Talk:Ring of bells

Comments

The "As of 1988" formation is clumsy, poor English, and best avoided — but in so far as its use is sanctioned on Wikipedia, it's only in certain circumstances: "Usually as of is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide current information. It should not be used for historical information that is not intended to be updated." (Wikipedia:As of#Usage guidelines) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But I was preseting the tower data as current information! Surely there's nothing special about April 2007 which warrants saving its tower data as "historical information that is not intended to be updated", right? Cheers, Doops | talk 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As we're citing a particular edition of the book, the "as of" is already implied, surely. If the edition of the book is up-dated, then the material will be, but it's not as if we'll be up-dating the book edition without up-dating the reference to its content. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree -- if we were talking about something more or less immutable, like the height of Salisbury Cathedral, then of course you'd be right; it would be silly to say "as of 2007, the height is believed to be x". Sure, x could change, either because it's been remeasured, or because the cathedral is subsiding, or something like that; but we don't expect it to change. Here, though, the number of towers is constantly changing, albeit slowly. We don't want our article to "date". (Incidentally, too, Dove's guide is no longer published in print -- it's an online database, updated continuously.) Cheers, Doops | talk 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But all As of April 2007 does is link to April 2007 ("April 2007 is the fourth month of 2007 A.D. It began on a Sunday and ended after thirty days on a Monday." etc.); what exactly does that add to the article? You seem happy to stick with the decent English "in 2007" over the ungainly "As of 2007", so as the link offers no relevant information, what's the point of it? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand there's a possibility that at some point in the future all the "as of x" links may serve as a useful tool for identifying articles that are "due" for an updating. But I admit I'm a little fuzzy on it all; I haven't spent a lot of time hanging around WP:AS OF. Doops | talk 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, if so, perhaps we could wait until some such functionality is added? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section seems to be riddled with inaccuracies. In fact, I'm struggling to find anything at all in it that's correct. Let's take it sentence by sentence.

Before the 18th century, English churches used to have only three or four bells.

Not true. There are lots of examples of 17th century churches with more than three or four bells, some of which are mentioned in the article. Even in Saxon times, some churches had more (e.g. Sherburn-in-Elmet had six in c1020). And by the late 17th century, I expect the modal number of bells was five, though I doubt a reliable source could be found to justify that. A more accurate statement would be "In the mid 16th century, English churches most commonly had three bells, though some had four, five, or occasionally more" [source Change Ringing: The History of an English Art, vol.1, p.34].

Of the few with six bells in the 17th century, those of the Cathedral and St Swithun's Church in Worcester, St Peter's Church at Martley with the oldest set cast as a ring, and monastic churches at Evesham, Malvern, and Pershore, still remain.

The ring at Worcester Cathedral is 20th century, though what I presume are the old six have been preserved in an unusable state in the tower [source]. They can't really be regarded as a ring, though, as they can't be rung. With the exception of one unused 19th century bell, all of the bells in Evesham's bell tower (formerly part of the Abbey) are 20th century [source]. The bells at Pershore Abbey are all 18th or 19th century [source]. If either previously had a six, they have not survived. Only three of Malvern Priory's nine bells date to the 17th century or earlier [source]. Why are all these examples in Worcestershire? There are 20 towers all over southern and central England with a fully surviving, unaugmented six. Only two of them are in Worcestershire. Finally Martley's six bells were cast in 1673 [source]; the six bells at St Clement's, Ipswich were cast as a whole ring in c1660 [source]. So St Clement's, Ipswich are the oldest six cast as a whole ring. If you read the quoted source, it says that Martley is "the oldest set of bells, cast together as a ring, in the county" [my emphasis], which is true.

Those of about half a dozen other churches are cracked, replaced, or gone.

This is suggesting that only six (or so) other churches had six bells in the 17th century which have been subsequently lost? I would suggest there are hundreds of such examples. I can think of well over a dozen in the City of London alone. The source is clearly just talking about Worcestershire.

18th century the only two rings of twelve bells in England were at St Bride's Church, Fleet Street, London, and York Minster.

First, the sentence makes no sense. Perhaps it means "At the start of the 18th century, ..."? If so, it's wrong. Only York Minster had a twelve at the start of the 18th century [source]. Any by the close of the century there were eleven rings of twelve.

Rings of six were common, rings of eight being less so, and rings of ten rare.

When? During the 18th century? If so, I'll accept that sixes were common and eights less so (though still not uncommon). But tens weren't all that rare at that time — many of the more important churches had tens at this time. In any case, "rare" is quite a subjective word.

The first ring of ten bells was installed at New College, Oxford.

New College's bells were cast as an eight in 1655 and augmented to ten in 1710. (They are not and never were a complete ten by one founder.) By comparison, Derby Cathedral were augmented to ten in 1677/8 [source: Church Bells of Derbyshire, Vol 1, p.83]. But even these may not have been the earliest ten. At the time of the dissolution, an inventory of Peterborough Cathedral, dated 1539, suggests there was a ring of ten [source: Church Bells of Northamptonshire, p.364]. — RichardSmith (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Three basic methods"

Ringing church bells occurs in three basic ways: normal (peal) ringing, chiming, or tolling. Normal ringing refers to the ringing of a bell or bells at a rate of about one ring per second or more, often in pairs reflecting the traditional "ding-dong" sound of a bell which is rotated back and forth, ringing once in each direction.

Although this might be technically true, it reads (to me) as though it refers to only one or two bells. Surely "normal ringing" in most English towers refers to change ringing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Information to add if known

On the off chance that someone knows, I think the article would be gratly enhanced if the following information could be added: Typical weight of bells Typical pitch Typical size of wheels 178.239.97.223 (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)