Talk:List of former cathedrals in Great Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coverage[edit]

I don't think a UK list is appropriate here, since for ecclesiastical purposes, Scotland has always been separate - whether in the Church of Rome, Anglicanism etc --MacRusgail (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at the risk of seeming pedantic, the Isle of Man is not part of the UK - it's like the Channel Isles, a Crown territory (or something similar). But the UK does (for the foreseeable future anyway) include Northern Ireland, which this list does not include. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the title of this list should be changed. If it were to remain a UK list it really should include Northern Ireland, but there is a Wikipedia list entitled "List of cathedrals in Ireland" which covers the whole island (both Northern Ireland and the Republic). It includes current and former cathedrals belonging to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland. It would seem to invite problems of synchronization to try to replicate the same information (but just for cathedrals located in the six counties of Northern Ireland) in this list to justify retaining the "United Kingdom" in its title. I therefore propose changing the title of this list to read "List of former cathedrals in Great Britain". ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it makes sense to change the title to List of former cathedrals in Great Britain. Even the List of cathedrals in Northern Ireland link in Lists of cathedrals in the United Kingdom goes straight to List of cathedrals in Ireland. User:Frietjes, what do you think? Pjposullivan (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fine with me. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of St Peter's on the Wall as a cathedral[edit]

There is no doubt that Cedd was bishop to the East Saxons, nor that he built a minster church at Bradwell. But he also built minsters at Tilbury and other places. I'm not aware of any evidence that his see was at Bradwell. I propose to delete St Peter's from the list, but will wait pending discussion. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The St Peter's guide book describes it as a cathedral. Not a very impressive source, but enough to allow the entry to stand.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a further reference (Smith) to the Bradwell entry which also describes Cedd's church as a cathedral - I too felt the guide book to be a weakish basis on its own. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley[edit]

The post-Reformation Catholic section includes the short-lived Diocese of Beverley, but lists the "Cathedral" as being the "Church of St John of Beverley", in Beverley. According to most sources on the Diocese that I have seen, the Diocese never had a cathedral in Beverley, but did have two successive Pro-Cathedrals in York (St. George's and St. Wilfrid's); in fact, given that the diocese seems to have been based in York it would appear that the term "Diocese of Beverley" was simply a way to get around the prohibition on Catholic Dioceses assuming the names of their Anglican counterparts. Unless someone has evidence otherwise, I suggest this example be removed from the list. 90.246.220.18 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial tables[edit]

Is there a reason why the first two tables are kept separate? They seem to be both about the same thing, former pre-reformation English cathedrals. Pjposullivan (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no idea, would require some minor reformatting to merge them, but seems like a reasonable idea. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
looks better. perhaps we should convert the second table to the same format? Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking the same thing, will do. Pjposullivan (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further changes[edit]

Is it now ok to remove the notice at the top about the lack of inline citations? Pjposullivan (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you think about changing the format of the tables, so that the name of the structure and the notes are made more prominent. As it stands now, the dedication of the various churches are given, but not the actual names of the structures we're supposed to be listing, e.g.

Changing this:

Establishment Image Dedication Established Notes Location
St Germans St Germanus c.936–1042 Augustinian priory c.1184–1539 50°23′48″N 4°18′35″W / 50.396686°N 4.309699°W / 50.396686; -4.309699

into this:

Location Image Name Dates Notes Location
St Germans, Cornwall St German's Priory c.936–1042 Augustinian priory c.1184–1539 50°23′48″N 4°18′35″W / 50.396686°N 4.309699°W / 50.396686; -4.309699

What do you think?

looks like an improvement. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge List of former cathedrals in England, Wales and the Isle of Man into this article. Pjposullivan (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that List of former cathedrals in England, Wales and the Isle of Man be merged/rediected into List of former cathedrals in the United Kingdom. I think that the content in the England, Wales and the Isle of Man article is entirely contained in this article and this article has references for most of its content, unlike the England, Wales and the Isle of Man one. This article is of such a size that the merging not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Pjposullivan (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New sections[edit]

