Cubism. Furthermore Robert Hughes opines that Picasso (a major player in Cubism) may very well have been influenced by Gaudi since his studio overlooked the famous chimneys of the Palau Guell. Either way, it seems like a statement that is difficult to back up. Should it be nixed or altered at all?

130.221.105.69 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Alberto

Construction Time

I'd like to see a more direct explanation as to why the construction has taken over 100 years. From reading it, I can GUESS that it's because of the complexity and enormity of the design. However, I'm sure that many other readers will wonder and so perhaps this should be addressed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaihoku (talk • contribs) 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Allah topunuzu davul etsin

Yes, the construction time seems to be one of the most notable aspects of the building, other than its complexity, yet it is explained very little in the text of the article and I find myself still wondering. Could someone more familiar with the subject please expand on this? Suntiger 01:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The construction has taken a long while because it relies on donations. Also, there was a period between approximately 1936 and 1950 where the main task was to rebuild Gaudi's models (a task that continues as new shards are studied). Nowadays, the architects are having to make designs from scratch as they are beginning to construct parts of the church that Gaudi did not design to the highest detail. This takes time especially as they mate up with older parts of the temple. There are always a few hangups and, as I see it right now, one of these is the resolution of the area where the apse stair cases, two of the evangelist towers, and the apse windows converge.76.167.43.150 04:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for cleanup template?

Could the person who tagged this article for cleanup please say why. Templates are useless by themselves. Furthermore, the page looks fine to me. - UrbaneLegend 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

7 days and no reply. Template removed. UrbaneLegend 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 'future building' tag. While it isn't complete, there is little that is speculative about the article, other than its completion date. It is hardly of the speculative nature of most future buildings or events and was clearly added by a pedant. Damiancorrigan 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Alphachimp. Apparently last 18 July 2006 your Alphachimpbot tool re-added, for no apparent reason, a cleanup tag to the Sagrada Familia article.

Last February user UrbaneLegend politely asked: "Could the person who tagged this article for cleanup please say why. Templates are useless by themselves. Furthermore, the page looks fine to me." ... He/she got no answer, so he/she went on to remove the tag on March.

Now (July 2006) the cleanup tag is back again, apparently thanks to your bot. I agree with user UrbaneLegend: the article looks fine to me, too. I wonder, what needs to be cleaned up? I find it interesting and informative, with no language problems, no mistakes, no useless info. I believe the tag is spurious. Perhaps you could teach us about what has been found wrong in the article? --Regards, AVM 00:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't cite its sources and I found a mistake in the orientation of the facades (which I corrected) unless the museum on the basilica site is incorrect. I'm afraid I don't know anything more, but without sources or acknowledgements it is hard to trust. Also, the images are confusing since they get in the way of the text since there are so many of them - suggest gallery section. --Aristocrates 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When did construction begin?

When did construction begin? --Eamonnca1 06:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Move. Already moved actually but consensus exists as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to move the name

Here above there was the discussion. The reasons I argumented in the request page are: There is no translation in English, the native and official language is Catalan, the official Website writes it with í also in the English page, there was a discussion with no objection but suddenly somebody changed it without discussing it in the Talk Page to Sagrada Familia with the only reason "The word "familia" ("family") carries no accent, so this article's title has been misspelled for some time", what shows an misknowledge of the reality. I just reverted this action and I've been told to discuss here the change of the name.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. It seems that Google test does not work for this case. Well, I think that its name should be "Família" because it is its official name, but also because I am from Barcelona. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Sagrada Família's architect, Antoni Gaudí, is well known by his catalanist ideas. He was even fined by talking in Catalan to a Spanish policeman. I'm sure he feels ill when his major work is called in Spanish, and not in Catalan. Respect him, its name is "Sagrada Família". --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Google hits are not the supreme truth, and never mind whether "Familia" is more common than "Família"; the latter is the correct one. The fact a mistake is widespread does not make it true. Besides: 1.- Its native name is "Família", not "Familia", and we should keep Catalan names just like we do in Girona (Gerona), Lleida (Lérida)... 2.- The *official* website refers to it as "Família" even in English. I think that is the most autoritative source. -- Danilot 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per nom, Catalan name is more adequate.--Húsönd 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. In Catalan, please. --Pepetps 12:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Better in Catalan because Gaudi was catalanist and I'm sure he put in catalan the name of his works.--GillesV 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose. The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that Familia without the accent is far more common than with accent. The following google searches return the following results:

• With accent, all pages "Sagrada" "Família" -wikipedia - 1.07 million results"Sagrada Família" -"Sagrada Familia" -wikipedia 621,000 results
• Without accent, all pages "Sagrada" "Familia" -wikipedia - 1.63 million results"Sagrada Familia" -"Sagrada Família" -wikipedia 1.4 million results
• With accent, english only 82,000 61,600 results
• Without accent, english only 680,000 645,000 results
• With accent, Spanish only 95,400 95,400results
• Without accent, spanish only 1.25 million 1.1 million results
• While there isn't an English translation for Sagrada Familia, it is the Spanish translation that is predominantly used in English, not the native Catalan.--Bobblehead 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry, but you put the commas (") in a wrong place. If you search for "Sagrada" "Familia" it searches also for text where Sagrada and Familia don't have to be strictly together. Now let's repeat the search with the commas including the whole name "Sagrada Familia" and "Sagrada Família":

• In English: 735.000 results with accent and 727.000 without accent.
• In Spanish: 1,150,000 results with accent, 1.100.000 results without accent.
• Without specifying language: 703.000 with accent, 1.610.000 without accent (remark: in this second search without accent, my 4th result comes with accent, so it seems there are some pages with accent counting also as non accent ones).

