Talk:List of monastic houses in England

message: Would the Church of St. Julian in Norwich, where Julian of Norwich was located, be appropriate here?  I wasn't sure if it is an 'abbey' or 'priory'. --DanielCD 14:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Julian of Norwich 

message: Perhaps this ought to move to "list of...";  it currently seems to be the longest article in WP, but "list of" articles are excluded from those statistics, and this certainly reads that way...  Alai 04:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List? 

message: There are probably enough of these to justify a separate list, which I will set up if there are no objections? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me - though it might be appropriate to put all the Bhuddist monasteries in the UK into one article rather than just one for England.  Let's hear what others think. --JohnArmagh (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist monasteries 

message: This abbey is listed under Hampshire but without any further details or references. It is not mentioned in the Victoria County History, nor can I find any other mention of it online. I propose to remove it unless someone can find a reference. Agrestis (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now found some details and added them so no longer propose its removal. Agrestis (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redbridge Abbey, Hampshire 

message: a really excellent article, very useful
: but some of the exclusions/inclusions are not clear (for example why is the Temple Church in London excluded?).
: nor is is the signification of continued ecclesiastical use clearly defined - for example; the conversion of the nunnery church of St Radegund into the chapel of Jesus College is not marked, while counterpart ecclesiastical re-use in Christchurch Oxford is marked.  Equally, Chester St John is unmarked, but Chester St Werburgh is marked.
: and what about early monastic sites, Jarrow is included, Wearmouth appears not.
You have not referred to Roy Midmer's book and Gazeteer of English Monasteries 1066-1540.  Do you have reason to distrust it? Is it OK if I re-edit with my own knowledge and sources (chiefly Midmer), and if so, what definitions should I apply?
TomHennell (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not yet as comprehensive as intended.  I have still to complete going through the Ordnance Survey and William Cobbett sources.  Please feel free to add such information as you see fit.  --JohnArmagh (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple Church London etc 

message: When I first came to the Lincolnshire list it was in one category: 'United Kingdom monastic house templates|Lincolnshire'  This appeared to have been carried over when copying the template to make the page: the template is not, of course, transcluded.
I replaced this with actual categories for the subject, but I notice that other pages are not properly categorised.  For example:
* List of monastic houses in Cambridgeshire
* List of monastic houses in Greater London
and most of the others.  Some have retained the template category while adding others.  The category added for Northampton looks questionable.
Is it possible that someone who knows how to programme bots can sort this out?  or is it plod-and-edit? --Brunnian (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been playing plod-and-edit through the list, and done all of them down to County Durham--Brunnian (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories in external lists 

message: Some of the lists use the kml template. It offers a choice of maps of all the coordinates on the page. This works best if the coordinates are named with |name= - otherwise the map pages just have lists of numbers.   |name= is useful for other wikiatlas type applications too.
I've done all the ones on the list down to County Durham--Brunnian (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  KML template and coord lists 

message: There appears to be some problem with the references for this list. The references from some counties eg Beds, Bristol & Somerset show up in the list, but other counties do not? I suspect this may be to do with the way include & noinclude is being used on the various articles, but I haven't investigated too closely.— Rod talk 11:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article and its transclusions are currently undergoing a consistency implementation excercise - it will take a while to complete though.  --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: When I read the page there appear to be two blocks of references, but nothing in the source to suggest why.  Perhaps one of the transcluded pages has inclusion metas in the wrong place? --Brunnian (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References from transcluded articles 

message: This article takes 46 seconds to load. You have got to stop transcluding so many articles into one. Leave it as separate articles. There is no need for it to be all one page. As it stands there is no way that it could achieve featured list status. MRSC (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While this list may never achieve FL status, neither would the proposed directory to replace it. The long list is unwieldy, but the current design allows the map links to work (although the servers are currently down) so readers can look at the distribution of religious houses nationally and notice patterns and groupings. That was the intention of the original list before I divided it and one I think is useful, so I understand why the England article is in the current format is used and I'm fine with it. And it still acts as a directory page as the individual lists are linked from the article. I don't see the issue of the England list as particularly important, it's more important to concentrate on the county level lists and to get them up to a good standard. Turning the external links into formatted references and perhaps adding a "notes" column. Nev1 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find Map_link_to_county_listings_of_monastic_houses_in_England quite useful for getting to the county lists, and think there is room enough for both techniques.  I agree that having one big list makes the mapping tools very much more useful.--Brunnian (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple article transclusions

