Jump to content

Talk:Salisbury Cathedral

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


Check the facts about Monastic Origins

[edit]

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

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

Sorry, I messed up the original picture

[edit]

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

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

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

is this true?

[edit]

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

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

Can someone verify this?

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

No it isn't... the floor plan shows quite clearly there are 50 small and four large pillars, and abotu half a dozen doors.
Not true, but the traditional rhyme
As many days as in one year there be,
So many windows in this church you see,
As many marble pillars here appear
As there are hours throughout the fleeting year,
As many gates as moons one here does view,
Strange tale to tell, yet not more strange than true.
is found here William Avery 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source discussing that legend (in the footnote on p. 143), which is apparently older than the words in Wm. Avery's rhyme above. It's apparently been said of other cathedrals as well but more often of Salisbury's: he credits the nearness of Stonehenge and folk memories of druid sites. (In Salisbury's case, though, that would have been at the site of the old cathedral.)
This seems to be old and widely-reported enough that it merits (sourced and debunking) inclusion in the article, possibly under a legend section that would also include the foundation by belomancy. — LlywelynII 23:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be true about Salisbury Cathedral, but it is absolutely true about Eggenberg Castle, Austria:
"There are 365 outside windows, which correspond to the days of the year. Each floor consists of 31 rooms, which correspond to the days of the longest months. Three of them, which lie exactly on the middle axis - the Planetary Room, chapel and theatre (which has now been converted into the palace church) - are rooms with a special significance. If they are subtracted from the complete set of 31 rooms, you get 30, 29 and 28, i.e. all possible variants of the number of days in the months of the year. The 24 hours of the day correspond to the circle of 24 state rooms, 12 on each side of the symmetrical axis, which separates the palace into two corresponding halves, 12 hours for the day and 12 hours for the night. The 24 rooms have a total of 52 windows for the weeks or the amount of Sundays in the year. Adding the 8 windows in the Planetary Room, you get the number 60 which stands for the number of seconds or minutes. There are even 52 doors in the Bel Étage. In the Planetary Room itself, you can also find the 7 days of the week and the 12 months of the year. And even the park wall has 12 doors opening towards the outside, seven of which face towards the city."
https://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/palace-and-gardens-schloss-eggenberg/princely-residence/programme/eggenberg-calendar
--Edelseider (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How fascinating. One wonders if Eggenberg Castle will be flooded with Russian tourists this year as a result. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It's actually close to Slovenia, where Melania the FLOTUS is from. So... maybe. --Edelseider (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

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

Bell Tower

[edit]

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

The Font

[edit]

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

Anyone think the main picture should be changed?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depictions in Art, Literature and Film

[edit]

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

Sources for article expansion

[edit]

 — LlywelynII 10:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burials

[edit]
Moved from Template talk:Expand section
 – off-topic there

The Gorges Monument (1635) in Salisbury Cathedral is the tomb of Helena, Marchioness of Northampton and her husband Sir Thomas Gorges. Each side of the elaborate canopy above the tomb displays two cuboctahedra and an icosahedron. The monument as a whole is crowned by a celestial globe with a dodecahedron on top. It features stone polyhedra in Leonardo's. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gorges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chashum52 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Treasurer

[edit]

The Rev Canon Dr Robert Titley replaced Sarah Mullally as Canon Treasurer of Salisbury Cathedral late last year. Someone working at the Cathedral made the relevant edit to this article but it was reverted by another user as it was unsourced (the reference to Sarah Mullally being Treasurer is also unsourced as far as I can tell...)

It would be good if the page could reflect this development.

Ferdinand4321 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Chapel, Salisbury Cathedral
The lady chapel at Salisbury Cathedral, an Anglican cathedral in Salisbury, England. Pictured below the stained glass is an installation by the artist Nicholas Pope, called "The Apostles Speaking in Tongues Lit By Their Own Lamps".Photograph: David Iliff
Archive – More featured pictures...

Length

[edit]

I believe the length is 135 m, definitely not 69 m -- Microbizz

Well spotted. On checking the history I found a typo in a good-faith edit on 14 September 2018. Now reinstated as 442ft / 135m. -- Wire723 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

discreet or discrete

[edit]

The sentence reads:

The present-day instrument was built in 1877 by Henry Willis & Sons. Walter Alcock, who was organist of the cathedral from 1916, oversaw a strictly faithful restoration of the famous Father Willis organ, completed in 1934,] even going to such lengths as to refuse to allow parts of the instrument to leave the cathedral in case any unauthorised tonal alterations were made without his knowledge, while allowing some discrete additions in the original style of the organ (as well as modernisation of the organ's actions) by Henry Willis III, the grandson of Father Willis.[44] The instrument was extensively restored between 2019 and 2020.[Footnotes omitted.]

"discrete individually distinct; separate; discontinuous."[1] "discreet" has a bunch of other meanings.[2] So your revert was wrong. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discreet in the sense of "unobtrusive" seems more appropriate in the context of Alcock wanting to keep changes to the organ to a minimum.
Unfortunately, none of these details are in the NPOR source[3] therefore the whole sentence should be removed. Wire723 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
The nature of Wikipedia: Things just grow. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Moved links here for possible discussion.

References

  1. ^ The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: American edition. (1996) New York, Oxford: Oxford University Pressm p.407.
  2. ^ Id. p.406.
  3. ^ "NPOR [N10312]". National Pipe Organ Register. British Institute of Organ Studies.

Burials

[edit]

This contains useful information but it is completely uncited and incomplete - and tagged as such - although I'm not sure how completeness would be assessed. It's also a bullet list. I'm thinking of turning it to prose and putting it in History, perhaps as a separate sub-section, Notable burials. Any thoughts/concerns? KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainy work better, your main problem is getting references, at the moment it is original research, someone went round making notes of who was buried there I suspect. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Salisbury Cathedral Nave, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 18, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-07-18. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nave and font of Salisbury Cathedral

Salisbury Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in the city of Salisbury in Wiltshire, England. Built in early English Gothic style, it was constructed between 1220 and 1258. This photograph, taken in 2014, shows the interior of the cathedral, looking eastwards towards the high altar through the tall and narrow nave. It has three levels: a tall pointed arcade, an open gallery, and a small clerestory. In the foreground is an unconventional modern baptismal font, installed in September 2008. Designed by the water sculptor William Pye, it is the largest working font in any British cathedral. The font is cruciform in shape, and has a 10-foot-wide (3.0 m) vessel filled to its brim with water, designed so that the water overflows in filaments through each corner into bronze gratings embedded in the cathedral's stone floor.

Photograph credit: David Iliff

Recently featured:

"Considered one of the leading examples of Early English Gothic architecture"

[edit]

I have removed this fact, on the grounds that (a) it is cited to the cathedral's own website, so is in no way an impartial secondary source for a claim of being "leading", and (b) per WP:WEASEL it should be attributed for an opinion of this nature. This fact would probably worth including if it were properly cited, but when I looked a couple of weeks ago I couldn't find an obvious substitute making me wonder if this is widely held view.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: you talk of "editing civilly", yet you have provided no justification for your reverts at all, bearing in mind you're re-inserting claims about it being a "leading cathedral" taken from the cathedral's own website. Maybe take a look at yourself before you start bandying accusations about, because your behaviour here is downright rude. This is supposed to be a collegiate project, not the KJP1 personal website. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru - I appreciate your consenting to discuss this. The edit summary that accompanied your first removal described the removed content as “fluff” and “meaningless”. You followed this up by edit-warring and describing the material as “poorly cited nonsense”. You then rather quickly reversed this view in part, re-instating some of the material. The material in question stated (a) that Salisbury is among the best EE examples, and (b) has a coherence of design that is rare. Pevsner describes Salisbury as the EE beau idéal and says, “Of all English cathedrals Salisbury is the most unified in appearance”. This is what I meant re. the difference between your assertion and the actuality. As to our respective editing behaviours, others can judge those, should they so wish. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salisbury_Cathedral&oldid=1235084869"