It seems in English and Spanish now there are more with accent, and in general, more without (well, we have to consider that in general, people has no accent in most of the international Keyboards, many people don't care about accents and even less in a foregin language...). But:

• Jaén in general, 1.560.000 results. Without accent: 2.010.000 results. And Wikipedia has it of course Jaén, Spain with accent.
• Île-de-France: 1.760.000 results. Ile-de-France: 5.750.000. Wikipedia: Île-de-France, all with accent.

Since in the Sagrada Família case, it seems that the predominant form in English is not the Spanish but both are used in the same order, I think we have to take the original form as we do with Jaén and Île-de-France.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 05:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both of us are incorrect. By putting the quotes around the entire phrase google will return results that includes "Sagrada Familia" or "Sagrada Família". However, when the quotes are put around single words it will only return exact matches, so searches with "Familia" will only return results where Familia is on the page, but will not return pages where only Família is present. The intent of my search was to restrict it purely to those instances where Familia or Família were used. I'll see what I can work up in regards to alternate ways to determine counts. --Bobblehead 07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Upon further testing, it appears google is even more nefarious than previously thought. The search engine assumes that if "Sagrada Família" is used, you're interested in both "Sagrada Família" and "Sagrada Familia". However, if "Sagrada Familia" is used, it does not return results where only "Sagrada Família" is used. --Bobblehead 08:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct, as I showed before with one entry in which I looked for "Sagrada Familia", it appeared in my 4th position a "Sagrada Família" (bold) with accent. Anyway, as shown with Île-de-France (in which the ratio 1,8M-6,2M is still preserved), I think we don't have to decide basing on google searches (as I said, many of non Catalan people simply don't care it it has accent or not, and they don't have it in the keyboard -or they don't know how to use it-). However, I think we have to take the original form as the main article, and then of course have the redirection for all those ones who don't know that this accent exists...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Google don't care accents in its researches. --

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

High-speed rail controversy

A section should be added discussing the possible threat posed by the high-speed rail line being constructed near the basilica. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/church.php?page=1 Gregohio 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the wikipedia must be out of politic controversials about the path of the AVE. Currently this discussion is more about politics parties than for real reasons. You can find as many supporters as detractors of the project. Of course the ones to live under the future rail line, are detractors, and the party in the government affiliates are supporters. I think that the last paragraph of the introduction must not include this type of discussions, it don't deserve it. There are a lot of more important topics. Jose piratilla 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gregohio. Though this matter may be resolved in the political realm, the issue involves a potential threat to the structural integrity of the church. The constuction committee itself is lobbying for a change in the path of the AVE for this reason. --76.167.43.150 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Accent

The proper name in Catalan is Sagrada Família, not Sagrada Familia (although this name, without an accent, is perfectly correct in Spanish). So, I don't know in what language this article's supposed to be, but if the long official name used is Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família (Catalan) instead of Templo Expiatorio de la Sagrada Familia, then I think the article as a whole should be renamed/moved to Sagrada Família.--80.58.35.237 16:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I think english wikipedia politics says that things have to be named in its native language if the translation in english is not used. So this article should be moved to Sagrada Família because Catalan is the native language of Barcelona.--62.15.156.164 13:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Page moved. UrbaneLegend 10:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but such a dramatic change needs to be discussed beforehand. Please list the proposal at WP:RM, thanks. Asterion^talk 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I stop making the changes. But if I changed it was because there was already a discussion, nobody objected about the change and the only argument AVM gave to rename it (without discussing it here) was: "The word "familia" ("family") carries no accent, so this article's title has been misspelled for some time", what it is seems an ignorance of the reality (probably (s)he didn't know that the official name is not in Spanish but in Catalan). Anyway, as you said, I will propose it. Thank you, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. This would stop any possible edit war in future. --Asterion^talk 02:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The name of the temple is "Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família", in Catalan. All the discussion above seems not to have had the proper conclusion if this long name is not correctly spelled in Catalan too. Joan Solà (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points but what do we do with the phrase "often simply called the ..." In this case, I don't think there should be an accent as the statement seems to be indicating what most people call this place. No one would use an accent except those familiar with Catalan, which is very few people, certainly when compared with those familiar with Castillian—the latter group would obviously simply refer to the this place as the "La Sagrada Familia" with no accent. Thus if it is "often simply called the ..." with an accent by those in Catalonia, it is often simply called the "Sagrada Familia" everywhere else. So the statement as it is now, with the accent, seems misleading to me. 76.167.43.150 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC) - Alberto

Greenpeace

I dont see a point to the Greenpeace section added. This is an article about Sagrada Família, and a small one-day rally help by a group like GP seems out of place to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBH11 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The protest itself seems to have had nothing to do with the structure. I'm removing it. Speed8ump (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Burials

Hello I'm new here. Can someone check on the Burials section?

