Talk:List of largest church buildings

Area figures for St Peter's Basilica and Aparecida

The recent revert restored the newer area figures for St Peter's Basilica and Aparecida, replacing values that had remained stable for years. I think the long-standing figures should be treated as the stable version pending discussion unless the newer figures are shown to match the table's definitions.

The issue is not whether A12, G1, or the official St Peter's Basilica website are generally reliable. The issue is whether the cited figures directly support the definitions used by this table: internal floor area measured to the internal face of the external walls, and external floor area measured to the external face of the external walls.

For St Peter's Basilica, the 76,800 m2 figure appears to come from a source about St Peter's Square, not the basilica building. The source describes St Peter's Square as the large open-air space in front of the basilica and gives its dimensions as 320 m by 240 m. That is exactly 76,800 m2, so this figure appears to refer to the square, not to the exterior floor area of the basilica.

The 25,616 m2 figure is also problematic as an internal area figure. The source appears to describe the basilica as extending over 25,616 m2, not as having 25,616 m2 of internal floor area. This is also larger than other sourced figures for the building's surface/covered area. New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia gives the surface area of St Peter's as 163,182.2 sq ft, about 15,160 m2, while another source gives the building's covered area as 227,070 sq ft, about 21,095 m2. Therefore 25,616 m2 should not be presented as the internal floor area without a source that clearly says so.

For Aparecida, the 142,865 m2 figure appears to refer to the wider sanctuary or built complex, not to the basilica's exterior floor area under the table definition. A12 says that the National Sanctuary has more than 1.3 million m2 of area and almost 143,000 m2 of built area. It then separately says that the specific area of the basilica is nearly 72,000 m2, and that the ground floor is 25,000 m2. These are clearly different spatial categories.

Regarding the 25,000 m2 figure, I agree that A12 supports it as a reported ground floor figure inside the basilica. However, it does not appear to be directly comparable with the table's internal floor area definition. Based on the building's footprint, a 25,000 m2 internal figure would seem to be reachable only by including all colonnades/porticoes and internal courtyards or similar semi-open ground-floor areas. That is a very different criterion from both the table's internal floor area, measured to the internal face of the external walls, and its external floor area, measured to the external face of the external walls. Reuters reports the basilica's total area as 193,800 sq ft, about 18,005 m2, which also suggests that A12 and Reuters are using different measurement criteria. If Reuters gives the total area as about 18,005 m2, while A12 gives the ground floor as 25,000 m2, the two sources are evidently not using the same measurement criterion.

The geometric discrepancy is also apparent from map/satellite measurements. I am not proposing those measurements as article sources, because the article should rely on published sources. However, they are relevant to this discussion because they help show that the cited figures are not being used according to the table's definitions.

For these reasons, I think the reverted figures should not be restored unless sources are provided that clearly identify them as internal/external floor areas under the definitions used by this table. Podz00 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed breakdown provided, but I believe the recent revert overlooks the distinction between primary official data and editorial interpretation. I am proposing that we restore the figures for St. Peter’s and Aparecida based on the following points:

The user suggests that the 25,000 m^2 figure for the Basílica of Aparecida "seems" to include colonnades or courtyards based on map measurements. However, the official source (A12, the sanctuary’s governing body) explicitly separates the "National Sanctuary" complex from the "Basílica" building.

The source identifies the ground floor (pavimento térreo) of the Basilica specifically as 25,000 m^2. Under Wikipedia’s policy on Original Research (WP:NOR), we cannot use personal geometric calculations or satellite "eyeballing" to override a primary source’s specific claim for a building's floor area. Unlike St. Peter’s, which has massive internal piers that reduce "floor area," Aparecida is a modern concrete structure with a largely unobstructed Greek-cross floor plan, meaning its footprint and internal area are nearly synonymous.

If we are to adopt the strict "internal face of external walls" definition to demote Aparecida, we must apply it consistently to other entries like the Cathedral of Córdoba.

Many citations for Córdoba (often cited between 13,000 m^2 and 23,000 m^2) historically include the Patio de los Naranjos (the orange tree courtyard).

An open-air courtyard, by definition, fails the "internal floor area" criteria the user is insisting upon.

If we disqualify Aparecida’s 25,000 m^2 because of a suspicion of "semi-open areas," we cannot in good faith retain Córdoba’s traditional figures which are known to include a massive unroofed precinct.