What do people think about splitting the main section 'Pre-Reformation and Post-Reformation Anglican' into three sections? They could be:

  • Pre-Reformation
  • Henry VIII proposed cathedrals
  • Post-Reformation Anglican

This would clarify why certain entries are included, such as those from the seventh-century, the proposed cathedrals of the 16th-century and the post-reformation pro-cathedrals. What do you think? Pjposullivan (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican section has got rather unwieldy, with 45 entries at present, so subdivision seems a good idea. Pre-Reformation would include Celtic/British like Padstow, Bodmin St Petroc, Lindisfarne, Canterbury St Martins, and maybe Bradwell as well as the later Anglo-Saxon examples. I count 22 in that category. There are 14 proposed by Henry VIII which did not come to pass, bar (briefly) Osney. I can't see a category of Post-Reformation, however. Of the remaining 9, one is Norman but only briefly (Chester St John), two are dissolved by Henry (Bath and Coventry St Mary), three are "in the mind" of an odd bishop or two, or of an ambitious organiser/incumbent (Glastonbuty, Westbury, Southend), one was bombed (Coventry St Michael), one was a pro-cathedral (Guildford), and one was a political hot potato (Westminster). I'm not sure what you would call the third group other than the boring "Miscellaneous"? ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, what about subdividing them according to periods of when they first became a cathedral, such as pre-1066, 1066 to 1539, then 1540 to present? Pjposullivan (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would look like this:
Pre-1066: Bodmin, Bradwell-on-Sea, Canterbury, Chester-le-Street, Crediton, Dommoc, Dorchester, Hexham, Hoxne, Leicester, Lindisfarne, North Elmham, Padstow, Wiltshire, Repton, St Germans, Selsey, Sherborne, Soham, Stow. Total 20.
1066-1539: Bath, Chester, Coventry, Glastonbury, Old Sarum, Thetford, Westbury-on-Trym. Total: 7.
1540-present: Aldfield (proposed), Bodmin 2nd (proposed), Bury St Edmunds (proposed), Colchester (proposed), Coventry 2nd, Dunstable (proposed), Guildford, Guisborough (proposed), Launceton (proposed), Leicester 2nd (proposed), Oxford, St Albans (proposed) , Shrewsbury (proposed), Southend on Sea, Southwell (proposed), Waltham Abbey (proposed), Welbeck (proposed), Westminster. Total: 18 (13 proposed by Henry VIII).
What do you think? Pjposullivan (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Cathedrals[edit]

I feel unhappy with the current treatment of Scottish Cathedrals. There are two sections, the first labelled Church of Scotland listing some sites, and a second section listing others, especially ruins. In fact there is no such thing as a Church of Scotland cathedral, since the Church of Scotland has been Presbyterian for over 400 years, and therefore has no bishops and no dioceses. Several major CoS churches (kirks?) were once cathedrals before the Scottish Reformation became complete in 1688, and some carry an "honorary" (historic) designation of "Cathedral" (especially Glasgow's St Mungo and Edinburgh's St Giles). There is a re-formed Episcopal Church of Scotland with 7 dioceses and cathedrals, but unless any of these have been replaced they will not merit inclusion in a list of 'former cathedrals'. I suggest we simply have just one list of Pre-Reformation Scottish Cathedrals. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShropshirePilgrim (talk • contribs) 12:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea, well worth doing. Pjposullivan (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the list of Scottish (former) cathedrals is getting unwieldy. Apart from RC (therefore post-reformation) former cathedrals, the only distinction between Scottish former cathedrals is Pre- or Post- reformation. The first of these now number 32 and the second just 1 (Edinburgh St Giles). I suggest splitting the Pre-reformation list into two. Not quite sure yet of the heading, but the first would contain those churches which are admitted to be really "just" Bishops' churches (e.g. Egilsay, Thurso) and those which are so early or isolated that they really pre-date any notion of a defined diocese (e.g. Abercorn, Abernethy, Hoddom, Kingarth, Skinnett, even the Candida Casa at Whithorn). The second would include the rest (e.g. Aberdeen, Brechin, Dornoch, Dunblane, Dunkeld, Elgin, Glasgow, Kirkwall, etc.) At a squeeze the first of these sections might contain up to half or so of the 32. Trouble is, the boundary is a bit fuzzy in my head, at the moment. Sound worth it? I'd be glad of any suggestions on criteria for separating sheep from goats. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An arrangement which would clarify the lists would obviously be advantageous — though increasing categorization increases the number of A-Z lists, which may make it unwieldy to scan through for a particular entry (as opposed to doing a "find" on the page, which is limited to spelling as it appears rather than as the reader thinks it is spelt). There are pros and cons either way. JohnArmagh (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years on from the foregoing conversation, I'm feeling even more like splitting the 32 listed pre-reformation Scottish cathedrals into two more manageable sections - otherwise there's a heck of a lot of scrolling to do when editing, etc. I reckon a split into pre- and post-1100 as a foundation date would give a 50/50 split - and it coincides with the traditional split between cathedrals founded before the reign of King David I and those from his time or later (such as those proposed but not fulfilled). It also more-or-less matches the English pre- and post-1066 Conquest boundary. Any views? ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change of title[edit]