Constantia of Sicily [according to the link] was buried in "Cathedral of Santa Eulalia, Barcelona"

Petronila of Aragon [according to the link] was "buried at Barcelona cathedral; her tomb was lost." --Marlon Monroe (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gallery Tag ?

I'm not sure why the "gallery" criticism box is there. The pictures are definitely relevant, revealing, well-captioned, non-redundant, and neatly arranged. Looks fine to me... Craig Goodrich 206.39.12.241 (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

why so long?

It says when they expect to complete it by, but somebody should add the reason why it takes so long to build - the intricacies, etc. Saccerzd 22:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If the Sagrada Familia is a basílica, does that make it the only church to be so designated before construction was complete? - Montrealais

It's not yet concecrated, is it?--Aristocrates 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a basílica. 130.221.105.69 16:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Alberto

In Catalan, we say «Basílica» as a synonym of church, that's all. (Jordi Ferrer)

Jordi, this is not true. Basílica has two different meanings. The first is architectonic and only regards about the structure of the building. But in this case, the term Basílica is used to categorize the use of the church. As far as I know, the city of Barcelona is already complete in terms of parish. A church of this dimension can only be considered as a Cathedral. But, Barcelona already has a Cathedral, and it seems that it won't change. So it can't fit in the hierarchical distribution. The only solution is to consider it as a Basílica, that is, a church out of hierarchical distribution. Jose piratilla 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term "basilica" has the same generic meaning it may have in Spanish. A basilica (ignoring the Roman definition) is a church designated so by the Holy See. The Sagrada Familia, as colossal as it may be, is a church. Until it is designated otherwise, we should not confuse the matter. --76.167.43.150 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Alberto

Is it still under construction, or is it finished?

It is still under construction of course. Of the 18 towers, only 8 are finished. Jose piratilla 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the following "Since 1940 the architects Francesc Quintana, Puig Boada, and Lluís Gari have carried on the work." These architects are all now dead so it should refer to the past tense. It is now Jordi Bonet i Armengol who is the director of construction. (Lluís Gari's son)

The towers were originally intended to be three times higher... the [central] tower's total height will be one metre less than that of Montjuïc, as Gaudí believed that his work should not surpass that of God.

As the central tower is only ~1.5 times the height of the others, Gaudí himself can't have intended the towers to be three times higher, can he?

I think this cathedral is constructing by turkish hastarbeiters who don't even know how to make a concrete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dars-dm (talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HARBORING RACIST COMMENTS IN THE TALK PAGE!!!Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (And can someone please cordon the discussion page from racists who doesn't even know about both Sagrada Familia and architecture?!!)Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Orientation

The Sagrada Família is oriented to the North-West, so the main entrance will be at South-East. The Nativity façade, is the first one finished and it is the one of the right (so the North-East). The Passion one is the one of the left (South-West). So, I think the corrections were not perfectly correct...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken in my corrections of the orientations, but the page now indicates orientations that are misleading. Since the church unconventionally does not follow cardinal axes, would it not be better to describe the façades in a different manner? This could either be using South-West etc, or avoiding references to compass points altogether? --Aristocrates (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cathedral?

The infobox currently lists the Sagrada Familia's 'ecclesiastical status' as 'Cathedral'. Is this building a Cathedral? Cathedral usually denotes a church which contains the seat of a bishop. Afaik, the SF was never intended for such a function. Barcelona also already has a cathedral which serves the diocese. Would the SF not be better described as an (expiatory) chapel?ANB (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever put the infobox is mistaken. The Sagrada Familia is an "Expiatory Temple", not a cathedral (since there's already a cathedral somewhere in Barcelona). And the church's official name speaks for itself... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Though, and that's said without any wish to interfere with the proper papal and archepiscopal authorities, it would indeed seem logical to me if it weren't only named Basilica minor (which I dare say it is likely to be, though it is, of course, not yet), but the Cathedra of Barcelona were transferred as well once the Sagrada Familia is finished, to make it both a Cathedral and a Basilica minor. The extant Cathedral of Barcelona is a Basilica minor itself, so it would still keep a high rank. --84.154.114.74 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

has the building been consecrated?

if not, any planned date?CorvetteZ51 14:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Pope will consecrate it the upcoming November. Strausszek (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Towers

Eighteen towers for the twelve Apostles, the four Evangelists, the Blessed Virgin and the Most Holy Redeemer, alright - but coming to think of it, though the number attached to the Apostels is twelve, it's thirteen that are venerated of them, without Judas Iscariot but including St. Paul and St. Matthias. Moreover, the number of Evangelists who were not Apostles is two, St. Mark and St. Luke. Is Gaudí leaving St. Paul or St. Matthias out, or giving both of them one tower? Is he giving St. John and St. Matthew two towers each? Is he reserving (with fifteen Apostels and Evangelists altogether) another tower to another saint, maybe to St. Joseph? (As you might find logical in the background of "special" Catholic saints, and in a Holy Family church in particular.) Or to St. John the Precursor, or to St. Barnabas who has the title of apostle, but didn't belong to the Apostles' college? Not critisizing, just curious--84.154.99.198 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen on the Spanish, or was it the Catalan, talk page that it is indeed both St. Paul and St. Barnabas. --77.4.59.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see the names of all 18 towers, and all 52 columns, please have a look at this drawing (in Catalan language). Jordiferrer (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --77.4.91.211 (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Total cost

Maybe I didn't clearly see it in the article but any idea how much this church cost?--138.163.160.41 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And that maybe difficult to sum up. I doubt you can get more than an idea of the money spent to this day, and only a calculation of how much will be needed still. --77.4.91.211 (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Capturing the spirit of this building in the first paragraph

In response to a deletion by user:842U of a quotation by Rainer Zerbst and its replacement by several others.