Regarding St. Peter's Basilica, the 25,616 m^2 figure is not merely a reference to the square. Several architectural registers cite this as the total area covered by the building's footprint. While the user cites the Catholic Encyclopedia (a source from 1913), modern architectural surveys and the official Fabbrica di San Pietro data have provided more expansive measurements that include the entirety of the internal perimeter, including the various chapels and the area under the massive dome.

The user argues for "stable" figures, but stability should not be a shield for outdated or less accurate data. If the official administrators of these sites (the Vatican and A12) provide specific floor-area metrics, those should be the standard.

The current "stable" version creates a logical fallacy where:

Aparecida is penalized based on an editor's geometric theory.

St. Peter’s is minimized using century-old sources.

Córdoba is inflated by including outdoor courtyards.

I propose we restore the updated figures, as they reflect the most recent official data provided by the institutions that manage these buildings, which carries more weight than third-party news snippets or personal map analysis. Pcmfernandes (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pcmfernandes Thank you for replying. I think some points need to be separated.

First, I am not proposing to use my own map measurements as article sources. The article should rely on published sources. I used map/satellite measurements only as a consistency check, to see whether the cited figures match the table's definitions. This is not different in principle from your own edit summary, where you also mentioned checking the dimensions with Google Maps. In any case, the content issue is not decided by either editor's measurements, but by whether the cited sources clearly support the specific figures as used in the table.

On Aparecida, A12 supports a 25,000 m2 ground-floor figure inside the basilica, but this conflicts with other published figures around 18,000 m2 for the basilica's total/covered area. Therefore the sources appear to use different area categories, and the table should not treat the 25,000 m2 figure as unquestionably comparable without clarifying what is included. Reuters reports the basilica's total area as 193,800 sq ft, about 18,005 m2, and MIDAS/OpenEdition separately gives "Area Coberta" as 18,000 m2 and "Area Construida" as 23,300 m2. If A12 gives a 25,000 m2 ground floor / celebration area figure while other sources give around 18,000 m2 for total/covered area, the sources are evidently using different measurement criteria.

I also do not think Aparecida's footprint and internal area can simply be treated as nearly synonymous. The basilica appears to include substantial covered and structural areas within the main architectural mass, and the available sources distinguish between covered area, built area, specific basilica area, and ground-floor area. That is exactly why the table's definitions matter.

The 142,865 m2 Aparecida figure is a separate issue. A12 does not present that figure as the exterior floor area of the basilica building. It says that the National Sanctuary has more than 1.3 million m2 of area and almost 143,000 m2 of built area. It then separately says that the specific area of the basilica is nearly 72,000 m2, and separately again that the ground floor is 25,000 m2. These are different spatial categories. Therefore the 142,865 m2 figure should not be used as the basilica's exterior floor area under this table's definition.

On St Peter's Basilica, the current official basilica FAQ gives general dimensions such as length and height, but it does not give the 25,616 m2 floor-area figure. The cited stpetersbasilica.info page is not the official website of St Peter's Basilica (the official website is basilicasanpietro.va). In any case, the cited page says that the basilica "extends over an area of 25,616 square meters", it does not identify that figure as internal floor area under this table's definition. If there is an official Fabbrica di San Pietro or modern architectural survey source for that number, please provide the exact source and wording. The fact that New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia is old does not by itself make it unusable for a dimensional figure (measuring floor area was not a technically difficult modern operation). What matters is whether the source directly supports the figure being used. New Advent gives the surface area of St Peter's as 163,182.2 sq ft, about 15,160 m2, while another source gives the building's covered area as 227,070 sq ft, about 21,095 m2. A 25,616 m2 value should not be used as internal floor area unless a source clearly identifies it as such.

The 76,800 m2 figure for St Peter's is still the clearest problem. The cited source is about St Peter's Square and gives the square's dimensions as 320 m by 240 m. That equals 76,800 m2. It is therefore not the exterior floor area of the basilica building.

Regarding Cordoba, I agree that its exterior figure is not ideal because it includes the courtyard, and this is why it is explicitly noted. However, the list is ordered by internal area, not exterior area. A possible sourcing or definition problem for Cordoba does not justify using St Peter's Square as St Peter's exterior area, or the wider Aparecida National Sanctuary built area as the basilica's exterior area. If Cordoba's internal area source also needs improvement, I am open to discussing that separately, but the table should not solve one comparability problem by introducing others.