I have added further remarks on the geographic coverage of this list under "Coverage" at the top of this Talk Page. Please check there. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing the list format[edit]

As the content of the list has expanded over the last 18 months, the amount of space taken by the notes on each former (or proposed) cathedral has led to a very long column of notes with empty space in the columns alongside. This looks unbalanced, leading to a waste of screen space when viewed, and a waste of paper if printed. I propose changing the width of the columns to mitigate the situation, with thinner columns for the location and the name of the cathedral/church, and the width of notes increased by one-third. Is this a good idea? Is there a better way of achieving greater balance? ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best would be dramatically pare back or even remove the descriptions. They are largely unnecessary for most of the entries, i.e. those with links, as readers can click on those to find out all the information and more. They are excessive for a list, making it hard to follow as a list. Those without articles should balance with the ones with articles, so have minimal content; if there is a lot for any one such entry it makes sense to create the article for it and link to that.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be good thing to increase the width for notes, to make it easier to follow as a list. There are 95 entries, of which two thirds have direct links to their respective articles. A third do not have articles directly written about them, especially those about ruins and only feature in one source. These hardly warrant articles, because they lack 2 credible sources and lack notability. If an article was created about them, I think that the decision in AfD would come back as 'merge'. I do agree that the notes do need to be downscaled, and I hope that increasing the width of the columns will go a little way towards that by making them look less substantial. I would even decrease the co-ords box to give more space to the notes - make the notes section appear more spread out horizontally than vertically. This I think would help the article to be more like a list. Why not give the extra spacing a try and then see if anything more needs to be done? Pjposullivan (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of former cathedrals in Great Britain. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of former cathedrals in Great Britain. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The "Name" column[edit]

ShropshirePilgrim and I have been having a discussion on my talk page and that we both agreed that the discussion should be on this talk page instead so I've lifted the discussion and placed it here for further exchange of views.

