Loading AI tools
 | Bristol Cathedral has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 21, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is the offical name, and wiki policy is to use the offical name.--Jirate 21:26, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- No, the policy is to use the common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This should be at Bristol Cathedral. --rbrwr± 21:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely agreed with Rbrwr, Wikipedia policy is most certainly to use the generally used name of an object - in this case "Bristol Cathedral". Can someone return the talk page and article title to its proper name? - Adrian Pingstone 22:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adrian. I certainly intend to move this back (and it's the article, not just the talk page) if no-one else does, but I'm diplomatically waiting for things to develop at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Irate and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps at the moment. --rbrwr±
- I've moved the said back to Bristol Cathedral as per policy and consensus here. I have lived near Bristol over a decade and I have never heard the Cathedral called by anything longer than St Augustine's Abbey and then rarely Thryduulf 23:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adrian. I certainly intend to move this back (and it's the article, not just the talk page) if no-one else does, but I'm diplomatically waiting for things to develop at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Irate and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps at the moment. --rbrwr±
- Good. However,I am going to restore the formal-name-first order in the first paragraph. That fits with the convention in articles aobut people, where, for instance, Tony Blair starts, "The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair..." --rbrwr± 23:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Shouldnt there be mention of the organ somewhere? its supposed to be the largest working one in the world I think - Agaib
- It is in fact the 1245th largest in the world, according to this website: http://www.die-orgelseite.de/orgelliste120_e.htm which is a very useful resource for sizes of organs. Clavecin 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
p.s. sign using ~~~~ rather than writing your name
Added architectural description
have done some rearranging of facts, but haven't lost any of your work!
Hope you like it! --Amandajm 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the gallery from this article as per WP:IUP#Photo_galleries, article space should not contain image galleries unless there is a good reason to. The two images here can easily be put inline, and don't add anything to the article that isn't already shown in other images. Galleries should be created on commons - that's sort of what it's there for. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. I still think galleries are nice for readers (I'd love to ask them) but in this case I accept your argument - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Amandajm reverted my previous removal of links to photo sites from this article. I stand by that deletion because those photo sites fail WP:EL, mostly because they fail on the very first of the criteria - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. But I could have removed this link because its sole purpose is to promote hotels and accommodation. The panavista.eu link is to just one photo which hardly adds value. As for flickr, if there are any useful photos there, then why not take some of the 154 flickr images which have a Wikimedia Commons compatible licence and copy them over? Bottom line I don't think any of the photo links truly add value to the article. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- includes a stunning view of the interior, better than the one on wiki. Perhaps there is an equally good one on one of the other sites, since this site is indeed commercial.
- The panoramas are also excellent. As for the gallery on flickr, yes, they constitute a very useful gallery. Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- May I suggest, Bob, that as you are the person set on deleting them, you might also be the right person to transfer the pics from flickr? Amandajm (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. I would be very happy to work with others to identify the better photographs among the 154 flickr images and transfer them across to Wikimedia Commons. Any volunteers?--Simple Bob (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
All uploaded. Anyone else have suggestions? --Simple Bob (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Bristol Cathedral: Coordinates are wrong. Building is misplaced. Right coordinates are: +51° 27' 6.26", -2° 36' 2.61" (51.451740, -2.600724)
—93.194.219.97 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Done Yes, that was a typo of mine when I emended the coordinates earlier this month (I typed 51.4617 when I meant to type 51.4517). Thanks for noticing and pointing it out. Deor (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- So is it possible for us to agree that the current setup, which was last changed here and appears in the code as:
latd = 51.4517 longd = -2.6007
- is correct, and should need no further fixing unless the shape of the planet changes too much or anything? I'm always a bit baffled by coordinate shifts (typos apart!) and I worry that due to some system weirdness people are seeing things differently or something - (yup sounds unlikely ...) but certainly to me the current set appear absolutely spot on! It would be nice to think that it needed no further change and that if changes were thought to be needed they could be proposed on this page first. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some editing on this article and hope to nominate it for GA status before long. I know there are still a few citation needed tags but what else do people think would be needed to get it to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
As requested, I'e had a quick look through it, I've never seen the building and know nothing about it, but from a cursory glance:
- "This facade is probably more Spanish than English in its overall composition, being somewhat like that of Burgos Cathedral, but without its spires." No, it's not! What's Spanish about it?
- "It is rather wide for its height" In who's opinion? It's proportions look OK to me.
- "During the 16th century, the space for cathedral services must have been very cramped.[citation needed] This necessitated a rearrangement of the cathedral's furnishings." Did cathedrals have furnishings (beyond an altar and misericords etc) and if they did what were they? I don't see why they woudl have made the cathedral cramped - pews etc weren't around at that time.
- "The tympanum of the arch is an empty niche." Is it an entirely empty niche or does the tympanum contain a niche?
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