So my position is not that Aparecida should be "penalized", but that all entries should use the same area definitions. A broader ground-floor, covered, sanctuary, built-area, or complex-area figure should only be used with an explicit note explaining that it is not directly comparable with the table's internal/external floor area definitions, as is already explicitly noted for Cordoba's exterior figure.

Before asking for input from uninvolved editors, I would prefer to see whether we can resolve this here. Could you please address these source definition issues directly, especially why the St Peter's Square source supports using 76,800 m2 as St Peter's exterior area, why 25,616 m2 should be treated as St Peter's internal area despite other sourced surface/covered-area figures being lower, and why the National Sanctuary built area should be used as Aparecida's exterior area? Podz00 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. To move this forward, we need to decide which sources carry the most weight: third-party news snippets (like Reuters) or the primary administrative bodies of the buildings (A12 and the Fabbrica di San Pietro).

Concerning Aparecida, the A12 (Sanctuary governing body) is the most direct source we have. It explicitly states the pavimento térreo (ground floor) of the Basilica, specifically saying that the area where the main altar is located is 25,000 m². While Reuters mentions 18,000 m², news outlets often conflate "covered area" with "usable floor area." Per WP:PRIMARY, the official sanctuary data for its own building should be prioritized over a general news report, especially when the source is as specific as the A12 site.

Regarding St. Peter, the interior, modern architectural data (consistent with the Fabbrica di San Pietro) identifies the interior surface area as 21,095 m². The 25,616 m² figure includes the footprint of the walls themselves, which then doesn't fit our "Internal Area" criteria.

And about Córdoba, we cannot maintain a "stable" figure of 23,000+ m² if it includes an unroofed courtyard (Patio de los Naranjos), while simultaneously using a strict "roofed only" definition to lower Aparecida or St. Peter's. If we are ranking by Internal Area, Córdoba must be listed as 13,400 m².

Therefore based on the most recent official data for internal roofed area then:

Basilica of Aparecida: 25,000 m² (Source: A12 official site, ground floor/interior).

St. Peter's Basilica: 21,095 m² (Source: Modern architectural survey of internal surface).

Cathedral of Córdoba: 13,400 m² (Source: Total area minus the unroofed courtyard).

This way it respects the primary source for Aparecida (A12) rather than using a news summary.

It uses modern architectural data for St. Peter's instead of the 1913 Encyclopedia.

It fixes the logical inconsistency of Córdoba's courtyard.

It also avoids the errors regarding "complex area" (143k for Aparecida) and "square area" (76k for St. Peter's) while maintaining a consistent rule for what counts as an "interior.

However:

If we use the most expansive official data for both, the ranking would remain consistent with the generally accepted status of St. Peter's as the largest:

While the 15,160m² figure from the 1913 Encyclopedia is common, it is a "net" figure that excludes the massive piers. Modern architectural surveys (and several professional registers) cite the total internal area/covered area as 21,095m², with some technical footprint measures reaching 25,616m². If we are to include all internal chapels and the area under the dome, the 21,095m² to 23,000m² range is the most accurate reflection of its internal scale.

We could then keep the 25,000m² figure from the A12, but adding a clarifying note that this figure represents the "ground floor" (pavimento térreo), which in a modern Greek-cross layout includes the central celebration area and the four sprawling arms where the main altar is located. By using the primary source directly, we avoid "original research" or guessing.

In this sense the updated numbers should be using the most modern, inclusive "Internal Area" figures for both:

St. Peter's Basilica: 21,095m² (Modern internal surface area).

Basilica of Aparecida: 18,000m² (Main Basilica "Area Coberta") OR 25,000m² with a note that this includes the full internal roofed ground floor.

If the goal is to maintain the consensus that St. Peter's is the largest, we must ensure we aren't using an outdated "net" figure for the Vatican (15k) while using a "gross" figure for Brazil (25k). Using then the 21,095m² (St. Peter's) and 18,000m² (Aparecida) figures would be the most historically consistent way to order the list while following the best available modern sources. Pcmfernandes (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pcmfernandes Thank you, this is closer to a workable solution.

I agree that the 142,865 m2 Aparecida figure and the 76,800 m2 St Peter's figure should not be used as exterior floor-area figures. The former refers to the wider National Sanctuary built area, and the latter to St Peter's Square. I also agree that the 25,616 m2 St Peter's figure should not be used as internal area if it includes the footprint of the walls.

The remaining issues seem to be:

- St Peter's internal area: you mention 21,095 m2 as "modern internal surface area". Could you please provide the exact source and wording for this? The sources currently discussed support 15,160 m2 as surface area and 21,095 m2 as covered/building area, but I have not yet seen a source identifying 21,095 m2 specifically as internal floor area under this table's definition. A lower internal figure is plausible (in St Peter's the difference between exterior and internal area is substantial because of the front portico and the massive wall thickness, as is clear from any floor plan).

- Aparecida internal area: the key issue is not the type of source, but what exactly each source is measuring. I understand the point about A12, and I agree that it reports a 25,000 m2 ground floor figure inside the basilica. However, I am still not convinced that this should be used as the plain internal floor area value in this comparative table.

The problem is that other published sources give about 18,000 m2 as the basilica's total/covered area (Reuters and MIDAS). The 25,000 m2 figure is also very hard to reconcile with the basilica's physical footprint if it is treated as the same kind of internal floor area used elsewhere in the table. The possibility that a news source may conflate area categories is exactly why the figure should be treated cautiously. However, the same caution should also apply to A12's ground-floor figure if it is being used as the table's plain internal floor area.

So my concern is not whether the 25,000 m2 figure exists (it does), but whether it is directly comparable with the table's definition of internal floor area. Until that is clarified, I do not think it should replace the more cautious figure as the plain internal area value.

The issue is not which source is generally more authoritative, but which source directly supports the table's specific area definitions, and that is still not entirely clear in my opinion.

- Cordoba: I am not fully sure whether you are proposing 13,400 m2 as the internal or exterior figure. If you mean the internal figure, the current 13,000 m2 value is already separately sourced, and changing it to a calculated 13,400 m2 would need a direct source or at least an approximate marker with an explanatory note. If you mean the exterior figure, then I agree that the current exterior value including the courtyard is imperfect. However, it is already explicitly noted and does not determine the ranking of the list. In either case, the Cordoba issue can be discussed separately, but it does not justify using St Peter's Square as St Peter's exterior area or the National Sanctuary built area as Aparecida's exterior area.

So I think we may be close to agreement on removing the clearly non-comparable exterior figures. The remaining question is whether St Peter's 21,095 m2 and Aparecida's 25,000 m2 should be used as plain internal area figures, since both still seem to have sourcing, definition, or comparability problems.

The main point is that the table should not be adjusted to preserve any expected ranking. The goal should simply be to apply the same definition to every entry. Podz00 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Podz00 Thank you for clarifying your position. I appreciate the focus on applying the exact same definition to every entry. However, applying a strict definition requires us to evaluate the methodology behind the numbers, not just find a source that matches our preferred conservative estimates.

You argue that 15,160 m² is the correct internal surface area and that 21,095 m² is the covered/building area, requesting an exact source for 21,095 m² as the "internal floor area."

The 15,160 m² figure stems from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (based on calculations by Carlo Fontana). However, this specific measurement is the net walkable surface area. It explicitly excludes the massive structural footprint of the internal piers holding up the dome, the side corridors after the Basilica columns, or the open chapels that are directly connected to the internal main floor without wall separations.

The table's definition is: "internal floor area measured to the internal face of the external walls."

If we measure from the internal face of the external walls, the area occupied by interior columns and piers must be included in that total polygon. The 15,160 m² figure fails the table's own definition because it is a "net" space calculation, not a "gross internal" calculation.

Therefore, the 21,095 m² figure is mathematically much closer to the strict definition of "internal face of the external walls" than the 1913 net figure. This figure is excluding the above mentioned walkable areas. We cannot use a "net" calculation for St. Peter's while using "gross internal" calculations for other cathedrals.

You acknowledge A12 states the ground floor is 25,000 m², but you prefer Reuters/MIDAS (18,000 m²) because you cannot physically reconcile 25,000 m² with the building's footprint, suspecting A12 conflates categories.

This is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on Original Research (WP:NOR). We cannot dismiss a highly specific, primary architectural claim from the governing body (A12) because it feels "hard to reconcile with the basilica's physical footprint."