Hello Bill, I'm often grateful for edits to the List (gets a bit lonely otherwise), but I'm not keen on your substitution of "Birnie" for my "The building". The kirk is a building, Birnie is a parish, not a building. Do you have a good reason for your substitution? If not, I'll reverse it, along with one or two other edits I have in mind. Happy 2021!! ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShropshirePilgrim. Happy 2021 to you as well. Yes, no problem with what you intend to do. I have a problem with the "Name" column though. For example, Birnie Kirk has never been known as St Brendan's Church, St Macher's Cathedral has never been called Cathedral Church of St Macher. Many other named churches have been given artificial names—Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, St Mary's Cathedral, Cathedral Church of St Blaan and St Laurence, etc. Why not change the name of this column to Dedication column and just leave it as the saints/holy trinity, etc. In the medieval period they were not named at all but merely referred to as the church of the See, e.g. ecclesia Moravie for Elgin Cathedral.-Bill Reid | (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bill, for your helpful reply. Without digging right now, I got the "names" from various sources, and certainly didn't invent any of them. Are you quite sure they were never called what I have listed under "Name"? But perhaps "Name" isn't quite right, as you suggest. "Official title" may be closer to the truth, though it's really too long. Your helpful "Dedication" is one runner, though it doesn't quite fit the preambles of "Cathedral Church of .... " and similar. How about "Title", short for "Official Title"? Thanks for your interest in this humble List! ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, ShropshirePilgrim. I'll get back to you tomorrow but thinking about it, I think we should perhaps discuss on the list talk page in case someone else wants to chip in. Incidentally, I notice that the beautiful Lincoln Cathedral has been omitted from the list. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Bill. See you there. But not sure what you mean about Lincoln's absence from the List - it's not a Former Cathedral after all! ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping the above is self explanatory. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up Bill's suggestion, I see that it's not new. Way up this page, in 2013, just before I got involved with this List, the column concerned had it's heading changed from Dedication to Name as the former was felt too restrictive. This has stuck, without objection, for the last 7+ years, and I am not of a mind to change it without a better reason than Bill has adduced. Are we certain that "Birnie Kirk" has never been known as "St Brendan's Church"? Maybe not since the Scottish Reformation, but what about in the Catholic centuries before, when saints were more acceptable, not to mention bishops and cathedrals. The only reason "Birnie Kirk" is in this List (of Former Cathedrals) is because it seems to have been a proto-cathedral (or bishop's church) for the diocese of Moray in medieval Scotland. I doubt it was called just "Birnie Kirk" then, and I might hazard a guess at "St Brendan's Church" (or "Kirk" if you must), since there is no doubt about its dedication (the dedication and the term "church" come from Fawcett, R. (1997) Scottish Cathedrals London: Batsford /Historic Scotland ISBN 0 7134 8188 9). In fact, the more I look at Bill's objections, I see a possible case of Presbyterian revisionism. For what it's worth, I also see the Church of Scotland using the historic title of "cathedral" for many of its kirks / high kirks that were once cathedrals for their ousted bishops: I'm not entirely sure why, but in the case of the High Kirk of Edinburgh a.k.a. St Giles' Cathedral it certainly draws the visitors. So at the end of this analysis I strongly suggest we leave things as they are. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I don't want to particularly focus on the Scottish section of the list, but it's the bit I know best and hopefully others can provide expertise for elsewhere in GB. So responding to the points raised in the same order, I'm not sure it's relevant that because nobody has objected to the table construction that it can't be improved both in terms of column descriptions or in the accuracy of the information provided. Yes, I'm sure that Birnie was never called "St Brendan's Church". The association with St Brendan only appeared for the first time in a catalog of saints in the early 19th century. A. D. S. Macdonald and Lloyd R. Laing in Early Ecclesiastical Sites in Scotland: a Field Survey, Part II (1973) stated that this attribution is "doubtful". The point is though that if information is added to the list then it needs to be attributed by citations. Re the names in pre-reformation times, I gave the example of that of the diocese of Moray of how its charters described itself as ecclesia Moravie. The Catholic Encyclopedia under the article name Cathedral gives examples such as "ecclesia major, ecclesia mater, ecclesia principalis, ecclesia senior, more frequently ecclesia matrix". I've never seen it given as Church of St Mary etc, and such like. A proto-cathedral is the first cathedral of a diocese that has had the seat moved to another church and doesn't simply mean "Bishop's church". You'll have to explain to me the "Presbyterian revisionism" as I have no idea what that is. The Church of Scotland is not unique in retaining the description of the former Catholic cathedral churches such as St Giles as a Cathedral, Germany and others have done the same for their protestant ex-cathedrals. Trying to be positive here and in the interests of accuracy. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Man section moved[edit]

