Talk:Salisbury Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anglicanism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Salisbury Cathedral is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Wiltshire (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Check the facts about Monastic Origins[edit]

Just returned from a tour of Salisbury Cathedral, where the guide said that although they had cloisters, there were never any monks living there.

I yanked the reference. Salisbury was not monastic. Good catch and thank you. Robshill 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up the original picture[edit]

I accidentally overwrote the original picture. I reverted back to tfa it, but now it doesn't show up somehow.

If you mean Image:Salisbury Cathedral.jpg on the Commons, don't worry, it looks like you did the right thing. You are most likely being caught out by one of the image caches. One of the headaches of working with images as that either your browser or the wiki servers can cache an earlier version of an image, so you don't always see your revisions immediately. If you are using Firefox or InternetExplorer, it can sometimes help to press <CTRL>-F5 to force a reload. To force the Wiki serves to purge the cache for an image, you have to write a tricky little URL like this purge link, but that is a bit of a black art. Waiting a little while will also do the trick, but that is very convenient.
By the way, the Image:Salisbury Cathedral Detail Arches.jpg looks rather good too. Nice one. -- Solipsist 16:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Added a photo of mine of the picture taken in 2006 Megatonman (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

is this true?[edit]

is it true (as claimed by ripley's) that salisbury cathedral has:

12 doors for each month of the year; 365 windows for each day of the year; 24 pillars for each hour in a day; 60 sculptures for each minute in an hour; and 60 crosses for each second in a minute?

can someone verify this?

if it's true, then this is certainly an awesome building.

No it isn't... the floor plan shows quite clearly there are 50 small and four large pillars, and abotu half a dozen doors.
Not true, but the traditional rhyme
As many days as in one year there be,
So many windows in this church you see,
As many marble pillars here appear
As there are hours throughout the fleeting year,
As many gates as moons one here does view,
Strange tale to tell, yet not more strange than true.
is found here William Avery 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I have attempted to expand and add references to the article. I will continue to reference and expand in coming weeks. LordHarris 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bell Tower[edit]

I saw a documentary today, that mentioned that there was a medieval bell tower, and two later chapels that were demolished by James Wyatt Jason404 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Font[edit]

The font as depicted in the gallery at the bottom of the article has been removed, and there are currently plans for a permanent font to be build in it's place. Should the image be kept until the new font is installed or removed now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPoodle (talkcontribs) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone think the main picture should be changed?[edit]

It's really old and the resolution is awful! Raggatt2000 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:SalisburyCathedral01.jpg. This is one of mine, not sure it's much better, but at least there is no scaffolding! – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the current picture looks OK; and it’s a fairly common perspective, if this is anything to go by. What would you prefer?
And it’s a pretty substantial image (1295 x 1096); how much resolution do you want? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it's a good angle. If you expand it to full size though, it's awfully grainy. It's obviously quite an old photo and digital photography has progressed a lot since it was taken! I figured it might be time for an update. Raggatt2000 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll do a quick search at the Geograph project and see what I can find. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK I found several nice ones: one, two, and three (shame about the red van!). They are all available under licenses suitable for Commons and I would be more than happy to try to tweak any or all of them and upload there. Thoughts? – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) would be all right. In (2) the focal point is the two people sitting on the grass, and (3), as you say, is spoilt by the red van. If replaced, I suggest we should keep the present main picture by moving it down into the gallery. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will upload (1) to Commons and add it to the article, keeping the current image there too. If folks don't like it, it's easy to undo. – ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done and moved the previous image to the gallery. – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice one, looks good! Raggatt2000 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah! overtaken by events, again! Still, I suppose it makes more sense to have a picture of the front of the place than the back. But, is it just me or does the spire look like it’s leaning in this one? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's just perspective - I will take a crack at fixing it in Photoshop when I have some time to do so. Some day I will buy a tilt/shift lens for my Canon 5DII... – ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger. I came this close to updating the image with Salisburycathedral0717.jpg, but seem to have missed the boat by a week. I don't mean to quibble, but given that you shot it with a 5D MkII, it would be fab if you could upload a larger file (for future-proofing). I live within ten minutes of the cathedral and own a 5D MkII myself, but it would be morally dubious if I overwrote your image after only a week. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, the ibox image isn't one of mine - I found it on the Geograph project (a great source of images by the way, a large number of which have just been uploaded to Commons). I was just saying that some day I will get a t/s lens for my 5DMkII so I can do perspective correction "in lens" rather than "in Photoshop". When I do, I will have to schedule my trips back to the UK around photographic priorities! So no problem at all if you want to upload a higher res image of your own and replace the current one. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. I'm on your wavelength now. Surfing on your sine wave. In that case I have replaced the infobox image with a larger file. My only worry is that it includes Emily Young's Lunar Disc I - which is a permanent exhibit in the grounds - as a prominent compositional element. It's not the main subject and the file is not for commercial purposes. Also it is a wonderful sculpture and Emily Young is fabulous. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with that one is that the ugly scaffolding is visible, whereas it isn't in the previous image. Is the scaffolding still there? If not maybe once the weather improves someone could take a "scaffolding-free" image? – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For my money I think the replacement was better. There's a much clearer view of the cathedral with barely any visible scaffolding. The exhibit in the foreground is interesting but it should be subordinate to the cathedral which is after all the main subject of the article. As mentioned by someone above, the west wall shown in the previous photo is a common view of the church and so, despite its shortcomings in resolution, I'd say it's a more suitable choice. I vote let's keep it until one of you 5D Mk II boys gets around to taking a new one! Raggatt2000 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The scaffolding is unfortunately scheduled to remain in place until 2015.[1] I was never happy with including the Emily Young sculpture - she's still alive - and so I have replaced the image with one taken a few minutes before, of the western face of the building, that includes no public art whatsoever. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice one! Amazing colour sky, were you using a polarising filter? – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes. It was shot with a Canon 5D MkII, using an Olympus 21mm f/3.5; on the front of the lens I had one of those Cokin filter system things with a polarising filter and a graduated ND. I corrected the perspective with Photoshop, and sized it down to six megapixels (which helps to hide the loss of quality from software perspective correction). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Now I am intrigued. Can you e-mail me (via Wikipedia e-mail) details of the lens mount adapter? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there again! I think I have a better picture of the cathedral now - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salisbury_Cathedral_WestFront.jpg . It's the view of the west facade on a nice sunny day. The detail of the statues and spire is crystal clear and there are no people/obstructions in it. Ideal, no? It's also the most commonly displayed view of the cathedral so probably quite suitable for the main picture in the article. Let me know and I'll switch it. Raggatt2000 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, the image discussion again!
That’s a cracking picture of the west front, but... wouldn’t a view that shows off the spire be better?
I’m surprised at you saying the west facade is "the most commonly displayed view of the cathedral": I’d have thought something approximating to the Gainsborough view would be most common (I gather the view from the south is unavailable now)
I think on balance the current view (from the southwest, without a lot of foliage: like the one that ukexpat found in January, but without the van) fits the bill better. Moonraker12 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it might be worth a go! The cathedral website has the west wall view on its front page, and I think that they release a publication - the official guide? - which does too.
The current picture has an impressive sky, but frustratingly little of the detail of the church walls is actually visible, especially when displayed in reduced form for the thumbnail in the article. What do you think? Raggatt2000 (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery removal[edit]

Changes of such magnitude should not be made by a single editor without first establishing whether there is a consensus for the change; and especially not without a proper and reasoned explanation on the Talk page. The abrupt reason given is simply not credible either. Although it is true that all the gallery items are available elsewhere in Commons, visitors to this page would firstly, not be aware of the existence of those photographs; and secondly, not being aware of them makes searching for them on Commons impossible. Numerous Wikipedia pages use the Gallery device in order to direct visitor's searches in an appropriate direction. Indeed, that is no doubt why the facility is incorporated into the Wiki software. Neither do they intrude overly into the main article, confined as they are to a Gallery section close to the end of the main article. 81.156.94.77 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Current policy on galleries can be seen here.--Charles (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that Charles. However it does not invalidate my comment about arbitrary changes of some magnitude without first attempting to find consensus. 81.156.94.77 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I did a little rejiggle of the gallery last night. There was no real order or grouping to the images so I introduced some. Now most of the outdoor ones are at the start, interiors follow, the 2 font pics are together, etc. Also, some of the older images seemed a bit dated and were duplicating others so I removed them. I think it's generally a bit more organised now.
Looking at Charles' link to the gallery policy above however, I can't help thinking that most of those images have been "shoehorned" in there. For example, why do we need two shots of the west front? Why do we need to see the shot with scaffolding in 2006? The policy makes the following requirement of galleries: The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I really don't think that the current layout achieves this.
I suggest we whittle down the number of images so we have one for each subject. This would make it more readable and manageable. Any comments? Raggatt2000 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Guys, any thoughts about my last comments? Also, was thinking of updating the current picture of the cloisters this one? It's a little more colourful and more up to date... Raggatt2000 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Depictions in Art, Literature and Film[edit]

I have linked the mention of Ken Follett's mini-series to it's entry as well as editing in where the external shots fell in the show.Twobells (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)