Reuters is a general news syndicate, not an architectural authority. News agencies routinely confuse "nave area," "covered area," and "total complex area."

If A12 explicitly defines the pavimento térreo (internal ground floor) as 25,000 m², it likely accounts for the entire internal usable layout of the main floor, which in Aparecida’s modern Greek-cross design includes massive contiguous internal spaces, integrated into the main celebration floor, that a simple projection of the cross shaped roof (18,000 m²) does not capture. In this sense the 18,000 m² would be referring to the main floor reaching the first columns of the Basilica but not considering the full walkable internal area until reaching the first internal walls. You can check internal images from the basilica to understand it.

If we must be "cautious," we should be cautious of tertiary news snippets overriding the official sanctuary data. The most accurate reflection of the table's definition is to use 25,000 m² with a footnote detailing A12's specific "pavimento térreo" definition.

On the other hand you state that Córdoba's 13,000 m² internal area is sourced, and while the exterior value (23,000+ m²) is imperfect because it includes an open courtyard, it should stay because it has an "explicit note" and doesn't affect the ranking.

This creates a double standard. We cannot aggressively police the definitions for St. Peter's and Aparecida to the exact meter, while knowingly allowing Córdoba to retain an exterior figure inflated by nearly 10,000 m² of unroofed garden (Patio de los Naranjos), simply because "there is a note."

If St. Peter's Square (76,800 m²) is rightfully disqualified as an exterior area, the Patio de los Naranjos must also be disqualified. An exterior courtyard wall does not make a garden part of the building's "exterior floor area."

The covered prayer hall (the actual building) is approximately 130 meters by 100 meters. The full internal area is correctly sourced at roughly 13,000 m². Therefore, the exterior area (measured to the external face of the external walls of the roofed structure) is marginally larger than the internal area—around, totalling 13,400 m².

However, we have to keep in mind that the specific footprint of the central Christian insertion (comprising the Main Altar/Capilla Mayor, the Choir, and the Transept) occupies approximately 2,000 to 2,500 m² until it reaches the first walls, for then include the mosque expansion that brings the 13,000 m². Aparecida does not have that, the 25,000 m² is the whole internal area of the main floor, and without any wall divisions.

If the goal is to apply the exact same definition to every entry without preserving expected rankings, we must eliminate all net/gross conflations and outdoor courtyards.

In this sense:

St. Peter's Basilica Internal: ~21,095 m² (Gross internal to the external walls, rejecting the 1913 "net" figure).

Basilica of Aparecida Internal: 25,000 m² (Per WP:PRIMARY source A12; we cannot use original research to override it with a Reuters snippet).

Cathedral of Córdoba Internal: 13,000 m² | Exterior: 13,400 m² (Strictly removing the Patio de los Naranjos from the exterior column to maintain parity with the exclusion of St. Peter's Square).

All the sources are directly linked to the main page.

Does this strict, policy-compliant application of the definitions across all three monuments seem like a fair path forward? Pcmfernandes (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

We seem to agree that the 142,865 m2, 76,800 m2, and 25,616 m2 figures are not suitable as plain basilica area values under the table's definitions.

On St Peter's internal area, I still do not think 21,095 m2 has been established as internal floor area. The sources currently discussed distinguish 21,095 m2 as total/covered/building area and 15,160 m2 as internal area. A useful additional source is the Churches of Rome PDF (https://www.churches-of-rome.info/CoV_Info/127%20SPB/127-San%20Pietro%20in%20Vaticano.pdf), which explicitly distinguishes "total area = 227,070 square feet (21,095 m2)" from "internal area = 163,182.2 square feet (15,160.12 m2)". This directly contradicts the idea that 21,095 m2 is St Peter's internal area. The claim that 15,160 m2 is only a net-walkable figure excluding internal piers, side corridors or connected chapels still needs a source. Therefore, 21,095 m2 should not be used as St Peter's internal area unless a source clearly identifies it as such.

On Aparecida, I agree that A12 clearly reports 25,000 m2 for the ground floor inside the basilica. I am not disputing that. However, I do not think Reuters and MIDAS/OpenEdition can be dismissed as merely tourist or unreliable sources. Reuters is a major international news agency, and MIDAS/OpenEdition is useful here because it distinguishes different area categories. The point is not that Reuters or MIDAS should automatically override A12. The point is that published sources describe the same building with several different area categories: around 18,000 m2 as total/covered area, 23,300 m2 as built area, and 25,000 m2 as A12's ground-floor figure. Until it is clear why these categories differ, I do not think the largest figure should automatically be used as the plain internal area value.

For Cordoba, the former mosque hall should not be treated as outside the church body simply because it predates the christian insertion. It is part of the enclosed cathedral building and forms the main liturgical space. Therefore, it still counts as internal floor area under the table's definition.

I would keep the separately sourced 13,000 m2 internal figure. If the exterior figure including the courtyard is considered too broad (in fact, it is), a more cautious solution would be to use "13,000+" for the exterior area, with a note explaining that the currently cited 23,400 m2 figure includes the courtyard and is therefore not directly comparable. I would avoid a precise 13,400 m2 value unless it is directly sourced, because once wall thickness, buttresses and the irregular perimeter are included, the exterior area would probably be higher than that.

So I think we may be close to agreement on removing the clearly non-comparable exterior figures of St Peter's, Aparecida and Cordoba. That leaves St Peter's 21,095 m2 and Aparecida's 25,000 m2 as the main unresolved internal-area issues. Podz00 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Podz00 I hear what you’re saying about being cautious, but I think we’re actually closer to a breakthrough than it seems. If we want this table to be truly scientific, we have to move past the "stable" versus "new" debate and look at the actual geometry of what we are measuring.

The core issue here is that the current table is mixing the Nave area, the Net Internal Area (just the floor you can walk on) and Gross Internal Area (everything inside the walls).

Here’s why I’m pushing for the updated figures based on the GIA standard:

The 15,160 m² figure from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is a "Net" figure. It measures the void, not the building. It subtracts the massive piers—which are essentially internal buildings themselves, as well as the corridors and chapels inside the Basilica on the main floor, adjacent to the main Nave.

If you look at St. Peter's Basilica Info https://stpetersbasilica.info/Interior/Nave/Nave.htm?hl=en-GB or Vatican-City.it https://vatican-city.it/st-peters-basilica-and-dome-tickets/?hl=en-GB, they distinguish between the Walkable Area (15,160 m²) and the internal Ground/Covered Area (~21,000–23,000 m²).

However, our table definition says: "internal floor area measured to the internal face of the external walls." By that definition, the piers, corridors and chapels must be included in the total polygon. The 21,095 m² figure is the one that actually matches this criteria.

The Churches of Rome https://www.churches-of-rome.info/CoV_Info/127%20SPB/127-San%20Pietro%20in%20Vaticano.pdf?hl=en-GB source you provided actually supports this: it lists the "total area" (the building’s footprint/covered area) as 21,095 m². In a building where the walls are the perimeter, the gross internal area is effectively this total covered area. Using 15,160 m² while other churches use gross figures creates a massive downward bias for St. Peter’s.

Concerning Aparecida, I understand the Reuters 18,000 m² snippet is tempting because it feels "safe," but news agencies often just report the footprint of the central nave. The people who actually manage the building, A12, are the ones we should trust for technical specifics.

As you confirmed, the official A12 Sanctuary site explicitly lists the Pavimento Térreo (Internal main ground floor) as 25,000 m².

This isn't a "complex" figure; they have a separate number for the whole sanctuary perimeter (1.3 million m²). This 25,000 m² is specifically the internal celebration floor also with the chapels and corridors. Because Aparecida is a modern Greek-cross design, it doesn't have the "dead space" of massive 16th-century stone piers. Its internal area and its footprint are much closer than St. Peter's. Dismissing the official 25,000 m² figure as a "mistake" by the owners themselves is a stretch.

Furthermore we have to be consistent. The 13,000 m² figure for the Great Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba is a Gross Internal Area. It’s the total area of the prayer hall, including the halls, corridors, the space occupied by those 850+ columns and the entire Christian transept/choir inserted in the middle.

If we allow Córdoba to count the area occupied by its columns to reach 13,000 m², we cannot force St. Peter's to subtract its piers and drop to 15,160 m². If we used the "Net" standard you’re suggesting for St. Peter’s on Córdoba, Córdoba’s number would drop significantly.

My Proposal for a Clean Slate:

Let’s use the Gross Internal Area (wall-to-wall) for all of them. This is the only way to be fair:

St. Peter’s: 21,095 m² (GIA/Covered area—the most accurate "internal face" estimate we have).

