Talk:Tintern Abbey

message: Should there be an article on the poem 'Lines Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey' by Wordsworth?
:It is a mistake to suppose that Wordsworth's poem was inspired by, or had any meaning connected or referring to, Tintern Abbey -- and, by inference, to any religious motif. The complete title is "Lines Written a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey, on Revisiting the Banks of the Wye During a Tour" and the whole poem talks about the natural environment the poet had known as a young man and its influence on his later life. 201.13.104.176 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Lines Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey'

message: I will probably get shouted down for rating this article as high without discussing this, but I'd rather rate and get shouted down. In my eyes Tintern Abbey is a European treasure. If anyone wants to lower, please discuss. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance level 

message: "It is one of the most spectacular ruins in the country". Not the most encyclopedic of sentences, is it? --86.52.71.73 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I've removed those words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Measure 'Spectacularity' 

message: Surely this is chepstow? Victuallers (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neither, it's Tintern. However until there's a Chepstowpedia to go with Monmouthpedia, the question is moot. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think Tintern is in scope of MonmouthpediA. If so, we would have to cover all of the Forest of Dean, Raglan and Ross-on-Wye, for example. welsh (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised this elsewhere on the M'pedia talk pages without getting much response.  My opinion is that Monmouthpedia is designed to cover the town, and maybe a mile or two outside, but not places further afield - though obviously, judging from some of the articles added to the M'pedia lists, some others disagree.  If there is to be a Monmouthshirepedia or a Chepstowpedia, that's fine, but let's have some consistency in approach.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was the historical connection between the Abbey and Monmouth?  There are clear historical links with the priory church in Chepstow and also with the castle - is there anything similar for Monmouth? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No direct links with Monmouth at all, I think (apart from the river!).  Chepstow and Monmouth were separate lordships, and the abbey was dissolved at the same time as the county was formed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: In the competition we say that the guide is whether it mentions Monmouth with a blue link. The means that you can say "White Hill" can be seen from Monmouth or whatever but you can't include a hill or village in Somerset.  95.150.68.253 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a pretty silly criterion.  See the list of pages that link to Monmouth - you are implying that all of those articles are Monmouthpedia articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Links to" is an even worse criterion. It would catch links like "Innsmouth - not to be confused with Monmouth" and also "Ankh-Morpork, twinned with Monmouth". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Monmouthpedia?

message: Second image has less tractor, less fence and more cowbell while being sharper and providing better contrast/detail. The cows provide perspective and interest. Recommend it replace the existing one. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I've changed them - WP:BRD!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better image? 

