Talk:Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

message: If the spelling is correct as Saint Fin Barre's, not Saint Finbarre's, why is this page at Saint Finbarre's Cathedral and the redirect at Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral? Shouldn't it be the other way around? (It seems obvious enough that I'd do it myself if I had any idea of the correct way to swap a page and a redirect, but I don't.) MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because the spelling's incorrect. Since it's official, though, sure, we should stay consistent with that. — LlywelynII 16:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be moved to Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral? 

message: It's nice to read about the organ, but it really reads much more like a sales brochure than a factual article Tenorcnj (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and the complete absence of citations is a concern.  But I'd still be inclined to leave it.  The sentence: "It is now the largest organ on the island of Ireland and can safely be described as one of the truly great organs of Europe.", can safely be described as one of the most priceless phrases on Wikipedia.  KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With the traditional stop labelled "Swell to great", one assumes. This is a deplorable thread, and you should be as ashamed of yourself, KJ, as I ought to be but am not. Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Tenorcnj & KJP1's shocking & deplorable comments, and will adress. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Organ

message: Reviewing the article today I noted a number of issues. Some of which I've begun to address (like the inappropriate opinion offered by apparent COI contributor to the organ section). However, I wonder whether the following items might be considered. Depending on other opinions, I may review these myself in due course:
# History - The history section makes no mention of the previous medieval cathedral. The "story" starts from 1862. This might be OK if it were not for the fact that the lists of deans and organists stretch back several hundred years earlier. Leaving an obvious and overt gap from the readers point of view.
# Organ - There are no cites in this section at all. This is especially problematic as much of the content is somewhat POV in tone. While it may be appopriate to cover some of it with reference to the primary source (the cathedral website), some of it would really seem to need independent sources.
# Organists - Perhaps I'm just not au fait with the arena, but I wonder whether there is an WP:UNDUE issue with the two long lists here. Apart from the lack of supporting cites, these two lists are quite prominent relative to other aspects of the article. I note that for English cathedrals the norm seems to be to address this by removing the lists from the primary article, and avoiding UNDUE issues by "parking" musicians on a separate list. I'm not sure I would advocate that however, and I note that for St Patrick's and Christ Church the approach seems to be to avoid "assistance organists" (which frankly seems appropriate), and span the other list over a number of columns. Once the lack of cites/context is addressed, at the very least I imagine that would be appropriate. 
Any other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few months since my note above. Unless there are other thoughts I will plough ahead and expand the history section (to at least MENTION the previous building), temper much of the POV and copyedit for CN issues in the organ section, and (bluntly) cull and reorganise the organist list (no cites and nothing to support notability under relevant guidelines). Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a while since I made these suggestions. Not having heard any feedback, I've addressed the smallest of them (adding a sentence or two on the preceding structures, summarising/tempering the more editorial comments in the organ section, and excising the uncited/NN "assistant organists" list). Probably could do with further work in future. (Including suggestion that perhaps the organists list belongs in a separate list - as elsewhere.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible improvements 

message: Following the above talk thread from July 2014, a selective "list of assistant organists" was reinstated April 2016. The original concerns with this content remain:
* the list is wholly uncited (which is a problem with the fundamental WP:VER tenet of the project)
* there is no clear inclusion criteria (is this everyone? if not, why are these members selected? what's the inclusion/exclusion criteria? per WP:LC and WP:WWPIN)
* no information is provided to support the notability of the members under the relevant criteria (per WP:NMUSIC or WP:PERSON)
* as per note from 2014, there is no apparent precedence or consensus that these types of lists are appropriate (per WP:CON)
Input on these issues are welcome before agreement consensus on what to do with this type of content.Guliolopez (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistant organists revisited 