Aparecida: 25,000 m² (Official GIA ground floor per A12).

Córdoba: 13,000 m² (Current GIA figure) and 13,000+ m² for Exterior (removing the courtyard as agreed).

This removes the "ranking bias" and applies a single, modern architectural standard. Pcmfernandes (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the key issue now is the proposed use of gross internal area.

For St Peter's, I still do not think we can get from the cited sources to 21,095 m2 as "internal area". Vatican-city.it gives 23,000 m2 as "ground area" and 15,160 m2 as "walkable area", stpetersbasilica.info (tourist source) appears to be derivative of New Advent, and the Churches of Rome PDF explicitly labels 21,095 m2 as "total area", not "internal area". So 21,095 m2 may be a larger building/total figure, but I still do not see a source identifying it as gross internal area or internal floor area under the table's wording.

I understand the concern that 15,160 m2 may be a more restrictive figure. But unless a source clearly says that it excludes piers, side corridors, or connected chapels, using 21,095 m2 would still mean replacing the source's own label with an editor's interpretation of what the source means by "internal area".

On Aparecida, I accept A12 as a strong source for the 25,000 m2 "pavimento terreo" figure. My concern is only that, if used, it should be identified in the table note as A12's reported ground-floor figure, not treated as if all sources used the same area category.

On Cordoba, the halls, corridors and the space occupied by the columns are part of the enclosed cathedral building and its liturgical space, they are not accessory spaces outside the church body. So counting them in Cordoba's internal area does not justify relabelling St Peter's "total area" as "internal area", especially while the claim that 15,160 m2 excludes comparable internal structures in St Peter's still needs clear sourcing.

For Cordoba's exterior area, I still agree with using "13,000+" with a note rather than the courtyard-inclusive 23,400 m2.

So I would not object to qualifying Aparecida's 25,000 m2 in a note, and I agree on removing the courtyard from Cordoba's exterior figure. My remaining objection is to using 21,095 m2 as St Peter's internal area without a source that labels it that way.

However, since we still disagree on the main internal area figures and the exterior area values may also benefit from clarification, I will open an RfC below to get wider input under the table's current definitions. Podz00 (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Area figures for St Peter's Basilica and Aparecida

This RfC follows the discussion immediately above.

Under the table's current definitions of internal and external floor area, how should the disputed area figures for St Peter's Basilica and the Basilica of Our Lady of Aparecida be treated? This RfC ended and was restarted to seek additional comments. --Podz00 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This RfC concerns the area figures disputed after recent reverts, including figures first introduced in the 13 October 2025 edit that changed the previous values for St Peter's Basilica and Aparecida.

The main dispute concerns whether St Peter's Basilica should use 15,160 m2 or 21,095 m2 as internal area, and whether Aparecida's A12 reported 25,000 m2 ground-floor figure should be used as the table's internal area value or only mentioned with a qualifying note.

There is also a related exterior area issue: the previously restored 76,800 m2 figure for St Peter's appears to refer to St Peter's Square, and the 142,865 m2 figure for Aparecida appears to refer to the wider National Sanctuary built area. If those figures are not suitable under the table's definition, the exterior area values should be left blank, marked as uncertain, or replaced only when directly comparable sources are available.

The relevant table definitions are: "Internal floor area is measured to the internal face of the external walls" and "External floor area is measured to the external face of the external walls" Podz00 (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There are two problems to overcome: reliable specific reporting by knowledgeable reporters, and measuring what needs to be measured.

If no one has wanted to measure what needs to be measured, then there can't be anything to report, no matter how reliable the reporters try to be. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In St. Peter's, "Please measure only the shining polished floor, nothing else" seems like it might be a good proxy for getting a straight answer. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingersI agree that an exact answer may not exist if the specific quantity defined by the table has never been measured and published.

However, that does not mean that all published figures are equally usable. Some figures can be excluded because the sources clearly refer to a different object or area category. For example, 76,800 m2 refers to St Peter's Square, while 142,865 m2 refers to the wider National Sanctuary built area rather than the exterior area of the basilica itself.

