Talk:Rochester Cathedral/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Untitled

I was there the other day, and noticed that above the current roof, there is evidence of a higher pitch roof that was there before. There is a tall gable at the end of the church, and a corresponding cement lip on the other end of the roof. Anybody know why they changed it? I don't know a lot about churches.

Who restored Rochester Cathedral?

At the moment the article says it was Giles Gilbert Scott; saying he started restoation in 1880. Since that was the year in which he was born, this is clearly impossible.

If it was one of the Scott's then it could only be George Gilbert Scott junior (Giles' father) as George Gilbert Scott died in 1878. This is all assuming that the 1880 date is correct.

I've now checked the Cathedrals website and it seems that the date and architect were wrong.

http://www.kiad.ac.uk/rc/cathedral/timeline.asp

The restoration was carried out by George Gilbert Scott, starting in 1872. I'll change the article accordingly.

Ecadre

Main picture

Hi - I thought the main picture was getting a little old (and looked somewhat miserable!) so swapped it for this one. Hope ok. Raggatt2000 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional material

Editors may wish to review additional material I have on User:Martin of Sheffield/Rochester Cathedral where the article is nearly completed (currently just the east end and crypt to do). Please feel free to extract any or all the the unofficial text for inclusion in the main article. Be warned though that my style has been characterised as "tiresome", "twee", "a gushy tourist brochure" and "antiquated" by a more senior editor. I would suggest therefore that you do not copy it directly or you too may be castigated for stylistic faux pas! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since no-one has finished this off in an acceptable style, I have copied in the original work I did.Martin of Sheffield (talk)

"greatly disapointed"

Is this incorrect spelling a correct quote from some old source quoted by Mackie, or an error by Mackie, or an error in copying from Mackie? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll check up this evening and report back later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Error in copying! Text is now corrected. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I submitted the article for reassessment; here are the reviewer's remarks should anyone wish to adopt them:

Raised to C, as is comprehensive and overall structured. But the text I find lengthy and difficult to follow. Suggest asking help from the Guild of Copy Editors. The lead needs to be more comprehensive per WP:LEAD. The architecture section is not well structured, being hard to follow the logic of the description. For more detailed feedback suggest listing it for peer-review. --ELEKHHT 11:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI : There is no correct plural form of The Reverend.

From A Dictionary of American-English Usage based on Fowler's Modern English Usage:

"Reporters giving lists of clergy have difficulties with the plural of the abbreviation; but, since reverend is an adjective (& not, like parson in the now disused 'Parson Jones & Smith,' a noun), there is neither occasion for not correctness in such forms as Revs. & Revds. ..." Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Consistent spelling

I have no preference which, but could we settle on 'quire' or 'choir', please? There are instances of both. Ministry (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I have changed all the architectural choirs to quires. Please note that the choir stalls are stalls belonging to the choir rather than stalls in the quire, and the choir organ is that part which sounds like a choir rather than being built into a quire. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(Roman) Catholic

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: The use of the adjective seems to be a 19thC invention to distinguish between post-reformation churches. Prior to the reformation there was just the Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Post reformation the term Catholic (in contradistinction to catholic) still differentiated them from (for example) Lutherans, Anglicans or Presbyterian. It is interesting to note that the link in the infobox is to Catholic Church but piped to Roman Catholic. I think therefore that the change should be reverted, but can we have a brief discussion here first please? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Roman Catholic (term), it was invented in the 16th century, and I would say that Roman Catholic rather than simply Catholic is more commonly used in British English. Just looking around Wikipedia, Church of England has "Separated from Roman Catholic Church" in its infobox, Canterbury Cathedral, Winchester Cathedral, and Salisbury Cathedral use Roman Catholic in the "Previous denomination" parameter. In fact, every cathedral I checked (if it has the "Previous denomination" parameter) lists Roman Catholic rather than just Catholic. If you look outside of Wikipedia, the Anglican Communion website uses Roman Catholic, as does the BBC. Its about common use and Roman Catholic is what's used in British English. The article is titled Catholic Church, but in the first line it states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church". Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 16:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree about modern usage, and thanks for the link to the terminology. If, as you say, all other pre-reformation cathedrals use the "Roman" tag I'll accept it for the sake of consistency. It does seem odd though using a term that "appeared in the English language at the beginning of the 17th century" as a means of differentiation to describe an undifferentiated pre-reformation church. It's akin to arguing if the pre-schism churches were Catholic or Orthodox when they believed they were both. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Angulo - angulus

Retaining an inflected form like "angulo" out of its phrase is the kind of thing that leads people (editors in other Wikis, historical amateur bloggers or whatever) to believe the word "is" "angulo" and to quote it that way (like "the Latin word 'angulo' was used …" etc.). I have not collected instances of it to link to here, but I've seen it more than once.

And, just to have it said, using "angulus" for the word in isolation within a modern English sentence isn't a question of sources – just of Latin grammar (classical and medieval) and English conventions. 151.177.62.193 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you in this context. Remember WP:RF. The English sentence was "...was established in angulo navis ... it is not clear to which "angulo" was ..." and expecting all our readers to understand that "angulus" is the nominative singular of "angulo" is unreasonable. Indeed for someone who has not studied Latin "angulus" looks more like a plural. This is not a Latin primer! Since you find direct quotes so troublesome I will remove the Latin and just user the word corner to facilitate reader comprehension. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And I can hardly understand how you can get me so wrong. My point is exactly that people don't know Latin. That's why English-speakers (and most others) will interpret "angulo" as the singular form of the word if that's the only form given – and, on occasion, pass that interpretation on. In my view, you are the one who expects people to understand that the word is "angulus".

Giving the lemma form "angulus" may be puzzling at first, but it's not likely that you will not recognise the word; someone interested might look it up; others might think something like "grammar …" and still be a little more inclined to follow the English author when quoting the word out of phrase instead of being certain to pass it on wrongly. You can't always have everything served on a plate and this has worked for some time in print. But, granted, I could have linked to "nominative" or something. That's a possibility that has come with the Internet. 151.177.62.193 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

… but OK, "corner" is better than explicitly leading in the wrong direction. 151.177.62.193 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rochester 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:

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) 22:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)