message: I've created quite a lot of lists on Wikipedia. My opinion is that it is better to keep the number of columns down. The foundation, alt name, formal name and location info could all be combined into one column. the communities and provenence column is fine, the refs column could be renamed "brief history" (a brief history given and referenced) and the images column moved to the right. Images at 150px are a reasonable size for lists. There should be plenty of useable images at Geograph if there are none available on Commons. See :Commons:Category:Monasteries in England, :Commons:Category:Abbeys in the United Kingdom and :Commons:Category:Priories in England. The use of  should be considered as well as that of . Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I have identified six entries on the Lincolnshire list, mostly things that I suspect may be erroneous or misplaced.  I have put the appropriate tag on them, but the snag is that from the main list pressing 'discuss' takes you to this talk page, not to the one for the transcluded page where I have listed my concerts.
If whoever originated the list is still about, can I point them at Talk:List of monastic houses in Lincolnshire#Dubious ?
--Brunnian (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while.  All the work seems to have been on layout, not content. I lost interest in contributing to this list because of doubts on accuracy.  Does anyone have any idea about these anomalys? Brunnian (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still going through the lists.  I'm working alphabetically through the counties, and with over 1000 establishments to check it is not a quick job, and L comes half-way down the list. --JohnArmagh (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger RogerBrunnian (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a little more to attend to now at Talk:List of monastic houses in Lincolnshire and someone has been creating stub articles based purely on the redlinks.  So see: Talk:Brackenholme Priory -- Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Should not the talk pages of the sublists be redirected here?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sublists 

message: While it's great that we have these lists of monasteries and similar institutions in England, I'm afraid the organization chosen here, which involves transcluding these already long list on the parent lists, is far from optimal. List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties B-K already hits the parser limits, and other pages in the series take relatively long to load. I think this page should just provide a list of links to the county-specific pages, and the pages like "counties B–K" should be deleted. Ucucha 20:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the page hits the limits of the wiki software.  But to have a list of hyperlinks to each county hardly deserves to be called a list of abbeys and priories in England - all it would be is a list of counties in England having abbeys and priories, and would negate the purpose of having a page listing abbeys and priories in England.  I have attempted to mitigate the issue of the limitations of the Wiki software by puting the noinclude /noinclude around the references so that the references are only visible in the transcluded pages, but to no avail, it appears that the very presence of the ref /ref tags in the page counts towards the limit, irrespective of whether they are actually visible on the page.  It appears that Wikipedia is not as adept at handling large content as a printed encyclopaedic work is.  And the more is the pity. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: I posed a question about Hilfield Friary on the Dorset monastic houses talk page a couple of days ago. I think it might have been overlooked in all the recent flurry of activity on all the lists, so I thought I'd alert people about it here as well. Thanks in advance for any contributions... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The main thrust of the updates have been with regard the medieval establishments due to their sheer number.  Modern foundations are intended to be listed, but have yet to be as comprehensively researched - mainly by going through the web pages for each monastic order's current houses.  I have added the entry for Hillfield Friary ahead of this excercise. JohnArmagh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dorset list: Hilfield Friary question

message: the map is bizarre as it mixes Ceremonial counties (e.g. Rutland) with contemporary counties (e.g. South Yorkshire).  Why? Brownturkey (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is more appropriate to Ceremonial counties of England rather than this page. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: Many of the individual pages such as Bardney Abbey or Axholme Charterhouse have only a subset of the projects shown above on their talk pages.  Some have only the geographic project, e.g. Deeping St. James Priory.  What is the 'correct' set of projects for the individual pages?  is there a commonly held view on it?   Some pages have a Catholicism/Anglicanism dispute at various times.  Is there a rapprochement on this issue?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the same query applies to Talk:Alien priory - what would be the 'correct' set of projects there?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Inclusion 

message: There are an awful lot of redlinks to alien house and a reasonably serviceable redirect for Alien house.  Does anyone have a bot to edit all those county pages?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not redlinks - they are deliberate burgundy font colour highlighting the distinction between a house's alien or denizen status at points in its history JohnArmagh (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  redlink ''alien house'' 

message: The entry here is inconsistent with the separate article Lancaster Priory; specifically as to whether the priory continued as a monastic house after its transfer to Syon Abbey.  So far as I am aware, the evidence is not conclusive; the problem being that the Bridgettine order included both enclosed nuns and non-enclosed brothers - and there are indications that several of Syons Bridgettine brothers may have been regularly resident in Lancaster - not the least in that the reconstructed 15th century church does appear have been to be fitted out for conventual worship. TomHennell (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancaster Priory 

message: Why not 'England and Wales'; since at the date of the dissolution legislation, the two countries were in union?
:Firstly because the England list is quite big enough. England and Wales are conveniently divided into their respective countries for this purpose. And England and Wales were only in political union from 1536, when monastic establishment was starting to be dismantled.  The article is not so much about the dissolution as the history of the establishments. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 'England'? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion