Talk:Wells Cathedral/Archive 1

Untitled
Someone has got to clean this up and cite sources. I can tell just from reading the "present structure" section that this was copied word-for-word from the official cathedral website. This is unacceptable. --Criticalthinker 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You were right. Large sections were a direct copy & paste from the cathedral web site. I've now reworded these & added more content from a range of other sources. I'd be grateful for any further edits or comments as I'd like to get this article up to GA.&mdash; Rod talk 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

West Front
I think this subject deserves a sub-section of it's own. I have seen detailed descriptions of the different levels of the scultures and will try to find those references and add material. Recently i saw a tv show (buildings of britain - i think) where they talked about a row of holes from where trumpets were blown. These can be seen high up in the center of the picture of the west front. Elsewhere are places for choristers to stand and sing. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bringing it up to GA
There's quite a lot of problems here. As has been pointed out, most of the info has been lifted from the cathedral website in its entirety, except for the Introduction which has been lifted from what I wrote, elsewhere. The intro has a signifcant error. The dates are in conflict, and no-one has fixed them.

The History on the Cathedral page is not very well written. It contains this statement which has obviously been written by someone who hasn't thought through what they meant. It's all perfectly true, just confusingly written: 'he built the south-west tower of the West Front and designed the north west, which was built to match in the early 1400s..
 * This tells us that the towers match. In other words, the designs are the same. So to say that he "built one" and "designed one" is simply confusing the issue. What it should say is: "He designed the western towers, of which the northwest tower was not completed until the early 1400s."
 * This type of confusing language is used at various other places. It could all be simpler and more readable.
 * I would not feel at all happy about putting up for promotion any article which is largely lifted from another website. It's plagiarism, and we can't take any credit for it. I'll see what I can do, but WARNING its likely to be radical.

Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the plagiarism issues. As discussed above I have been through & re worded large chunks which were directly copied from the Wells cathedral web site & have found a variety of alternative sources - as it had almost no references when I started working on it a few weeks ago. I did copy some of your text for the intro - but take that as a compliment & if its already on wikipedia surely that is allowed? Some of the convoluted text may be mine & I would welcome "radical" editing.&mdash; Rod talk 09:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the dates of damage to the cathedral by solders you state that damage to the organ was caused during the Monmouth rebellion (1685) and yet give civil war dates I was unaware that any damage was due to the Monmouth rebellion ( although St Cuthbert’s church was used as a prison) and understood that the damage was caused by puritan solders in the civil war? (paul Ancill ancillp@msn.com ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancill (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of sub & assistant organists etc
Would anyone object if I moved the lists of organists and assistant organists into a separate article - perhaps List of organists and assistant organists of Wells Cathedral in the same way that the Dean of Wells and Bishop of Bath and Wells are in stand alone lists. The Manual of Style/Embedded lists discourages lists in the body of the article and I t5hinbk this would be a barrier to getting this to GA.&mdash; Rod talk 13:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea.--Charles (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tis done. Any other help in getting this article to GA standard would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 14:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
I would like to get this article up to GA standard. I am grateful for the help so far received (and more promised). As part of this I would like to remove and/or reorganise some of the pictures which make the article look "cluttered". Template:Double image and Template:multiple image have been suggested as possible ways to help, but I think we need to remove some of them. Which pictures do other editors think should be kept, removed or put into duble or multiple image templates? They should of course all be in the category at Commons.&mdash; Rod talk 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Some comments on specific images: I will take a look in the commons category and perhaps suggest some images on this page. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A picture of the chapter house and the ceiling would be great, but not the truly awful and ugly circular images in "Present structure" section.
 * There is some clear duplication between the image entitled "The inverted arch in Wells Cathedral, in 2006." and "The nave and strainer arches c.1890". My suggestion is to keep the 2006 picture.
 * There is also duplication between the "West front" infobox image and the one at the bottom entitled "Wells Cathedral sunset, November 2011" at the end of the article. My suggestion is to keep the infobox image.
 * I don't think either of the clock pictures is especially good, yet the clock is one of the most impressive features of the cathedral. We need a single much better picture that shows off the whole clock.
 * It would be nice to have pictures of the font, the organ, and the altar, but all three of the existing pictures are not very well framed.
 * Pictures I really like include the "Chapter House steps", "The cloisters", "Plan showing four massive piers", "Elaborate metal work on the Undercroft door", and the "aerial picture showing the cathedral and Vicars Close".
 * Thanks - I'll await comments by others before removing them but re the clock - we could reuse one or more from Wells Cathedral clock.&mdash; Rod talk 21:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with all of Bob's comments (even though he binned a load of my Exmouth pics before he was re-born!) The worse picture by far for me is the "clock quarter jack". It could be wonderful. I really don't know why it's so bad. The circular images are indeed quite ugly. I think it's their novelty that makes them so. And there should definitely be some better ones of the glass and any notable monuments. Regrettably I have never visited or I might be able to offer better suggestions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments - I have removed some listed above & moved others around. I'd be happy for more to go or be replaced.&mdash; Rod talk 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we all need a good long look in Commons and to wait for any more comments from other editors. But an improvement already, I think. (While I personally like "The cloisters" as an image, it would perhaps be more accurately captioned "a large yewtree in the churchyard with the cloisters in the background"). The altar is a very nice image too, but (even if not historically significant) needs a mention somewhere in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bells
I noticed the other day that the bells were described as being anti-clockwise. As a bell-ringer myself, and having heard that the bells of Bath Abbey are the only anti-clockwise peal of 10 in the world, I was surprised and this and suspected it to be incorrect. Then yesterday I rang there myself for the first time and found that they are indeed clockwise, as is usual. So I have deleted the relevant sentence. Matthew Butler
 * If at all possible could the notes of the bells be added? A list or table might be better, where dates of casting could also be easily incorporated. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Choirs and Choristers
The sections on Choirs and Choristers seem to be closely related. Do others think they could be combined into one section?&mdash; Rod talk 14:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact I think these two + Vicars Choral and the Voluntary Choir could all be combined into one sub section - thus shortening the overlong table of contents.&mdash; Rod talk 14:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Combined three, but left the Voluntary choir separate. Amandajm (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a way of formatting the TOC so that it doesn't show all the sub-sub-sections, meaning that under the sub-heading Exterior you could lose the list facade, tower, porch etc. I don't know how it's done. Amandajm (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found and used Template:TOC limit which enables you to set the level of subheadings shown.&mdash; Rod talk 08:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I might apply it here and there myself!
 * As you can see, I've fiddled with the pics some more, and I think they are looking OK. Thos two exterior shots of the north side Tower and porch really are terribly gloomy! I'm very pleased with the set of four that show the last bays of the choir, the Lady Chapel and the retrochoir. Even though that retrochoir pic is low resolution, it goes very well in that gallery.  It would be nice to have one from about the same angle with the same degree of brightness, but bigger file. I ask a lot, don't I?  Amandajm (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything else needed before GA nom?
Can anyone think of anything else that is needed to meet the Good article criteria?&mdash; Rod talk 21:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rodw, you've done a great job of preparing this to put forward. I think it's time to do it.  Amandajm (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK Nom done.&mdash; Rod talk 08:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wells' Bells
Does anybody out there know them personally enough to call them by name? Do they have dedications or inscriptions? Amandajm (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What else is needed to get this article to FA?
What else do people think is needed before this article would be ready for a FA nomination?&mdash; Rod talk 20:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly busy. Just dropped by to check my watch list. I will get back to you on this, as getting it through the FA process takes a bit of effort! Amandajm (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dab & date for Pliny
In the library section is a link to Pliny for "Pliny's Natural History printed in 1472", however the dab page doesn't have any author which would fit that date - are we talking about a version of Natural History (Pliny) if so is it likely to have been "printed" or copied long hand by the monks?&mdash; Rod talk 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's only 22 years after Johannes Gutenberg first printed anything, in 1450. But Natural History (Pliny) tells us "The work was one of the first classical manuscripts to be printed, having been so at Venice in 1469 by Johann and Wendelin of Speyer..." so it's possible it is indeed one of the earliest printed books. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC) ... and see page 175 here!
 * Thanks does give the impression it was "printed" (by Jenson at Venice) - shall I just link to Natural History (Pliny) otherwise leave alone? (the source you pointed to is if anyone thinks we should include it as a citation).&mdash; Rod talk 19:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, Rod. Thanks for spelling that source out. I just did the links, but I guess maybe the Pliny the Elder link is optional. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bishop
I've been trying to add references for the details in the infobox & find the Bishop Peter Price retired on 30 June. His successor will not be appointed for a while. How should we show this in the infobox & lead?&mdash; Rod talk 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the recent edit history here might help? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd century figure?
"John Bernard, died 145;" Looks 1300 years early to me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - should be 1459.&mdash; Rod talk 07:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference Issues
I've now been through most of the references, formatting them to use the sfn template etc but have found a few issues.. Any help appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I've dealt with a couple of these. Page numbers still needed for Smith (Ref 90) & Remnant (Ref 92).&mdash; Rod talk 11:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 51 (magic stats) & 53 (Newsletter no 35) are deadlinks - can anyone replace?
 * Ref 76 - just says O.E.D. - I assume this is the Oxford English Dictionary but more detail is needed - not sure this one is needed anyway - can I remove it?
 * Ref 88 - does anyone have a copy of to add page numbers?
 * Ref 90 - does anyone have a copy of to add page number?
 * Ref 107 Wells Cathedral Voluntary Choir - shows up as a problem on "checklinks" saying "Blacklisted URL exists in page" I think this is because the site wants to play you sound - but I'm not sure - any ideas whether there are other issues?