I've taken it upon myself to move the tiny Isle of Man section to the end of the List, so it follows the three sections on England, Scotland, and Wales, which together make up Great Britain as per the title of the List. Since IoM is not strictly part of Great Britain it seemed to me better to treat it as an adjunct to the GB list instead of having its initial "I" placing it after England but before Scotland and Wales. If there are strong objections it can always be moved back. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ripon Cathedral?[edit]

Ripon Cathedral is a current cathedral. It is, at least in part, the same church that was previously a cathedral. There was an 1100 year gap when it wasn't a cathedral; but it currently is (assuming a co-cathedral is still a cathedral - if not, the Diocese of Leeds has *no* cathedrals); therefore the basic qualification The term former cathedral in this list includes any Christian church (building) in Great Britain which has been the seat of a bishop, but is not so any longer is not satisfied.

Am I missing something, or should this entry be removed? TSP (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on looking deeper, I note: A once proposed cathedral is a church that was proposed (usually by a church or civil authority) as a future cathedral, but for some reason, that particular proposal failed. In some cases, a later proposal succeeded and the church then became the seat of a bishop, but the church concerned will still be listed here for record purposes because of the earlier (failed) proposal.
It seems to me that we should be consistent here - if proposed cathedrals whose proposal failed count for the list, even if they later became and are now cathedrals; then it seems reasonable that cathedrals that ceased to be cathedrals would be included even if they later became cathedrals again, as with Ripon. But that isn't actually what our criteria currently say - they only say that proposed cathedrals count even if they are now cathedrals, not former ones.
I do wonder whether this is actually two lists fighting in one space, and proposed cathedrals should be split out?
Personally I think it's a bit weird for a "List of former cathedrals" to include a church that is not only a current cathedral, but was never a cathedral before (e.g. St Albans); but, at worst, we should be clear and consistent on inclusion criteria. TSP (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you about Ripon Cathedral. Its inclusion is clearly an oversight by me (and maybe an earlier List-builder) and has gone unremarked until now. Thank you. The only possible reason to retain it would be if the present building is on a significantly different groundplan from Wilfrid's original, and the inclusion of his crypt makes this seem unlikely. I have therefor gone ahead and removed Ripon fron this List.
Thank you also for your point about the 2 once-proposed cathedrals (St Albans and Southwell) that have been included despite having later become cathedrals. I think this anomaly resulted from an attempt to include most/all of Henry VIII's 1540 serious proposals for new cathedrals. You are right, it is an awkward conflict, and an article specifically on Henry's proposals is the proper place to include his successes, his failures, and his delayed successes. I have therefore removed the entries for St Albans and Southwell. The relevant criterion has been clarified. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link style[edit]

A lot of our entries currently look like this:

Location Image Name Dates Notes Coordinates
Colchester, Essex Abbey Church of St John the Baptist, Colchester proposed A Benedictine monastery founded here in 1096 was dissolved in 1539. The abbey church was proposed as a cathedral for Essex (probably as a substitute for Waltham Abbey) in c. 1540. More at St John's Abbey, Colchester 51°53′08″N 0°54′05″E / 51.885544°N 0.901297°E / 51.885544; 0.901297

With the name unlinked, and a separate note saying "More at..." at the end of the Notes field.

This is an unusual style that I don't think I have seen anywhere else on Wikipedia, and seems a bit un-Wiki-like to me - links on Wikipedia are generally added naturally to the text, and article text wouldn't generally include what feel like instructions to the reader. I'd suggest the conventional Wikipedia way to do it would be:

Location Image Name Dates Notes Coordinates
Colchester, Essex Abbey Church of St John the Baptist, Colchester proposed A Benedictine monastery founded here in 1096 was dissolved in 1539. The abbey church was proposed as a cathedral for Essex (probably as a substitute for Waltham Abbey) in c. 1540. 51°53′08″N 0°54′05″E / 51.885544°N 0.901297°E / 51.885544; 0.901297

