Talk:Bristol Cathedral

The Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Bristol

This is the offical name, and wiki policy is to use the offical name.--Jirate 21:26, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

No, the policy is to use the common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This should be at Bristol Cathedral. --rbrwr^± 21:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed with Rbrwr, Wikipedia policy is most certainly to use the generally used name of an object - in this case "Bristol Cathedral". Can someone return the talk page and article title to its proper name? - Adrian Pingstone 22:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Adrian. I certainly intend to move this back (and it's the article, not just the talk page) if no-one else does, but I'm diplomatically waiting for things to develop at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Irate and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps at the moment. --rbrwr^±

I've moved the said back to Bristol Cathedral as per policy and consensus here. I have lived near Bristol over a decade and I have never heard the Cathedral called by anything longer than St Augustine's Abbey and then rarely Thryduulf 23:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good. However,I am going to restore the formal-name-first order in the first paragraph. That fits with the convention in articles aobut people, where, for instance, Tony Blair starts, "The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair..." --rbrwr^± 23:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Organ

Shouldnt there be mention of the organ somewhere? its supposed to be the largest working one in the world I think - Agaib

It is in fact the 1245th largest in the world, according to this website: http://www.die-orgelseite.de/orgelliste120_e.htm which is a very useful resource for sizes of organs. Clavecin 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. sign using ~~~~ rather than writing your name

Added architectural description

have done some rearranging of facts, but haven't lost any of your work!

Hope you like it! --Amandajm 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Galleries

I removed the gallery from this article as per WP:IUP#Photo_galleries, article space should not contain image galleries unless there is a good reason to. The two images here can easily be put inline, and don't add anything to the article that isn't already shown in other images. Galleries should be created on commons - that's sort of what it's there for. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I still think galleries are nice for readers (I'd love to ask them) but in this case I accept your argument - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

Amandajm reverted my previous removal of links to photo sites from this article. I stand by that deletion because those photo sites fail WP:EL, mostly because they fail on the very first of the criteria - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. But I could have removed this link because its sole purpose is to promote hotels and accommodation. The panavista.eu link is to just one photo which hardly adds value. As for flickr, if there are any useful photos there, then why not take some of the 154 flickr images which have a Wikimedia Commons compatible licence and copy them over? Bottom line I don't think any of the photo links truly add value to the article. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[1] includes a stunning view of the interior, better than the one on wiki. Perhaps there is an equally good one on one of the other sites, since this site is indeed commercial.

The panoramas are also excellent. As for the gallery on flickr, yes, they constitute a very useful gallery. Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest, Bob, that as you are the person set on deleting them, you might also be the right person to transfer the pics from flickr? Amandajm (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I would be very happy to work with others to identify the better photographs among the 154 flickr images and transfer them across to Wikimedia Commons. Any volunteers?--Simple Bob (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob! That's great. I'll take a look. When I've finished going around the traps and catching vandals on my watched pages. Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Flickr Pics

• Pic of south choir aisle [2]
• Details of lierne vault [3]
• Pic of vault [4]
• Nice pic of nave [5]
• The quire[6]
• Organ and stalls [7]
• Shows tracery, glass and paint. [8]
• Clear pic of the west front [9]

Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All uploaded. Anyone else have suggestions? --Simple Bob (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

triffic! Amandajm (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Bristol Cathedral: Coordinates are wrong. Building is misplaced. Right coordinates are: +51° 27' 6.26", -2° 36' 2.61" (51.451740, -2.600724)

—93.194.219.97 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yes, that was a typo of mine when I emended the coordinates earlier this month (I typed 51.4617 when I meant to type 51.4517). Thanks for noticing and pointing it out. Deor (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So is it possible for us to agree that the current setup, which was last changed here and appears in the code as:

latd = 51.4517  longd = -2.6007

is correct, and should need no further fixing unless the shape of the planet changes too much or anything? I'm always a bit baffled by coordinate shifts (typos apart!) and I worry that due to some system weirdness people are seeing things differently or something - (yup sounds unlikely ...) but certainly to me the current set appear absolutely spot on! It would be nice to think that it needed no further change and that if changes were thought to be needed they could be proposed on this page first. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Bristol Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What else is needed before a GA nomination?

I've been doing some editing on this article and hope to nominate it for GA status before long. I know there are still a few citation needed tags but what else do people think would be needed to get it to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod ^talk 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As requested, I'e had a quick look through it, I've never seen the building and know nothing about it, but from a cursory glance:

• "This facade is probably more Spanish than English in its overall composition, being somewhat like that of Burgos Cathedral, but without its spires." No, it's not! What's Spanish about it?

• "It is rather wide for its height" In who's opinion? It's proportions look OK to me.

• "During the 16th century, the space for cathedral services must have been very cramped.[citation needed] This necessitated a rearrangement of the cathedral's furnishings." Did cathedrals have furnishings (beyond an altar and misericords etc) and if they did what were they? I don't see why they woudl have made the cathedral cramped - pews etc weren't around at that time.

• "The tympanum of the arch is an empty niche." Is it an entirely empty niche or does the tympanum contain a niche?

• "The second remarkable feature of Bristol Cathedral..." Are we qualified to grade architectural elements by importance/remarkableness? Giano (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks - these were generally statements & claims I was worried about as well. I have removed or reworded therm to try to remove the extravagant claims.— Rod ^talk 08:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bristol Cathedral/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: José Galindo (talk · contribs) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm on this --José Galindo (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Well-written article	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Complete	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Complete	Pass
(c) (original research)	Complete	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Complete	Pass
(b) (focused)	Complete	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Excellent	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
This article is fully stable as it is not undergoing any major changes, edit wars, or content disputes	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are used legally.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are used appropriately with suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Nice article, simple, precise.

Discussion

Thanks for putting a pass next to each criteria; however not all are green in the review progress box at the top and I am unsure whether there are any changes you feel are needed to meet the criteria.— Rod ^talk 06:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment. I did a second review. I think that the article is good enough to be considered as good, but maybe it should be longer. Good images, good captions. I didnt see any typo. Tell me if you have another opinion, it would be very useful. --José Galindo (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know of any particular issues, otherwise I would not have nominated it, so I think if you are happy it is for you to complete the process.— Rod ^talk 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's done. Have a nice day!.—José Galindo (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bristol Cathedral. 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/20150326121913/https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/women-bishops/the-women-priests-debate.aspx to https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/women-bishops/the-women-priests-debate.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bristol-cathedral.co.uk/organ.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820005324/http://www.ofchoristers.net:80/Chapters/Bristol.htm to http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Bristol.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol Cathedral. 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/20150402102131/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Footsteps-Past-Memorial-windows-Bristol-Cathedral/story-24511519-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Footsteps-Past-Memorial-windows-Bristol-Cathedral/story-24511519-detail/story.html

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) 00:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

XIX century

It is said that Giles Gilbert Scott was consulted in 1860 but he was born only in 1880. Some mistake feel I here. Elrond1 2eleven (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)