In trying to sort out & standardise the isbn formats in the bibliography I have a problem with: I can't trace it & the isbn is wrong.&mdash; Rod talk 12:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Smith has only two pages of writing, pp. 1,2. plus a brief descriptive title to each picture e.g. "Man with cup asking his wife for more".  The indication that one misericord is in the V&A comes from the caption on page 22.  Amandajm (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - so could you put p=22 within the sfn temaplate for the V&A claim but we have 6 other claims cited to that book - I think each needs the page no adding - even it is just the page no where the info is in a caption to a pic.&mdash; Rod talk 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Clock
Ey up! Done some work on astronomical clocks recently, and noticed there was no mention of Peter Lighfoot, the monk who supposedly constructed the dial in 1325:


 * It is difficult to give any intelligible account of the elaborate functions discharged by this wonderful piece of mechanism with any brevity, and we must refer the anxious to the Canon Church's detailed account. It must here suffice to quote the few words concerning this clock to be found in A Concise History of Wells Cathedral, written more than a century ago, by John Davis, the verger:


 * In an old chapel of the northern transept is a curious old specimen of the art of clockmaking; it is a dial constructed by Peter Lightfoot, a monk of Glastonbury, about the year 1325, of complicated design an ingenious execution.


 * undefined

The passage goes on to say that similar clocks in Wimborne Minster and Exeter Cathedral have been attributed to Lightfoot. I think we should say something of Lightfoot either here or in the main clock article; plenty of other, older books cite him as creator of the clock. Here's just some:




 * --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (Exeter Cathedral Astronomical Clock seems currently to have no attribution, either at its own article, or at the main Cathedral article.) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, fix it, Dear Henry! Amandajm (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll let Henry know, or even Henrietta. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoever-you-are-without-a-name
Plleeeaaase leave this article alone until you know that "Flowing Decorated" takes two capital letters, and so does "Early Christian".

I fixed 16 errors introduced by some well-meaning person who decided to "tidy-up" the expression.

I tried to maintain the useful tweaks to grammar and brevity, but ultimately gave up, and reverted the lot, when I discovered how many of the tweaks had resulted in inaccuracies. If I can be bothered I'll return a few of the better edits, but I really wish people who are not familiar with the subject would desist from making changes to what they don't understand.

Amandajm (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction
In one paragraph it saying: "The scissor-arches are known as the "St Andrew's Cross arches" as a reference to the patronal saint of the cathedral and are "brutally massive" and intrusive in an otherwise restrained interior.[9]", yet the caption alongside describes the same arches as "The strainer arches divide the internal spaces in a dynamic way." Which is it? I prefer the latter. Additionally, It probably ought to be patron saint rather than patronal.  Giano  22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the "brutally massive" as a direct quote from Swaan's book (which I don't have) and the picture caption "dynamic" as a different opinion. They are also called "scissor arches" in the text and "strainer arches" in the picture caption. I am hoping that User:Amandajm will be able to comment on this one.&mdash; Rod talk 08:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Brutally massive" and intrusive? Definitely!  A dynamic division of the space? That, too.
 * One could hardly say that "brutal" (in the architectural sense) and "dynamic" were mutually exclusive.
 * Both are true. Neither has to go. They are different ways of describing the effect of the arches, which is, ultimately, to chop the interior into parts.
 * When seen from the nave, the arches really are very brutal and intrusive. When the overall effect of the arches upon the entire interior is taken into account, then they "divide the internal space in a dynamic way".
 * Giano, I don't know why you have a problem with it. You know perfectly well that there is more than one description for any object. Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me what I may or may not know. What I do know is that in architectural language 'dynamic' is rather exiting and full of movement, and Brutal is harsh, stationary, solid and in your face. So I don't see how both terms can be used for the same object on the same page. It's all very well quoting all these experts authoritatively, but it would help if you chose experts sharing from the same school of though or at least explain that Jones thinks A, but Smith thinks B.  Giano   11:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the my presumption! (You are the second sensitive editor to whom I have been obliged to apologise within the day!)
 * Shall I presume then that you do not know that an object may be...... No! Obviously that is the wrong assumption as well........


 * Is "brutal" essentially stationary? Those arches are, without doubt, harsh and in-your-face, (to use your words).  The detailing is crude, compared with the refinement of other parts of the building. Those two owl's eyes looked as if they have been excavated by a Titan with a cordless-drill the size of a tractor.
 * I don't think we can argue "dynamic", since there is a certain overwhelming sort of flow about those arches and their brutal mouldings (No, cut brutal!)
 * "Brutal" and "dynamic"? Mutually incompatible, or....what?
 * There is only a problem here, because you, Giano, find the two terms mutually exclusive. I do not consider that they are. In fact, I consider that to state that one writer finds the the arches "brutal" while the other finds them "dynamic" would be to labour the point as if the two terms were in fact, mutually exclusive.
 * It all hangs in your use of the word "stationary" when describing "brutal".
 * Amandajm (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you like Amanda.  Giano   09:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Giano! I just needed someone to be so kind and reasonable! Amandajm (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Amanda, I was surrendering - not agreeing with you.  Giano   19:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Giano! I was reading some good grace into your reply. Perhaps that was taking it too far.
 * What I should have said was something like: "Ya! He backed down! That makes six to Giano and one to me! Yah!" Amandajm (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * .....returns feeling small and chastened..... I suppose you are going to say now that you didn't like the baklava, either.... Amandajm (talk)
 * Scissors arches/strainer arches: Scissors describes the shape, strainers is what they do.  In describing them as having been inserted for a purpose, then "strainer arches" would be preferred. In describing their appearance to the laity, then "scissor arches" would be preferred.
 * With regards to the best display of Medieval sculpture in Britain, yes it is quite some statement, but true beyond doubt, but I have adjusted it, anyway, to "one of". There is only one other contender: Exeter Cathedral is careful to claim only that it has the best display of "14th-century" sculpture in Britain. The facade there is about 100 years later than that of Wells. (Only a handful of figures at Salisbury are medieval.)  Wells has retained more figures than Exeter.
 * As for the statement that the synthesis of architecture and sculpture is "unsurpassed".... Well, that is not to say it is the "finest", merely that there is nothing better.  The sculptured screen at Exeter is finely detailed, but the whole facade looks like a  piecemeal construction.      The situation here is a bit comparable to asking "What is Christopher Wren's greatest church?"  or "What is the greatest rock band to come out of Liverpool?"  The facade of Well's cathedral might not be quite as well known to the public, but the question of its standing in terms of the Medieval architecture of Britain is without question. It's not as if we are looking at a vast number of sculptural facades.
 * Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What else is needed to move this article towards a FA nomination
This article is looking good and has been stable again for a while. I am going to put it up for peer review to see if a new pairs of eyes comes up with anything useful, but can any of the regular editors identify anything which is needed to get this article to meet the Featured article criteria?&mdash; Rod talk 14:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The paragraph on the North Porch includes a link to Saint Edmund which is a dab page. I presume this should be Edmund the Martyr but there are several other martyrs so can anyone confirm?&mdash; Rod talk 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly. Does he have a crown? The only other Pre-Reformation possiblility is Edward Rich, not a martyr & only canonized after 1243, who would wear a mitre. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the section Plan and dates there is a table that lists the architectural styles. I know that many have probably been wikilinked in the preceding text, but would it be useful to reiterate them here? --Derek Andrews (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look at doing this but have a couple of queries:
 * The first (choir) is described as "Early English Gothic" while the next three (Transept..., West front & Undercroft of chapter house) are described as "Early English". Is there meant to be a difference as the best link I can find for both is English Gothic architecture?&mdash; Rod talk 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Chapter House is described as "Geometric Decorated Gothic", Lady Chapel = "Reticulated Gothic" and Central tower & "St Andrew's Arches" under the tower = "Decorated Gothic", Reconstruction of choir, retrochoir = Flowing Decorated/Reticulated Gothic. I could make a link to English Gothic architecture, but I can't find anything specific for "Reticulated Gothic"
 * The south west tower =Perpendicular Gothic - would everyone be happy with a link to English Gothic architecture
 * The next four are "Perpendicular" I presume this could also link to English Gothic architecture
 * The Choir and pulpitum altered = "Gothic Revival" I presume this can go to Gothic Revival architecture.
 * I am (vaguely) aware of a guideline to only wikilink the first occurrence in a list, but if different terms are used which will be linked to the same article (or sub section of it) would it be better to link each occurrence?
 * I also note that the North Porch (No 10 on plan) and Cloister (No 12) are not included in the list of dates & architectural styles.&mdash; Rod talk 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
Just a couple of minor points of annoyance (to me) on reading the lede, which I will leave for FA editors to decide what if anything should be changed.

1- "Unlike the majority of the current structures of the English cathedrals which were started in the Norman period, Wells Cathedral was the first begun as a Gothic design." A lot of words here, that don't really say very much and leave me wondering exactly what is implied, especially "the majority of the current structures" which seems rather vague and weasely. Is it implying that there were earlier ones started as Gothic, but which no longer exist? Also, 'Norman period' linking to Romanesque architecture is not exactly clear either.

2- "Wells" is used to refer to both the cathedral itself (which I find rather pompous) and other parts of the city, or at least the Liberty (ie Bishop's Palace and Vicars Close). I think that wherever we mean the cathedral, we should say so, for example "the choir at wells" would become "the choir at Wells cathedral".--Derek Andrews (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) There is nothing "weasely" in any of this.  Many of the cathedrals were founded earlier than the Norman period, but it is not apparent in their structure.  Winchester, for example, has the foundations of the Saxon church in the lawn to the south.  Only a very small number have Saxon remains within the present building.  Most of the cathedral buildings date from the Norman period ( as against their ecclesiastic or monastic date of foundation which might be 200-400 years earlier.)  Norman architecture is the term usually used for Romanesque architecture of Normandy and Britain.   Wells is unusual for not being in part Norman.  It was begun at a later date than the majority, just before Lichfield and about 40 years earlier than Salisbury.  Wells and Salisbury and Lichfield are each quite unified in their designs while the other 24 ancient cathedral buildings all have bits and pieces of different dates, generally stretching over about 400-500 years, and with no attempt to make anything match.
 * 2) When it has been established that the subject of discussion is the cathedral, and that comparisons are being made to different cathedrals, then it is the normal parlance to simply refer to the place name, rather than keep repeating the word, "cathedral".  In this case, it is clear from the sense that what is being referred to is the Cathedral. In the case of the Bishop's palace, it is the Bishop's Palace at Wells Cathedral that is meant, not a palace outside the cathedral precinct and within the town. Banister Fletcher makes a distinction only when he is also referring to buildings that are not cathedrals, e.g. "the fan vaulting at Gloucester Cathedral and at Bath Abbey".  The choirs are referred to in the same way.  If someone said "The choirs of Bristol and Wells are giving a recital", then it would generally be understood that it was the cathedral choirs that were being referred to, provided it was in the context of church music.
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In the light of your latter comment, I have just checked it out, and made one change (from Wells clock to Wells Cathedral clock as per the article). In fact, at the beginning of every major section, where relevant the term "Wells Cathedral" is used in an introductory sentence. This makes it perfectly clear what is being referred to. And the convention follows, as I have pointed out. Amandajm (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Norman period' seems ambiguous and poorly defined. Are we talking politically or architecturally? In looking at Norman_architecture I read "Norman masons introduced the new Gothic architecture. Around 1191 Wells Cathedral and Lincoln Cathedral brought in the English Gothic style". Could we not just say something clear like that? Maybe "It was the first English cathedral to be designed from the start in Gothic style". Or (if this is true) "Although other English cathedrals began adopting the Gothic style during construction, Wells was the first English cathedral to be designed from the outset in Gothic style". I do wonder though if we need all three of these sentences to spell out the nuances of this point? --Derek Andrews (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some rewording may be helpful, but the distinction between earlier vanished buildings and what can still be seen is important and worth keeping. There was at least one previous church building so terms like "start" and "outset" are potentially misleading. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been changed. Are we still not happy with it? The "Norman period" when referring to architecture means "Romanesque". The interesting thing here is that we have two contemporary buildings, the choir of Canterbury, and the choir of Wells. William of Sens is known to be the architect at Canterbury. The link with Sens Cathedral is clear, and one would say, in that case, that the Gothic style was introduced by "the Normans". Wells Cathedral has nothing to do with this. It is impossible to look at Wells Cathedral and deduce that the building style came from France.  It is nothing like anything, except that it has pointed arches. It was plainly built by someone who had seen something Gothic and has created their own free interpretation of it.  In terms of innovative design, Wells Cathedral is light years ahead of the choir of Canterbury.  I am beginning to rave..... Amandajm (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have done a wonderful job Amanda and it has resolved the problem I had with it. Thank you. The only thing I see in the lead that I haven't fixed myself: should we link Gothic? --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Should the lead include mention of the dedication to St Andrew? --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers still needed
We have a couple of references which still don't have any page numbers (which I suspect might be an issue if this article does finally get to FA nomination): Does anyone have access to these to add page numbers?&mdash; Rod talk 11:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 100 - Smith, John Colin Dinsdale (1975). Picture Book of Misericords of Wells Cathedral. Friends of Wells Cathedral. ISBN 978-0902321151.
 * Ref 102 - Remnant, G.L.; M.D. Anderson (1969). A Catalogue of Misericords in Great Britain. Clarendon Press.


 * I think that Smith's booklet doesn't have numbered pages. I'm not sure where I've mislaid it to! I believe all the written info is in the front, and then there is a picture gallery.
 * I don't know about the other source. Maybe it's online. Maybe it was quoted second-hand from a very nice website that didn't give the pages. Amandajm (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Smith: pp. 1-2 and 25. I am not sure how to add this because of the way the refs are now formatted. Amandajm (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now found a |"read inside" copy of Remnants book which lists 64 at Wells (pages 142-144) but I can't see the support for the claim "The misericords at Wells date from 1330 to 1340" as used in this article.&mdash; Rod talk 13:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in Smith. Ordered 1325. Problems with payment stalled the production. They wanted them in by 1339 for the opening of the choir which had been refurbished. The boy with the thorn in his foot dates from 1664. Amandajm (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference or note
The current No 81 in the reference list says "Banister Fletcher lists the features and says, "The highest development in English Gothic of this type of facade" This appears to be more of a note than a reference. Should this be moved to a note (it would be the only one) or incorporated into the text? Can anyone provide the proper reference for "Banister Fletcher " as I can't see it in either the rest of the reference list or bibliography.&mdash; Rod talk 11:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We have an ongoing Banister Fletcher problem. I use the 17th edition, which I bought secondhand 45 years ago. Nothing in the section on Medieval England has changed, as far as I'm aware, but other sections have been expanded considerably. Well meaning editors correct my reference by inserting the latest edition, and then all the pages are stuffed up so that you couldn't find the reference if you wanted to. Amandajm (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The note supports the caption "unsurpassed in Britain". I'll find the page number.
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Amandajm (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved Sir Banister into the body of the article and put in four supporting refs for the caption. Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I think we need to add Banister Fletcher to the bibliography.&mdash; Rod talk 13:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I find formatting stuff like that so stressful that I need a brandy and a lie down! I'll just go back to stuffing around with the Tree of Jesse article, unless you need me further. Amandajm (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the Fletcher ref & think this one is resolved. When you've had your well deserved lie down (& brandy) could you take a look at the questions about linking architectural styles etc in the "What else is needed to move this article towards a FA nomination" section above?&mdash; Rod talk 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've linked "Gothic" in the first instance. I've linked Romanesque. Anything else can link to the article  English Gothic architecture which has sections on the major divisions of style. It's 1.30 in the Land of Oz. Tomorrow I have to take a tour of an historic cemetery so I'm turning in. Thanks for everything!

Precinct
I have made a few changes to this section and hope i am not stepping on anyone's toes here. I don't think it is true to say that the cathedral is in a walled precinct. Some is walled and some is not; some is just buildings; some walls has been removed, but I don't think it ever completely surrounded the cathedral. I must admit that I always assumed that the 'walled' area was synonymous with the Liberty of St Andrews, but maps on Somerset Historic Environment Record suggest that the liberty was larger, taking in the rec ground in the SW (and not surprisingly the tithe barn), and in the NE much of the cathedral school grounds as far as North road and up St Thomas Street. So I have removed my earlier mention of the liberty and retitled this section 'Surrounding buildings', which I think is what the section is really about anyway. happy to discuss further if need be.

On a lighter note, I just came across an interesting historical note (p144→) about the drunken and riotous behaviour of people associated with the cathedral. Enjoy. --Derek Andrews (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I presume the barn being referred to is The Bishop's Barn, Wells, but I'm not sure whether it should be included somewhere in the history section of this article.&mdash; Rod talk 12:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that's the barn Rod. I don't see any need to mention it in this article as it is some distance from the cathedral.--Derek Andrews (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
The content dispute seems to be resolved as far as I can tell per what appears to me to be a strong consensus on the article's talk page (and in discussion elsewhere including the edit war noticeboard page). Perhaps one of the kind admins here can remove the page protection so editors can resume work on the article? As it's being worked up for FA it seems there is a timing issue and some frustrations have been expressed regarding the protection issue. I think leaving a page protected for an extended time over this type of dispute can in fact be a kind of disruption and in this case there doesn't seem to me to be much of a remaining dispute? Numerous editors have weighed in. I wouldn't think more would be needed but I suppose an RFC could be conducted it the outcome isn't abundantly clear already? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Candle, what was the strong consensus arrived at, and where on this page can I find it? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Restrictive which section. It looks like a consensus to me. If someone really thinks the issue is unresolved then I suppose they need to start an RfC, but I think the consensus is quite clear. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a creative imagination. There is no consensus here.  There is also no deadline.  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to get consensus for an edit to this protected page re citation placement
I note this page has been protected. I am trying to follow the procedure at Edit requests as I believe there is an error with citation placement, which (hopefully) shouldn't be too controversial.

In the Misericords section (1st line of the 2nd para) Remnant 1969 (Ref 103) is used to support the claim "The misericords at Wells date from 1330 to 1340." Having looked at the book (page 142-144) it doesn't give dates but does support the claim in the 4th sentence of that para about the number. I am assured that Smith 1975 (Ref 101) does support the claim about the dates of the misericords.

Therefore I request that Ref 103 is moved to the 4th sentence and that Ref 101 is reused to support the dates.&mdash; Rod talk 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have either reference, but your suggested edit seems reasonable to me.--Derek Andrews (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now done this.&mdash; Rod talk 16:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That paragraph again
User:Eric Corbett

Eric dear, turning three statements back to front isn't a "minor" edit, when they are in the first paragraph and have been literally sweated over. (OK, it's Australia, and it's humid, I have to admit) But inserting a semi-colon, with or without a hyphen, is the last straw!. That semi-colon, right in the middle of the third paragraph has upset me far more than any misplaced this or that..... (or was it which or what... I can never remember the difference!) Now I need a brandy, lime and soda, to get over it! (Incidentally, most of those thats and whiches were my doing. And I really have very little conscience about it.) Amandajm (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether a particular edit is minor or not is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, and equally our opinions are not altogether aligned on this point. But I look at it this way; at least I gave you an excuse to have a drink. Eric   Corbett  13:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottle was empty...... However, playing a couple of rounds of minesweeper is very soothing! Amandajm (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (The above interaction intended, on my part, to be humorous and take the edge off the fact that I had reverted a number of well-intentiond changes. I hope this is clear.) Amandajm (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Eric Corbett, what exactly is ridiculous?
 * Your present edit "appearing much as it does today" is a vast improvement over your last effort which was "and it appeared much as it does today".
 * Please don't refer to my edits as "ridiculous" unless you really are sure that what you have written is an improvement.


 * Unfortunately, a number of your recent edits (particularly the one that you regarded as "minor" but which changed Wells from a secular to a monastic foundation) have been inaccurate or misleading.
 * I am finding it hard to comprehend why you are quite so insistent on maintaing some of the changes that you have made, when the author is of the opinion that the original wordings express the facts more accurately.


 * Let me say again that semicolons have a role, both in longwinded legalise where many clauses need separating, and in short snappy sentences in which the writer is balancing a couple of facts.  I like coffee; she likes tea   They need to be used for effect.
 * They generally do not work effectively for stringing complete sentences together. Whenever Wikipedia writers do it, it is almost always badly done.
 * The bishop was buried near the choir; the grave has no inscription is bad because the two short sentences have no linking idea.  The subjects are different and not of a similar type. The location has no bearing on lack of inscription
 * The bishop's grave is in the choir; it has no inscription. is better  although it could be better expressed.
 * The bishop was detested; even the stonemason refused to engrave his name.   In this combination of two sentences the semicolon is being used to make a real point in which the second reflects significantly on the first.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

the majority
''The architecture of the cathedral presents a harmonious whole, being entirely Gothic and mostly in a single style, the Early English Gothic of the late 12th and early 13th centuries. In this Wells differs from the majority of English medieval cathedrals, which have parts in the earlier Romanesque architectural style introduced to Britain by the Normans in the 11th century.''

User:Eric Corbett, you have changed this a number of times.
 * Your first change reordered the sentences so that the main point was lost.
 * And now you are arguing over my use of the words "the majority", when you would prefer it to be expressed as "most".

You have been offered this explanation as an edit summary: "That has been carefully worded to mean EXACTLY what is meant. It is different in this manner from 24 of the cathedrals and similar to two others."
 * and reverted with: "not carefully enough worded", (following immediately by an edit summary telling me about another matter "that's simply ridiculous".)

Well, I've had lunch and considered why it is that writing "differs from the majority of English medieval cathedrals" says more to me than the simplified "differs from most English medieval cathedrals".
 * I have to ask myself whether i am simply being bloody minded.
 * I take into account that User:Derek Andrews had queries about the facts presented in this section, and that this had prompted me to make changes to the paragraph, explaining the mode and significance of Well's difference to the majority of other English medieval cathedrals. The point that I am making here is that I am not averse to change.


 * Then why am I being apparently so stubborn as to insist that my wording Wells differs from the majority of' English medieval cathedrals, is to be preferred?
 * The reason is this: most can mean almost anything. It is a simple, commonplace word that could imply "all the rest".
 * The use of the term "the majority" carries the inherent implication that there is a "minority".
 * This is the case. Apart from Wells, there is Salisbury Cathedral.   (Until recently it was believed that no part of the Norman building still existed at Lichfield, but I have just read that remains have been found within the existent fabric)  So that brings us to a minority of two. Wells Cathedral, and the enormously significant Salisbury Cathedral.


 * We either could go with "the majority of...." or write Salisbury into the equation.
 * But there is reason for not doing this. A number of the so-called "parish church cathedrals" are ancient, but entirely Gothic. This is a bit of a minefield. I don't want to be writing lengthy footnotes to explain why buildings are included or excluded.


 * So, unless you can come up with a really good reason for insisting that the words "the majority of" be dropped in favour of "most", I shall make the change accordingly.
 * I await your reply.  Amandajm (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority of is simply a prolix alternative to most, it carries no additional meaning. But it is of course your choice whether you want this article's prose to be improved now, or wait until it's criticised at FAC. No skin off my nose either way. Eric   Corbett  12:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If what is meant is "all other English medieval cathedrals except Salisbury", why not just say so? A couple of words longer, but precise and informative. Pam  D  19:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All other is a very cry from most or even the excessively wordy the majority of. Eric   Corbett  19:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "All other" means "everything other than." - "The majority of" means "most, but not all." Now here's the interesting thing: "most" just means most - isn't that clever? One single little four-letter word sums up all we want to say.  As a general rule of thumb, "when in doubt leave it out" and that applies to excess words as well as sex. Verbosity is not a virtue. It's a pity that it takes a non-native speaker with not one jot of understanding of your grammar to tell you. Amanda, you should  know better, and Eric (on this occasion, you do know best) why don't you just carry on and then all of you together can get this rather nice page to FA.   Giano   20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure that would ever be possible Giano. If this article was presented at FAC in its current state I'd rip the arse out of it. Eric   Corbett  20:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to  Pam  D, thanks, I'd considered that. But that's too simple to work, I'm afraid.  There are a number of cathedrals which have been made cathedrals more recently, but have previously been large parish churches or collegiate churches.  A number of them are of Gothic foundation. They are generally lumped together as "the parish church cathedrals". It leads to this minefield of what constitutes a "medieval cathedral".


 * User:Eric Corbett, I have given good reason for my preference. The reason for your preference seems to be that mine is "excessively wordy".
 * Don't tell us that "the majority" doesn't carry the implication of "a minority", because it does, and that is exactly the implication that is required, to cover not only Salisbury, and those smaller ancient "parish church cathedrals" which other readers may wish to bring in.
 * Eric, what you are doing, in threatening to "rip the arse out of it" is known as "bullying".


 * User:Giano, why don't you reread what you have written above? Have you got any idea how self-opininiated and patronising your choice of words makes you appear?
 * "Isn't that clever?....applies to excess words as well as sex.... pity it takes a non-native speaker.... Amanda, you should know...... "
 * Are you seriously criticising my mode of expression, while simultaneously expressing yourself in that manner?
 * Have you considered the use of simple statements such as "I agree with Eric"?  It would certainly say more than all the high-falutin' twaddle.
 * But then It's a pity that it takes a non-native speaker with not one jot of understanding of your grammar to tell you. Amanda, you should know..... is very much part of your talk-page style.


 * And I still fail to understand why you Eric, (and now you Giano, though it should hardly surprise me) are wasting so much effort over my grammatically correct mode of expression.  (Giano, FYI, this isn't a matter of grammar.)
 * I prefer "the majority of", and have given adequate reason.  Eric, since it is a matter of brevity and not a matter of grammar, why are you a) so determined to get your own way?  b) making threats over it?


 * One of the problems that we have here, Eric, is that you are accustomed to editing the writing of people who are a great less competent than I am. People in general see your edits as improvements, and no doubt they usually are. You are no doubt used to your changes being accepted.  This is a different case. While I appreciate your corrections to my many typos, repeated words, "then" instead of "the" and all that, I know myself to be more than usually competent at English expression.  When I write "the majority of", reconsider it (at your prompting) and decide that it is my preferred expression (in this case), then, as a matter of judgement, my opinion is in every way as valid as yours.


 * I cannot help wondering if the person to whom you, Eric and Giano, are talking was named Bill Paterson, rather than Amanda, would you be quite so bullying on one hand and quite so insulting on the other?


 * Giano, Eric, it really makes no difference to me whether this article gets an FA or not.  Turning this into a really fine and readable article that expresses both the beauty and the enormous architectural significance of Wells Cathedral is important to me, and, with User:Rodw, and help from others, this has been achieved.
 * Personally, I really do not give a fig whether you two decide to "rip the arse out of it" at FA or not. I can't be bullied over a process that I really do not care about.
 * However, I am not in this alone, and User:Rodw would obviously like to see it at FA.


 * If Eric's insistence on "most" rather than "the majority of" is the make-or-break issue (Can anyone comprehend the pettiness of this?),  then I feel that I must compromise over this matter of expression,  acknowledging, as I do it, the inappropriateness of the process, and the nature of the bullying that has taken place.


 * I was considering writing an architectural history for Canterbury Cathedral next. The article lacks one. Now there's a challenge!
 * Why don't you, User:Eric Corbett, with your grasp of brevity and clarity, and you User:Giano, with your exquisite understanding of the expressive qualities of language, take it on instead?
 * And in the process, the pair of you can bring up arses and sex on the talk page to anyone who gets in your way, as you have here.
 * Amandajm (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "One of the problems that we have here, Eric, is that you are accustomed to editing the writing of people who are a great less competent than I am." On the contrary Amandajm, you are one of the least competent editors I've ever come across. Eric   Corbett  01:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can only make yourself look foolish with a comment such as that. I have no difficulty acknowledging my extremely poor typing skills and truly appreciate the efforts of those who correct them. Amandajm (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Restrictive which
The restrictive which is absolutely fine in British English and should not be changed to that for its own sake. If you are unsure about this, please consult an authority. Inglok (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Eric   Corbett  15:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit. Please state clearly your reason for reversion. If you are having difficulty understanding which words may introduce relative clauses in British English, please see this page on the Oxford Dictionaries website, which states that "restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by that, which, whose, who, or whom." Inglok (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My only difficulty is with your ignorance. Eric   Corbett  17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm! The OED clearly supports Eric on this one.  After all, its a very restrictive staircase.  Amandajm (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I reread this, looked at the OED again, and Inglok (talk) is correct. Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the OED does not support Eric. Could you provide a reference, please? See, for example, the entry for which, sense 9b: "Introducing a defining or restrictive clause". The false distinction between which and that is a pseudo-rule. It is followed in the United States, and has become standard usage for many, but not here. Eric Corbett's changing of one to the other looks like an attempt to impose American usage (and disputed, too) on a British English article.


 * This is Geoffrey Pullum, an eminent linguist:


 * "he's one of those people who believe the old nonsense about which being disallowed in what The Cambridge Grammar calls integrated relative clauses (the old-fashioned term is "restrictive" or "defining" relative clauses). Strunk and White perpetuate that myth. I've discussed it elsewhere. The notion that phrases like any book which you would want to read are ungrammatical is so utterly in conflict with the facts that you can refute it by looking in... well, any book which you would want to read."


 * And again:


 * "Using which in an integrated relative clause is not [an error], and nobody who has carefully studied the English language would think that it was."


 * And, Eric, if your abusive behaviour continues I will refer you to the administators' noticeboard. Remember that you were blocked last time for your abusive behaviour. Please see Civility. Inglok (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to do so sooner rather than later, but watch out for that boomerang. Eric   Corbett  22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apart from being wrong, you have failed to present any case for your change whatsoever. We must therefore assume that there is none. Please see WP:TPNO. Inglok (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure what you're trying to achieve here, unless you're doing this to win a bet. Even the source you linked to says "In many cases, in British English, both words are equally correct". But we're not writing for a purely British audience, so it would be as well to remember that. Or in your case think about it for the first time. Eric   Corbett  00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have quite obviously broken WP:CIVIL. You have been rude and uncivil, and that most recent snide comment has not been the first. You will see on your talk page that I have referred you to the administrators' noticeboard.


 * It is exactly that "both words are equally correct" that they need not be changed. Please actually read what I have written and the links. It is not a 'rule' and it does not need to be 'corrected', particularly on a British English article. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should change all the instances of the restrictive which to a that. But why do you insist on following an American pseudo-rule? Inglok (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And you are quite obviously an idiot. Eric   Corbett  01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, focussing back on the that/which debate, Inglok we've all been using "that" in situations such as these. It is nice to actually have a distinction between the two words. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly support Inglok on the general principle. It is a Wikipedia style principle that articles are usually written in the form of English most closely associated with the subject. Obviously an article on Wells Cathedral should be written in the more usual British grammar, terminology and punctuation etc. On this basis I believe "which" is more appropriate in British English articles in those instances where either "which" or "that" are acceptable. Anglicanus (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you are clearly just as ignorant as Inglok. Eric   Corbett  05:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. If anyone is being "ignorant" on this subject then it's yourself. But I would rather be ignorant than a patronising git. Anglicanus (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)rshio


 * But you are clearly both, so how do you reconcile that? Eric   Corbett  05:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving the truth of my comments about you. It is one thing to be simply ignorant but another, as in your case, to suffer from invincible ignorance. Anglicanus (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You claim to be a priest. God help your parishioners. Eric   Corbett  06:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't "claim" to be a priest as I actually am one. I only claim to be a ratbag. But thank you for praying for my parishioners. I'm sure they will receive spiritual benefit from your gracious piety. Anglicanus (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

British English doesn't care whether "which" or "that" is used, American English does. There is no issue here, Eric correctly chose the version that satisfies both camps. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. It is irrelevant whether American English "cares" about "which" or "that" being used in this article so there is nothing "correct" about Eric's preference for "that". Anglicanus (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the use of "that" here is incorrect in British English, or are you merely saying that "which" is an alternative? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I presume the lack of response here indicates acceptance that the use of "that" was not incorrect in British English. This thread must be a contender for Wikipedia's lamest article talk page thread. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I the only person who finds this whole thread, not just pathetic, but also rather tragic? Here we have one of the project's best editors (Eric) working very hard and quietly improving a page - raising it to FA standard. Then along comes an editor, hitherto unconnected with the page, who then starts to edit war and argue some puerile point of grammar to the extent that the page is then locked down. Really, some Admin needs to take Inglok to one side and explain to him some common manners and a code of good behavior and the potential dire results of his failure to adhere to that code.  Giano   10:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but for other reasons. What I find sad is that so much time and energy is being wasted, and bad-feeling is being generated, over such a trifling matter that/which very few readers would ever notice, let alone care about. --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The page has been protected for a week. Now no one can move it forward. Well done the pair of you.--Derek Andrews (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter how long it's protected for. If Inglok and his faux priest mate Anglicanus don't butt out this article will never be ready for FAC. Eric   Corbett  14:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between that and which was invented by prespcriptive grammarians and is slavishly followed by those seeking to write what they think is 'correct' English. It has no solid basis in the canon of English literature nor in everyday English usage. I will repeat what I have written for everyone's benefit: please see this page on the Oxford Dictionaries website, which states that "restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by that, which, whose, who, or whom." Also see, for example, the entry for which, sense 9b: "Introducing a defining or restrictive clause".

If you were to follow the link I posted earlier you would find this:

"As a check on just how common it is in excellent writing, I searched electronic copies of a few classic novels to find the line on which they first use which to introduce an integrated relative with which, to tell us how much of the book you would need to read before you ran into an instance:


 * A Christmas Carol (Dickens): 1,921 lines, first occurrence on line 217 = 11% of the way through;
 * Alice in Wonderland (Carroll): 1,618 lines, line 143 = 8%;
 * Dracula (Stoker): 9,824 lines, line 8 = less than 1%;
 * Lord Jim (Conrad): 8,045 lines, line 15 = 1%;
 * Moby Dick (Melville): 10,263 lines, line 103 = 1%;
 * Wuthering Heights (Bronte): 7,599 lines, line 56 = 0.736%...

Do I need to go on? No. The point is clear. On average, by the time you've read about 3% of a book by an author who knows how to write you will already have encountered an integrated relative clause beginning with which. They are fully grammatical for everyone. The copy editors are enforcing a rule which has no support at all in the literature that defines what counts as good use of the English language. Their which hunts are pointless time-wasting nonsense."

There is a lot more at the Language Log, a blog written by linguists.

Avoiding the restrictive which is mostly an American pursuit. For those arguing that a restrictive that satisfies both American and British English, your argument is flawed. It is like arguing that because organize is standard American and British English (albeit Oxford) that changing organise to organize is justified because "we're writing for an American audience too". It is wrong to change an article written in British English to suit disputed American English usage.

If there is a good reason to change which to that then it is yet to be said on this talk page. Inglok (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on a collaborative environment and it is obvious that you and Eric should not edit the same page during the same period. Is which/that so important that the battle must be continued? Until death? There are lots of other pages needing work, so why not drop this? I'm sure you are aware that what is considered correct usage varies according to place and time, and all that can really be said about a language rule is that it applies for some purposes, and there can be no proof that one word is better than another word. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Image
User:Viriditas, User:Anythingyouwant,
 * the original image is not ideal, but shows the length of the building
 * the bleached image was very poor.
 * There are two problems with the present crop.
 * 1. You have cropped out the Lay Chapel to the east of the building (left side of pic) That is also part of the cathedral
 * 2. The crop is so shallow that the actual height of the lower part of the building (which was by implication behind the trees) is not longer there. The building would not fit into the space that you have left for it.
 * in terms of the building itself, the uncropped picture shows more of it in actuality, and gives more of a sense of its size. Moreover, the view of the building above trees etc, is the way it is most often seen from a distance.

Amandajm (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bleached image was very poor. Here are the other two images:





Any image will have its advantages and disadvantages. For example, any image of one side of a building will omit what's on the other side. On balance, the new (present image) is better, though I am slightly biased as the one who made it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you realise that the low building you have cut out to the left is part of the cathedral?
 * And, as i said. the crop is so tight that there is no room for the undercroft of that chapter house that you are looking at to the left with the large windows.
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The chapel is virtually invisible in the old thumbnail. I have no objection if you wish to include a good image of the chapel later in the article.  If you look at the top image in the St Andrew article, you will see that it too omits parts of his body, and there's no sin in that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK! It is like this: there is a rule on Wikipedia that says that editors do not own articles, and that trotting our "ownership" is a breach of policy. On the other hand, a clause or two later says something to the effect that  an editor's involvement ought to be acknowledged. That means that if a random drops by and insists on a change that is not a point of fact or grammar, then the major contributor ought to have a little more say in the matter than the random.
 * I don't want to argue about whether or not the article is headed up by a picture that shows the entire length of the building or one in which the Lady Chapel is cut out. Please just be sufficiently polite as to acknowledge that the main writer here would prefer that Lady Chapel about which I have written. to be included, along with space enough at the bottom of the picture for the viewer to at least imagine the depths of the picture.
 * You can insist on your own way, and call in support, if you choose, but you are going to look quite ungenerous in doings so.
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the most generous thing to do is wait a day or so. The United States is mostly asleep right now, and when it wakes up then more people might give some more input here.  I won't be calling in any support, but rather plan on reverting to your preferred image if that is the consensus.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it mean a great deal to you? Amandajm (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent job, this will do nicely:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So glad that you are satisfied.
 * What about the consensus from the Americas? Are we still waiting on it?
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if America is displeased, then you and I can stand against America together. :-)  Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)