Some points on who is a reliable source for quotation

• With regards to Dr Rainer Zerbst, whose quote you deleted, he's one of the most highly regarded authorities on Gaudi, specifically. Being a German scholar and critic, he's not well known to English speaking people. Regardless of that, his authoritative book was reprinted in English four times, and then reissued as a commemorative edition.
• The reference to the Time article is useful, but the journalistic quote sensual, spiritual, whimsical, exuberant could refer to a thousand Rococo buildings and only passingly to Gaudi's undoubted masterpiece. This quote does nothing to suggest an extraordinary building.
• Goldberger's quote 'the most extraordinary personal interpretation of Gothic architecture since the Middle Ages does far more to express it, and is a good one to include. However, it does not appropriately sum up the building. The reason is that this suggests that it is a Neo Gothic building, which it is not.
• The H. G. Wells quote, dating from 1938, from a man not renowned for his aesthetic taste, is not an indictaion of the design being "polarising". The argument as to whether it should be finished or not has been polarised, but the opion of art scholars over the last 50 or 60 years has been almost unanimous that this is one of the greatest works of modern architecture.
• The reason for the argument over whether the church should be completed is not because its design is criticised. Exactly the opposite. It is out of reverence for Gaudi's original concept.

The point that I am making here is that the quote from Zerbst, the expert, is the one that gives the best possible concept of the unprecedented and extraordinary nature of this building. Sensual, spiritual, whimsical, exuberant does not tell the reader that it is awe-inspiring and unique. Amandajm (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That the building is "awe-inspiring and unique" is a raw opinion, rather than a fact that must be included... and from someone whose credentials had been to this point uncited, and even still may not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If opinions are to be included (and this is not only unnecessary, it is discouraged), they need to be balanced so that the overall point of view of the article is neutral -- hence the positive and negative opinions from notable sources. So then, by including four opinions, two pro and two con, the opinions are used to support the historical and ongoing well-documented division over its aesthetics... not just to fulfill the agenda that one editor's opinion that the building is unprecedented, extraordinary, awe-inspiring and unique must be included in the article. That said, let's keep up this discussion; it will only help improve the article. Good work.842U (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding opinions

• The building is almost universally regarded as "extraordinary, awe-inspiring". Those are opinions. They are very widely held opinions, and the opinion of one individual person, not noted for his work as an architectural historian, and published in 1938, with little experience of "Modern" architecture, doesn't count for much, regardless of how notable he may be in other fields.
• As for the terms "unprecedented" and "unique", neither of these constitute an opinion, mine, Zerbst's or anyone else's.

The building is "unique". There is no other church like it on Earth.

The style is "unprecedented" in any other church, and even in the works of Gaudi himself. These are not "opinions"; they are factual statements.

• With regards to finding a balance, where is the "ongoing well-documented division over its aesthetics"? There is often initial outcry when an artist does something "new". However, you wont find any art historian in the last fifty years giving a negative opinion. Keep in mind that the general public (like H.G.Wells about the Sagrada Familia) were of mixed feelings about the radical design of the Sydney Opera House, the only work of 20th century architecture to become a finalist in the New Seven Wonders of the World.
• An important fact about the relationship of Sagrada Familia to Barcelona is that the ordinary people saw other examples of his work in the city, and became accustomed to them, most particualrly the tract of wasteland that was turned into a wonderful public park with curving Gaudi stairs, pavilions and seating, as well as trees and streams. In 1926 the people of Barcelona lined the route of Gaudi's funeral for three miles. The opinion of every one of those ordinary people is just as valid as that of H.G.Wells in 1938. That is why Sagrada Familia is the Symbol of Barcelona, just as Utzon's masterpiece was to become the symbol of Sydney. That is also why Sagrada Familia is not a "white elephant", why work has been funded by donations.
• Your notion of a 50/50 balance does not necessarily reflect general opinion. There is not 50/50 opinion about whether Shakespeare was a great writer, even though there are those who will say vehemently that they hate Shakespeare. There is no 50/50 opinion about whether man has walked on the moon, regardless of those who are convinced that it was all a fraud.
• As for it being Gaudi's "masterpiece". Yes, that is the way it is usually described by those who write about it. The term may seem a little old-fashioned and even peacocky to someone who isn't and art historian, but it is still used to designate a work of art that is universally regarded as the finest that the artist produced. The word has changed use with changing practice. In the days when a sculptor or painter was apprenticed to a "master", then the creation of a "masterpiece" signified that the apprentice was a "master" in their own right and could set up a workshop and take apprentices. Many apprentices never produced a masterpiece and remained attached to a master's workshop as assistants all their life.
• As for the opinions of Dr Rainer Zerbst, art and theatre critic, and writer of one of the most scholarly books on Gaudi's works in English, well, I suppose you can discount a solid and well-researched book that deals with the architect's life and buildings, in favour of a newspaper article, if you believe that the article might provide more insight and accuracy than a book that has run into 5 reprints..... but personally, I'd rather go with the book, particularly since its opinions are supported by all the general tomes on the history of architecture that I have on my shelf.

Amandajm (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest

Could I suggest to you that rather than simply deleting statements from articles about architecture and the like, you request a reference? In the case of this church, it is beyond any doubt the "masterpiece" of Gaudi's designs. And as you noted, there was a sentence linking its unusual design and vast size with its tourist venue status. You cited this as speculation and deleted two very important facts- that its size is vast and its design unprecedented. As a skilled editor, you really ought to be able to find a way to maintain those facts, while delinking them fom the fact that thousands of people go to look at it. The insertion of the word "and" would have ceased to imply that vast size and unusual appearance was the reason that people visit it, if that was your aim. The problem with what you did is that you left an introduction about a truly unique building without any tiny clue as to why it is in fact unique. Could you please be less heavy handed about the editting process?

Every editor who writes about things of outstanding beauty, wonder or greatness has to find a way of expressing those qualities, within the Wikipedia guidelines. The vast majority topics on wikipedia do not fall into these categories, but some few do. An editor can reasonably describe Claude Monet, Ernest Hemmingway and Joni Mitchell without using superlatives, but one cannot write about "The Divine Michelangelo", "The Bard" or "La Stupenda" without them, and to do so would be unrealistic. Likewise La Sagrada Familia is one of the greatest buildings of the Modern Era, and the first paragraph needs to indicate that, in some way.

Amandajm (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: the name of the designer, author, composer, breeder goes in the first sentence. Amandajm (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Some points on who is a reliable source for quotation

• With regards to Dr Rainer Zerbst, whose quote you deleted, he's one of the most highly regarded authorities on Gaudi, specifically. Being a German scholar and critic, he's not well known to English speaking people. Regardless of that, his authoritative book was reprinted in English four times, and then reissued as a commemorative edition.
• The reference to the Time article is useful, but the journalistic quote sensual, spiritual, whimsical, exuberant could refer to a thousand Rococo buildings and only passingly to Gaudi's undoubted masterpiece. This quote does nothing to suggest an extraordinary building.
• Goldberger's quote 'the most extraordinary personal interpretation of Gothic architecture since the Middle Ages does far more to express it, and is a good one to include. However, it does not appropriately sum up the building. The reason is that this suggests that it is a Neo Gothic building, which it is not.
• The H. G. Wells quote, dating from 1938, from a man not renowned for his aesthetic taste, is not an indictaion of the design being "polarising". The argument as to whether it should be finished or not has been polarised, but the opion of art scholars over the last 50 or 60 years has been almost unanimous that this is one of the greatest works of modern architecture.
• The reason for the argument over whether the church should be completed is not because its design is criticised. Exactly the opposite. It is out of reverence for Gaudi's original concept.

The point that I am making here is that the quote from Zerbst, the expert, is the one that gives the best possible concept of the unprecedented and extraordinary nature of this building. Sensual, spiritual, whimsical, exuberant does not tell the reader that it is awe-inspiring and unique. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you leave my fully-referenced writing alone?

You are not an architecture editor. If you were, you would have some vague sense of why this building is exceptional, in the way that the Parthenon, Taj Mahal and St. Peter's Basilica are exceptional. That exceptional quality needs to be conveyed in the introduction. This is the church of the Modern era. Do you expect your bland "with ambitious structural columns and arches" to sum up everything that is extraordinary in this building? "Ambitious columns and arches sums up every church building that is tall and wide. It neither sums up this one, or the fact that the arches are (exceptionally at that date) hyperbolic and that the coloumns are (exceptionally at that date) leaning.

I have explained to you previously, gently, that this building fits into a different category to most buildings one might write about. There are thousands of extremely beautiful, magnificent and structurally daring Medieval cathedrals, abbeys and large churches and in five hundred years of church architecture, only four or five are described in exceptional terms, (the complex at Pisa Cathedral is one, the dome on Florence Cathedral is another). There is only one Renaissance church that gets this sort of treatment, St Peter's Basilica. There are thousands of Neo-Gothic churches and Modern churches and none of them get this sort of treatment, except la Sagrada Familia.

If something or someone is truly exceptional or rare, or excites an extraordinary degree of fame within their own lifetime (like the Beatles, Leonardo da Vinci, Susan Boyle and Lord Byron) then it needs to be stated. Not to state these things sells the subject short and therefore the credibility of Wikipedia.

Please leave it alone, unless you get a divine revelation into just how "unique" and significant this building is.

And yes, having umpteen quotations within the first paragraph to convey the unique quality of the building is a clumsy way to do it. It would be much easier to summarise the unusual qualities in an architecturally informed way, and support it with all the appropriate quotes within the bbody of the text. That is what I would prefer. Your summary falls a very long way short of achieving this.

Amandajm (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ownership accusation is the bottom line answer for the justification of editting that is otherwise unjustifiable. If what you were doing was appropriate, I would be happy. Such additions as you have made as that are pertinent have been kept. The very negative quote for example, is still there, but nneeds properly incorporating into "historic" attitudes towards the building. Amandajm (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

842U, you don't need to justify your right to edit the article. You have every right. But if your edits remove pertinent information, then they are simply poor editting, and is not co-operative. Once you have taken on the point that this building is as rare as conjoined quadruplets, then your co-operation on the article will be valuable, rather than destructive. Amandajm (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The edits I've made are to provide a broad, accurate introduction in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, with concision and without weasel words or hyperbole. If there's a specific problem with the article that you'd like to improve, perhaps we can discuss that matter here. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort; the article doesn't belong to you. Your words here indicate that you might strongly benefit from re-reading the Ownership guidelines. I'd like to be as clear about this as possible, because if you keep going in this direction, you may be blocked. Let me know if you'd like to bring outside editors into the discussion, perhaps editors from Project Architecture; it may be constructive to have a third or fourth viewpoint to provide another context for the discussion.842U (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

# of spires

The summary says "Spires 18". I understand this is the planned number but not all spires are built. From the photo there seem to be 8 or maybe 10. Could the actual number of spires at present be given? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

8 of them are finished as of 2010. --Jordiferrer (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The organ

I don't think information about the organ belongs in the section of the article about the design of the Sagrada Familia. It has nothing to do with the design of the building IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. This is the section about the interior of the church, and clearly the organ is part of the interior furnishings. AdeMiami (talk)

Agreed, I have moved it to a subsection of Interior. --Jordiferrer (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decent interior photos from Feb 2011

I just uploaded three:

Perhaps someone who has hands-on time with this article might like to add one or two? Tim Bray (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

two chameleons?

Is there one chameleon or two at each side of the Nativity Facade?

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This source, which is the first one I could find not definitely copied from Wikipedia, says: On the other hand, the two chameleons on both sides of the great facade certainly the constantly changing nature. That can be read ambiguously, but to me, it seems the article is correct. I have not found a source to contradict it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Our article says "two chameleons can be found at either side of the façade". I asked my question because I think this is ambiguous. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem ambiguous to me. "Either" means "each" in this sense; you could change the word if it made you feel better. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Carnildo's removal of info from introduction to final paragraph.

The reason for positioning the "critical response" in the introduction is to indicate to the reader that this is "no ordinary" building. There is now nothing within the introduction which informs the reader that this building is extraordinary and in almost every way "unique". The Introduction requires to make the status of the building clear. The status of the building is that it is an icon of modern architecture, that it is as significant to the world of architecture as the Parthenon and the Taj Mahal, and that it is as ground-breaking as the Sydney Opera House.

This is not a cathedral in the same architectural category as Notre Dame de Paris, Westminster Abbey, or Cologne Cathedral, all of which are enormously famous and iconic, but which grew naturally out of that which came before. This is an architecturally unique church with no precedent and no direct imitator.

It is also enormously large, and will be taller than Cologne Cathedral and Ulm Minster.

Since you have deleted the quotations, how do you propose that we (Wikipedia) should indicate to our reading-public, within the context of the introduction, the highly unusual nature of this building?

I assure you that I could compose a few choice sentences that would sum it up, but since that would be "POV", it is better that we stick to the opinions of the most renowned architectural historians, and the critic who is regarded as the expert on the subject. Let me emphasise that this needs to be in the first paragraph otherwise we are doing the building an injustice.

NOTE: This is the way that other buildings of momentous importance are dealt with in their first paragraphs.

• The Taj Mahal is widely recognized as "the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage."
• The Parthenon is regarded as an enduring symbol of Ancient Greece and of Athenian democracy and one of the world's greatest cultural monuments.
• There is no doubt that the Sydney Opera House is his (Utzon's) masterpiece. It is one of the great iconic buildings of the 20th century, an image of great beauty that has become known throughout the world – a symbol for not only a city, but a whole country and continent.
• St Peter's ....has been described as "holding a unique position in the Christian world"[2] and as "the greatest of all churches of Christendom".

Amandajm (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Extraordinary"? "Unique"? "Injustice"? Sounds like someone needs to read WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. --Carnildo (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Carnildo, if you can't tell the difference between what a contributor writes in an article, and what is written on the talk page, then you have a problem. Iam familiar with both both WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. Naturally! I have been a frequent and prolific contributor to wikipedia for five years.

The words "extraordinary" and "injustice' to which you are referring are used on the talk page. Or hadn't you noticed?

• The word "unique", on the other hand, has a specific meaning. It is often taken to mean "unusual", but that is not what it means. It means "one and only". La Sagrada Familia is a unique building. There is no other church that is anything like it. It has no precedent, and no followers. The word "unique" is used here in an informed and entirely encyclopedic manner.
• In order that the "unique" character of this building be understood by the reader, it is necessary to state more than its history, and more than the fact that it has splayed columns and parabolic curves. With the advent of computer drafting, and reinforced concrete, these things may not strike the 21st century reader as unusual. The way in which a picture of the value of a building or artwork, or piece of literature (or whatever) can be given most clearly, without resorting to Peacock words, is to rely upon quotations that give an informed opinion. Hence the examples that I have included for other buildings that are of extreme significance or unique importance.
• Let us not be so impossibly bogged down in applying the Wikipedia system of rules that it becomes impossible to acknowledge that the Taj Mahal has been cited as the World's most beautiful building, that the Partenon is the icon of Classical architecture and that St Peter's is unique in its significance in Christendom. When Wikipedia starts denying the world-acknowledged status of the truly significant subjects of articles, then the encyclopedia itself becomes untrustworthy. To say that the Mona Lisa is a portrait of a woman wearing a plain dress and dark veil tells us almost nothing about the subject matter of the article.