Where the problem is genuine ambiguity rather than a clearly different area category, I think the most transparent solution would be to report more than one sourced figure and clearly indicate in the notes that the published values conflict.--Podz00 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we agree much more than you realize :)

My main point is that some of the most contentious cases - i.e. the very largest few churches - have so clearly had sloppy, inconsistent, unreliable measurements taken, or have had accurate and correct measurements get wildly misinterpreted by well-meaning reporters, that the only thing we can reasonably do is blank their row in the table and wait for new data that has been handled properly from start to finish.

It seems to me that the people who really care about ths article might hate that idea (blanking some important cases until we have bulletproof data) so badly that they would prefer to keep the garbage data so that a winner can be declared immediately. :( TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that in my opinion this is a case where "original research" would almost certainly be far superior to the status quo. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 10:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers That is broadly how I see it. Requiring an authoritative technical or architectural source for every figure would probably require removing a large part of the table. Where no specialist source is available, a source does not necessarily have to be technical, but it should still have a reasonable degree of reliability and directly support the figure as presented.

Original measurements should not replace published sources in the article, but I do not think they are useless in evaluating those sources. They can be used as a plausibility check to identify a likely category error or a serious misinterpretation of a published figure, rather than to create an unsupported replacement value.

The interpretations I advanced in the preceding discussion are also independently confirmed by straightforward empirical measurements. This is particularly clear for exterior areas, because tracing the building perimeter in Google Earth (e.g.) allows the footprint to be checked with a relatively high degree of precision. These measurements are not the basis of the proposed article data, but they do confirm that the source-based objections raised above are geometrically consistent and not merely speculative. Podz00 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

My thought about possible superiority of original research meant a person who has physically measured the real building themselves. But your other type of "slightly-less-original research" does sound like at least a good sanity check on numbers. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Two non-churches listed

1. Shrine of St. Paulina really is a shrine, with relics etc

2. Provo Conference Center says right in the name that it's not a church TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Drop the word "exterior"

The word "exterior" will remain ambiguous regardless of how much explaining we may try to do. People are going to continue to misinterpret it as "area of the church grounds" or whatever else, and it's our fault not theirs. I think it's time to give up trying to explain, and completely eliminate that word from the article.

I suggest the names "Indoor area of main floor" and "Length × width of the whole building, minus all courtyards and open areas". It doesn't matter that these are not short or compact; we can abbreviate in the table headers, but we should be highly specific in the text. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I think the word "exterior" is indeed the main source of ambiguity, so I would support replacing it.

For the table headers, I would prefer something compact such as:

- Interior floor area

- External footprint

The more detailed explanation can remain in the introductory text. For example, the first column could be described as the indoor area of the main floor, while the second could be described as the footprint measured to the external face of the external walls, excluding open courtyards, squares, grounds, sanctuary complexes, colonnades outside the church body, and other open areas outside the enclosed church building.

I would avoid describing the second figure as "length x width of the whole building". That wording is potentially misleading, because many churches are not rectangular. It could be read as taking the maximum length and maximum width of the building and multiplying them as if the church were a perfect rectangle, which would often produce a very inaccurate area. "External footprint" is shorter and more precise, because it implies measuring the actual perimeter of the building rather than a bounding rectangle. Podz00 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"External" and "exterior" seem to me to share almost the same disadvantages, but it's possible that they don't, and I'm willing to see how that turns out. I do strongly believe that under the circumstances "indoor" would be better in every way than "interior"; "interior" can be misinterpreted as "within the church grounds", or especially "within our enclosed courtyard". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Yes, "indoor" is less technical than "interior", but it is probably clearer for a general table, because it is much harder to confuse with areas inside the wider church grounds or complex.

For the second column, the key point is to avoid wording that can be read as referring to open exterior space. "External footprint" may still be acceptable, because "footprint" indicates the actual outline of the enclosed building, not exterior grounds, squares, courtyards, or similar areas. "Church building footprint" could be an even clearer alternative, although less elegant as a column heading.

So I would be fine with either:

- Indoor floor area

- External footprint

or

- Indoor floor area

- Church building footprint

Podz00 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Either of those makes sense to me. I guess I like the second one better because it seems less ambiguous, but maybe a million others would disagree. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers That works for me. I also think the second option is clearer:

- Indoor floor area

- Church building footprint

If the million others disagree, they can of course comment here and suggest a better wording :) If there are no objections in the next few days, I think the list can be updated with this new wording. Podz00 (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)