Which seems clearer and more Wiki-like to me. Any thoughts? TSP (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked a bit deeper, there doesn't seem to be much consistency on this - for example Church of England cathedrals founded (or proposed) from 1540 to the present are all in the former style; but Post-Reformation Roman Catholic Cathedrals are all in the latter style; while most other lists are a mix of the two. Any objection to standardising on the latter style? TSP (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I confess to being solely responsible for the change to what you feel is an "un-Wiki-like" style for certain entries. It results from my attempt over recent months to reduce the wordage of entries where possible by making a clear link to an article containing a full treatment of that former cathedral. You will find comments earlier on this Talk page that this List is too long, too wordy and much/most of the description text should be jettisoned to make it more or less just a List. That seems too extreme to me, especially considering that many entries have no associated article, but I am conscious that this List is pretty long.
You felt my extreme shortening of the entries for Chester-le-Street and Hexham was too much, and you've added text to them. Fair enough, I have no objection. The "More at ...." phrase I used was not intended as an "instruction" but rather an invitation, or a finger pointing. But I can do subtle, hoping that a non-Wikipedian visitor to the site will spot the links. I shall revise my anomalous entries asap.
Welcome to this List. The contents have been assembled almost entirely by myself for the last 8 years, so it is an unexpected pleasure for me that you have taken such an interest in the List. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of Chester-le-Street. TSP has included in their edit a statement that the Latin name of the Roman fort was CUNCASTER. This statement is not evidenced, and Google has no knowledge whatever of the name (apart from TSP's inclusion of the word in the Chester-le-Street entry). I am minded to remove that statement unless some reference can be supplied. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter Minster[edit]

@ShropshirePilgrim: The entry on Exeter Minster seems a bit weak at the moment. It says "The dual dedication implies that the minster comprised a pair of churches: the more easterly (St Peter's) became the cathedral while the other (St Mary's) served the local people."

To start with, I'm not convinced that implication holds at all - plenty of single churches have multiple dedications (Durham Cathedral has three) - so if the multiple dedication was really our only reasoning for believing St Mary's was once part of the cathedral, it would seem a weak reason to include it.

Our articles Exeter Cathedral and Church of St Mary Major, Exeter seem to paint a much clearer picture, which would justify inclusion much better: that the Saxon cathedral was on one site; the Norman cathedral on a different one; when the Norman cathedral was complete, the old minster/cathedral became the Church of St Mary. However, they don't have great sources, and I don't have access to the sources listed on this page.

Is there a reason to believe our current rather confusing description is more accurate? Do any of our sources elucidate further? TSP (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be convinced that the implication of a two-church minster "holds at all" from the twin dedication. But the source is cited (Orme) and it is an eminent academic source, much preferable to the website Exeter Memories with its ragbag of newspaper references. Naturally I have had to paraphrase from the source(s), for space and copyright reasons. I have tweaked the entry a little to try and address your concerns. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Contents Table" missing[edit]

From before the time I got involved in building this List (about 8 years ago) there was a sort of box at the top/beginning containing what I am calling the Contents Table. It consisted of a sequential list of the section headings and sub-headings, numbered and sub-numbered in order. The list was 'live' in the sense that a click on a heading (or its sub) would take your cursor to that point in the main List - a great way to avoid scrolling. Any change in the wording or ordering of a (sub)heading was automatically reflected in the Contents Table.

Recently (but I'm not clear when) that 'box' and the Contents Table it contained disappeared, so now we all have to scroll our way through the list, and a newcomer has no indication of what it contains in what order. Has anyone any idea what has happened? Is it down to one contributor accidentally deleting it, feeling it was surplus to requirements, or a blot on the landscape? Or is it the result of a decision made for all such guides, taken above my non-pay grade? If it's the former, I'd be awfully glad if some techie could reconstruct it and put it back at the top of the first page (it's beyond my competence}. As I remember it consisted of 7 headings (Introduction, England, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, Notes, References). England had 4 sub-headings, Scotland 3. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've solved my own problem. The box containing the Contents List, as I remember it, has morphed into a tiny bullet-point Menu Box at the top left of the page - click on that and the listing of sections appears, much as before. Didn't spot it earlier due to failing eyesight. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_former_cathedrals_in_Great_Britain&oldid=1208238002"