*I have to repeat my question here.

How do you propose that we (Wikipedia) should indicate to our reading-public, within the context of the introduction, the highly unusual (i.e. unique) nature of this building?

Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Velcro is highly unique and unusual. Demi Moore is highly unique and unusual. The Washington Monument is highly unique and unusual. What building isn't unique... each has a unique location? That doesn't mean we start off every article with how unique and unusual something is. Unique-ness and unusual-ness are highly subjective -- and probably overrated. On the other hand, if you were to assemble a set of bonafide comment from noted, accredited sources that the building is unique and unusual, it might have a place in the article. Possibly not in the intro, though. 842U (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• 842U, you argue like the third speaker in a fourth form high school debating team. Do you really have to win, when it is a subject that you so patently know nothing whatsoever about?
• I have cited above three of the world's most famous churches Notre Dame de Paris, Westminster Abbey and Cologne Cathedral with the statement that each of these three "iconic" buildings is the direct product of what went before. None is architecturally "unique". Unlike these, and most other churches, la Sagrada Familia is architecturally unique.

But if you really must act like know-it-all kid, you can keep insisting that "everything is unique", and "it's only a matter of opinion".

• I am not arguing that the word "unique" must be included in the script. I am using the word here on the talk page to explain to you why the bare description that you have left behind is inadequate!
• The Parthenon is another Greek temple; the Washington monument, despite its huge size, is based directly on a very easily identifiable source; the Tower Bridge, an "icon" of London is clearly based on Gothic forms and the structure of other bascule bridges, but la Sagrada Familia is unique both in style and structure.
• La Sagrada Familia is not in any way Gothic in style, although it uses the forms of arch and column that are familiar to Gothic cathedrals. Moreover, although the words "Art Nouveau" are bandied about, for want of a better description, la Sagrada Familia is not in the Art Nouveau style. In other words, it is not like the Art Nouveau buildings of Paris and Belgium, where the style was flourishing. It is similar in the fact that it is curvilinear and organic in appearance. But there the similarities cease.
• This is why, I, as a writer of architectural articles, used the exact words of the book that I was citing. "Gothic overtones" and "linked to Art Nouveau". combining Gothic and curvilinear, Art Nouveau forms[8] with ambitious structural columns and arches.[9][10] simply does not state it accurately.

Hasn't it occurred to you that you are arguing with someone with solid expertise in their subject? Do you really imagine that you are acting in the interests of Wikipedia and its reading public by removing solidly referenced and highly pertinent material? If you don't know what is pertinent, then you know so little about the subject that you plainly shouldn't be attempting to police it! Amandajm (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you immediately stop attacking me or any other editors. This behavior is not acceptable nor is it condoned here. Consider this your first warning. Keep your comments confined to the article and improving the article, and please review the guidelines for discussion page formatting. 842U (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal apology

• I hereby apologise to 842U for referring to this person as "acting like a know-it-all kid" over the matter of insisting upon the deletion of referenced material, and replacing it with a non-descriptive adjective of the type known on Wiki as "weasel words".
• I further apologise for accusing 842U of "argu[ing] like the third speaker in a fourth form high school debating team" over the application of the word "unique" when used in the context of a discussion page in an attempt (by me) to explain to this editor why the article's introduction needs to talk about the significance of those extensive factors which set this building aside from every other building.
• Furthermore, I would like to withdraw the potentially embarrassing question "Do you really have to win, when it is a subject that you so patently know nothing whatsoever about?"

My apologies are proffered.

Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The question remains

In the light of the deletions that you (842U) have made "....how do you propose that we (Wikipedia) should indicate to our reading-public, within the context of the introduction, the highly unusual (i.e. unique) nature of this building?"

The introduction needs to give a picture that describes in some way 'why, after more than a hundred years, construction work continues on a huge, long-disused, obviously redundant , and extremely costly church building.

I must ask again, how, after deleting the referenced quotations, are you 842U, going to adequately describe the building so that those among Wikipedia's readers who have little or no prior knowledge of the subject, get an accurate view of the building's significance and architectural style, and the unusual (for that date) and complex mathematics that was behind its design?

Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sagrada Família. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111001012439/http://www.idr-online.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=UJzG5idLJyg=&tabid=58&mid=476&language=en-GB to http://www.idr-online.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=UJzG5idLJyg%3D&tabid=58&mid=476&language=en-GB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sagrada Família. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100307212708/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/articles/1003barcelona.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/articles/1003barcelona.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sagrada Família. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://press.catholica.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b2_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001012439/http://www.idr-online.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=UJzG5idLJyg%3D&tabid=58&mid=476&language=en-GB to http://www.idr-online.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=UJzG5idLJyg%3D&tabid=58&mid=476&language=en-GB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621024109/http://www.adif.es/en_US/infraestructuras/lineas_de_alta_velocidad/madrid_barcelona_frontera_francesa/tunel_sagrera.shtml to http://www.adif.es/en_US/infraestructuras/lineas_de_alta_velocidad/madrid_barcelona_frontera_francesa/tunel_sagrera.shtml

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) 03:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Eye sore?