message: Ref the gallery, the policy at WP:Gallery is that "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images... Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted... A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery"... as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."
As it stands, I don't think that the gallery fits the description above, and should either be improved or removed. It appears to be a slightly eclectic sequence of images, without any clear theme. Why include the picture of the abbey in 1965, for example? Why two pictures (one rather blurry) of the Abbey from across the river? etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that two of the images are unnecessary.  They don't do any harm, but I accept they're unnecessary.  The others add to the understanding of the article by presenting different angles, historical depictions, etc.  They were mostly added as part of the Monmouthpedia GLAM project, and there's no good reason to exclude them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the policy guidance above, what would you suggest the title and theme of the gallery ought to be? I've nothing against galleries if they're in line with policy and communicate something specific, but we shouldn't be adding images to an article simply because a GLAM project donated them. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My view of the fourth sentence of that guidance is that it is unexplained, inexplicable, and can therefore safely be discounted.  Galleries do not have to have a theme.  They often should do, but in this case the "theme" would be that the images present a variety of different views of the abbey structure, at different points in time and/or from different angles.  That does not need to be stated explicitly, unless you can think of an appropriate form of words.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One way to approach the policy on images is to consider what the title of the gallery would be. If it were "Different perspectives", for example, we would presumably choose images that illustrated particular architectural features of the abbey from different angles, ideally in colour and as high quality as possible, and caption them accordingly (as a contrast to "abbey in the snow", for example, which focuses on the fact that it was snowing at the time of the picture!). If the aim of the gallery was to illustrate changes in the abbey over time, e.g. "historical perspectives of the abbey", we'd probably select different images, and use the captions to highlight what was different or changing between the images. We might choose images of otherwise lower quality, because we'd be explicitly trying to illustrate historical changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Since a section is being added on paintings (and prints) of the Abbey, I have pruned the gallery of duplicate views now covered by the paintings I want to consider, and then moved up one photo of the interior today to replace what was almost a duplicate of the lead image. The aim has also been to provide different perspectives of the building, as well as to demonstrate a variety of mood and effect. The art section will be completed within the next 24 hours but by all means comment now. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tintern Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018213750/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pd/j/jmw_turner,_tintern_abbey.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pd/j/jmw_turner,_tintern_abbey.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716021002/http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/part-of-the-ruins-of-tintern-abbey-21775 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/part-of-the-ruins-of-tintern-abbey-21775
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: - This has been tagged with a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for well over three years. I think that has given editors ample time to:
:* identify and remove any contentious material, or,
:* find references for any contentious material, or,
:* remove the tag.
I'm at a complete loss as to how it helps readers to have such a tag in place for over three years. I also note that, while it could certainly do with enhanced referencing, as could many/most of our articles, it has 60 which doesn't seem a bad number. I'd be interested in why you think it is of benefit to retain the tag. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of sources in the article were provided by a single editor; the tag is to serve as a reminder to another who promised "At some point (not today, not tomorrow, but when I get round to it - there is no rush) I shall rewrite and improve those sections". Therefore it stays as a spur to his conscience. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I think that's a crap reason and have removed. The trout is incomprehensible. Try thinking about the reader rather than some stale old vendetta you may have had from three years ago. I'll be working on this over the coming months and would appreciate your assistance. KJP1 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with KJP1. That other editor might have forgotten or moved on, and the article is not woefully under-referenced (as the tag suggests), even if it's a long way from the standards of Wikipedia's best work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only had I forgotten about adding the tag in 2015, I'd entirely forgotten about all the kerfuffle about the references that I've now noticed further up on this page, and I'd even more comprehensively obliterated from my mind any suggestion that I might try to improve this article myself.  So, don't rely on me.  Or my "conscience", if I ever locate it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: *Before this progresses any further, can I suggest some reformatting, and signing of posts, to ensure that we know who is suggesting what?  Otherwise, I think these notes will become an unreadable mess quite quickly.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. KJP1 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Have been playing around with this. It was template: monastery, which makes sense, but doesn't allow for more than one historic designation. As TA is both a Grade I listed building and a Scheduled Monument, with multiple designations, it would be good to show these. Have therefore used template: historic site, which allows for this, but not, as far as I'm aware, for other monastic elements, like Founder and Order. Anyone got any ideas how to surmount this problem? KJP1 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: - Re., the banner, I'm hoping it doesn't cause any problems to the reader. It does accurately describe the position of the article in that I and a colleague are working on an expansion. As you'll see in the Architecture section, it's really nothing more than a skeleton at the moment, listing the buildings we need to cover. That's why I put the tag on, to indicate to readers that it was a work in progress. You're quite right, I've not given it the attention I planned, as real life suddenly got busy and I got distracted by another building article. But I'm planning to return to it very soon. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , might I suggest that you move the banner down to the Architecture section and make it an article template, rather than putting it up top where it distracts the reader. The rest of the article above the Architecture section appears to be pretty much full and finished. In the meantime, I'll do a bit of minor copy editing for you because I'm quite interested in this subject at the moment – I'm currently working on the Timeline of Welsh history article that I created last week. Please take a look! Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , according to his Talk page, has only recently begun editing. For all his busy scurrying around, that does not make him a policeman, of which there are more than enough amateurs on WP already. If he wants to help with the planned expansion, which is what that tag is announcing, that would be great. The two of us currently interested have discovered that there is more reading than was anticipated, and we need time to digest information and, equally important, establish a convergent style. The rewriting will cover most sections ultimately so the suggested remedy is no solution. If the user really means to make himself an officious nuisance, I'll revisit the article every day and make one small change each time - which seems to be his preferred editing style. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I was only trying to help, no need to get one's knickers in a twist :) I'll make a few good faith edits for you today and if you object then I'll ultimately go away and scurry around somewhere else. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: RB does have a point. But then so does Sweetpool. The history sections, although they look more "finished", will actually require complete re-writing to take the article down the route we plan. But I agree, to the reader, they look more complete and therefore having the tag across the whole article may confuse. So I've moved it down for now. We can look to move it back up when we begin the recasting of the whole. Hoping that leaves everyone content! KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. - RB, as Sweetpool says, it's always great to run across another editor with an interest in an article one's working on and your thoughts/contributions are very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under construction banner 

message: ,  - You know what I think would be great here, a Sweetpool & Baggins collaboration to take this one to FA. The subject fully merits it, we have all the books, and you are both have the passion, for the site and for the article. I think it would be a really good collaboration. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , the proposal at the start of the year was for us to aim for that status together. It seems to me that rather than tinkering about before the other half of it is complete, it would be better to leave establishing a consistent style until completion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought that copyedit I did earlier was fairly sound, but you reverted the whole damn lot, not just the "overlinking". Probably best leave it thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unfortunate. However, I've replaced it with the only other Good Picture of the abbey that we have. Will do the same on other affected pages. KJP1 (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a picture of the ruins against the background of the Wye's wooded banks is a brilliant choice. Well done, ! Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I have reverted a recently added print of the south window view already illustrated lower down in the article. It was added, seemingly, as evidence of the building serving as a tourist attraction that was already well established over the course of the preceding century. The print was from a doggerel "Poetic Guide" of the area published in 1850 that is not discussed in the text and without apparent merit. Since the view brings nothing new to the article, its inclusion seems redundant. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant view