Talk:Guildford Cathedral

message: The claim is contradicted by "The see of Truro was established in 1876 and the first Bishop consecrated in 1877: this was the first cathedral to be built on a new site in England since Salisbury Cathedral in 1220." re Truro Cathedral (in Truro's case St Mary's Parish Church already existed on part of the site).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New site

message: The merge proposal tag has been in place for over a year without a word of discussion. Not even the person who proposed it could be bothered to pop along here and discuss it. I think it should now be removed. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think they should be merged. 02:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Why is it "claimed" that it's the only new Anglican cathedral in whatever? It's referenced in a published source and it's oft-repeated - I heard a senior churchman say exactly that about it at a concert on Saturday night. Is there some contention here, another cathedral making the same claim, or something? I doubt it, and feel that it's overcautious. It IS that, and we should remove the "claim" and the quotes and just state it as a fact, unless some evidence suggests that it is untrue. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, as pointed out earlier on this page, either this claim is incorrect or our article on Truro Cathedral is wrong. For now, I'm going to take it out. Barnabypage (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I quite amazingly managed to miss that! Hmmm, looks like the claim needs refining or explaining or something. I think you're right - take it out for now and then see if it can be sorted into a less debatable, more verifiable form in future. Thanks, and apologies for being so dim. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph wording 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sir Edward Maufe.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't seem like a significant event in the history of the cathedral and was probably an example of wp:recentism. But the text is pasted below. Bob talk 20:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it's better without. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Had I seen this earlier I might have argued 'keep it' - fatal shootings in cathedral grounds don't happen every day in England - and note Guildford's cathedral isn't ancient - and there might have been a memorial to the fatality put up since.Cloptonson (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2008 shooting incident" 

message: The 1950s buy a brick campaign is mentioned in the article. It was apparently preceded in the late 1930s by a scheme where Surrey schoolchildren were encouraged to "buy a brick" for the cathedral, though they didn't get to put their names on it. I know of this because it was a story my late father, who was at school in Kingston then, used to tell us. Unfortunately I haven't found any reliably sourced evidence for it but someone might have a clue where to look. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buy a brick campaign