I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no criticism of the appearance. I find it mind boggling that this isn't mentioned in the article. It's obviously the most hideous thing ever built. Am I to believe that not one Catholic is embarrassed by this abomination?69.153.122.232 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me you're an atheist from your statement, for no decent Roman Catholic can denounce the House of God by citing its physical appearance as reason enough; it's the raison d'etre of the building's function that matters and the devotion of the parishioners that counts, and if my answer doesn't satisfy you, you better be gone or be chased by Holy Water.

Get behind me Satan, for you know not what you're saying! Your words are not the words of man, but the words supplied to the lips by the Devil!

Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. All you need is to find reliable secondary sources that draw negative attention to the building's appearance. You can start by finding a George Orwell quote I found, One of the most hideous buildings in the world. It had four crenellated spires exactly the shape of hock bottles. Unlike most of the churches in Barcelona it was not damaged during the revolution - it was spared because of its 'artistic value', people said. I think the Anarchists showed bad taste in not blowing it up when they had the chance. I also found an article which states, Many 19th century observers ridiculed Gaudí's work, which transcended the canons of modernism with those dream-like organic forms. However, Orwell was said to be an agnostic, and the Independent isn't known for its Catholicism, so good luck finding Catholic sources that are critical of the place. Elizium23 (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Orwell's opinion is indeed mentioned in the article. But I think it would be difficult to find very many notable individuals who share it. AdeMiami (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not notable but I sure agree it's by far the most hideous building ever seen. Before anyone accuses me of being non-religious, I am (non-religious) but that doesn't change the fact that a building designed to symbolize what it does shouldn't look like a giant sandcastle built by a 2-year old. MiracleMat (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While the attacks against the supposed "atheism" above were over the top[*], still the information that you who say that aren't a religious person is not unimportant in this context, and thank you for it. Reason is, plainly, it makes a difference whether someone who wants to worship in a House of God judges a House of God by what his religion says a House of God should look like, or if someone not wishing to worship in a House of God judges a House of God by what he thinks the religion he does not have should say a House of God should look like. In fact, the latter I guess always tend to be somber or else bombastic or else spartanic (with Protestants and those non-religious who have been brought up in their traditions); they never tend to look like Gaudì's works. If you take a Catholic now, chances are that you could get works like Gaudìs out of him, or, let us give due account to Gaudìs artistic singular ideas, at least an appreciation for it and love of it.

*As an aside: And I am almost sure they did not come from a person breathing Catholic traditions. Not because all Catholics would be well-mannered; they aren't; but using the "atheism" accusation as a slander against those one disagrees with to make the disagreement even a bigger issue than it is, that is a Protestant thing to do. We Catholics know well that an atheist may be farther away from the truth than a Protestant but at the end of the day the point is that either is wrong; and also that most false ideologies that did tremendous damage weren't atheists. If we slander, we use other terms of abuse, it seems.--2001:A61:20A8:CF01:A412:CC9F:A43E:74B7 (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's like a wasp nest combined with an amusement park attraction from Las Vegas. 73.180.32.63 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This article quotes the opinion of George Orwell, among other non-architects, about the design of this structure. While his literary opinion is highly relevant, his thoughts and those of other non-architects is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs)

box of numbers

On the Passion façade, near ground level (I think it's by the dice scene), there is an array of numbers in boxes, thus:

1	14	14	4
(?4)	7	6	9
(?)	10	10	5
(?)	2	3	15

(Unfortunately I have only a partial photograph.) What can it mean? —Tamfang (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this page says it's a magic square adding to 33, so the numbers must be

1	14	14	4
11	7	6	9
8	10	10	5
13	2	3	15

I wonder whether there might be more symbolism than that. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Update???

The article seems to contain outdated information (c.2011, (former) Sacristy fire as "latest"), and has since stagnated from then on.

The basilica has had new structures & restoration works all throughout (proof: official pages of the basilica + Skyscrapercity forums), YET NOT ONE inch of information is to be found in this page.

Is there a tag that can be placed on top of the page that indicates "information is outdated? Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You could use — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Much thanks! 07:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the photos, an image of Samuel Monnier appears, which shouldn't be there. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.71.183.148 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sagrada Família. 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/20100925095015/http://www.zenit.org/article-29981?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-29981?l=english
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000887.htm

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) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hyperboloid?

It's claimed here that the central vault (which is circular in plan view), and the vaults around it, are hyperboloids. They're not, they're paraboloids. Gaudi did use a handful of hyperbolic arches in linear vaults, but not here and not as domed vaults in rotation (that works for parabolas, not for hyperbolas). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Official name: Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família

You may have noticed I've removed "Basílica i" from the lede sentence as well as the infobox. This is because its official name does not include this part.

1. The Catalan-language and Spanish-language Wikipedia use Temple Expiatori and Templo Expiatorio respectively.
2. Directing a Google search toward the official website lists zero results for Basílica i Temple Expiatorio as evidenced here: "Basílica i Temple Expiatori". Instead, Temple Expiatori is used exclusively: "Temple Expiatori".
3. This issue was previously raised on the article's Spanish-language Wikipedia talk page as well. A user actually contacted Carme de Miguel of the Temple's Educational Service, who confirmed "Temple Exiatori de la Sagrada Familia" is the correct name. See Discusión:Basílica y Templo Expiatorio. Run it through a translator if necessary.

Jay D. Easy (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)