message: The William Burges article is FA and excellent, and has a substantial section dedicated to Fin Barre's. If its ok with KJP1, I would like to copy some modified text to this article. Also, it goes without saying that I agree wholeheartedly with KJP1 and Guliolopez's well reasoned arguments in the thread above. As such, the article has been trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ceoil. Looks good. If any other editors feel that the "list of deans" or "list of organists" should be included somewhere in the project, then they should likely follow the convention used elsewhere. (For example COE deans are listed separate to the article on the cathedral buildings.  And organists similarly listed independent of the building articles. This is in keeping with WP:SS and WP:SAL guidelines. Which suggest that, where lists are impactful to balance/UNDUE/readability, they should likely be "split" to SAL format). Guliolopez (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Guliolopez, the reasons you made are something I may rely on later, these lists are a common problem; I see them often in town articles for eg; list of local parishes and stuff. A solution, if you get into a log jam, is to spin it out into a daughter article. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceoil, take as much text as you like! I've been meaning to get back to Fin Barre, but there's always something else to do. I've got most of the books cited if you need any references, the Lawrence and Wilson's very good. It was great to meet you and your better/other half in London, by the way. Very best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: KJP1, I lived within a stones throw of the cathedral for 5 years in the 90s, and know it well to see, but it struck me, when we were chatting, how little I actually knew about its architecture, style, comission and history. I read the Burges article on the way home, and was really interested. I dont mean to pillage your article for here, more that the sourcing is obviously better, so might look up, while the structure and order of touch points in the section there are well thought through and would form the basis for a strong led here. I mean really that I'll follow your lead on these. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceoil, truly, I'm delighted someone's doing something to bring Fin Barre more up to scratch. It's been a "shabby apology" for a Burges article for far too long. I love collaborations on Wikipedia and would be delighted to check references, look things up, act as a sounding board - whatever you need. If I could make one immediate suggestion, I'd use the 2013 revised edition of Crook's Burges. The original's splendid, but it is over 30 years old. I have it and will revise the current Crook refs. Any more you want, just let me know and I'll get the page numbers. The bulk of the Burges FA was done before the revised version came out - sometime I'll go and do the changes there but it's a daunting task! Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Ok thats interesting KJP1. Liz is the minister for finance in our house (if I held the purse stings there be lorries backed up at the door delivering book after book), and I have been eyeing up Crook all day. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: KJP1 , the book is now in the mail. Actually it isn't, because sellers on AmazonUK won't ship to Ireland. Not for under 300 quid, anyway. Bit bummed about this. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a beautiful book, and I really would recommend the 2013 version. But one needs to be very careful on price. When it came out, it was £45, but I fear it's out of print again, certainly Waterstones doesn't have it. That was actually very reasonable, for the quality of the book, and considering the 1981 version cost £40 in 1981. Both the 2013 and the 1981 can go for crazy prices on Amazon/Ebay, upwards of £400 for the earlier one. It also weighs a ton, so postage can be an issue! KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: KJP1, are there any other books you can recommend on this? I'm going to see what I can do when in the States - things can often be found for less expense, and they will ship anywhere, and I know a place that will reprint oop books - but it would be great to have a source to hand before then. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Not at all wanting to start a debate on this contentious topic, but appreciate what you mean about the length. Just looking at a few random examples, Wells Cathedral and St Paul's Cathedral, both have long infoboxes, but also long contents sections which avoids the problem. Maybe we just have to write more! KJP1 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed!! I was thinking similar Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

text: , Indeed, the name's been a source of discussion before. Unfortunately, neither Crook nor Lawrence/Wilson do discuss it. We really need the Cork Pevsner, which has been due out since about 2010 but has been having major difficulties. When I last asked Yale they said it was "delayed with no planned publication date". Re. references, these have always been one of my lesser strengths but I am very comfortable with sfn, if everyone else is. Certainly, I'd be delighted to work on it, and shall try to put some time aside. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have made a mistake re the cartoons for the window glass; currently attributed in the article to Burges, but of course their production outsourced based on designs. Digging back. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you did make a mistake - who exactly did what is a bloody complicated area! I'm currently looking at a small pamphlet I have entitled "Got Cork", which is the catalogue for the centenary exhibition held at the Crawford Municipal Art Gallery in 1981. This says, of the "Adam Kneeling" panel for the western rose window; "sketch by Burges, he himself (i.e. Burges) prepared cartoons for the creation window and for 21 of the clerestory windows". But of the Virgin Mary window, it says "Weekes prepared the cartoons under Burges' direction, and subsequently executed by Saunders". Whereas others were done by Lonsdale. All rather difficult. We may have to describe each window! KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Describe each window? I'm down with that. I'm still relying on web sources, but even so, there is a bunch of credible sources. Fin Barrs is just up the road from UCC and right next to the Crawford College of Art, so there has been lots of recent study, of varying quality of course. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not sure what these two sentences (third para. of the Architecture section) are trying to say. Have they got mangled, or are they a hangover from a previous version? "In form and shape, many of the figures in the stained glass echo figures Tympanum, although they are in generally far more down to earth. The figures can be divides between the divine, wise and foolish, and portrayed with remarkable blutisness." KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

text: KJP1 that seems mangled to me, know what was intended, hold tough. Separate sects on the stained glass and sculptures, yes, absolutely, but am not there yet...are you brave enough ;) I'm thinking that what is now "Architecture" will subdivide under "structure" (or some such) and third level headers. Standalone (ie second level) gives a very messy TOC. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A modest beginning.KJP1 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work in the last 24 hours KJP1, its really starting to take shape. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: * There's a ref to "From Ireland Coming: Irish Art from the Early Christian to the Late Gothic Period and Its European Context" that is not cited in text. So I looked. It mentions "six head-shaped voussoirs" ... There is an appealing  photo also of four of these on page 210 of  Rynne, Colin, Wigham, B.; (2002) 'An early photographic study of the eighteenth-century St Fin barre's Cathedral'. Journal of The Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 107 (*):199-210  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  six head-shaped voussoirs 

message: :Bit confused by this. The section says Christchurch Dublin. But the Christ Church article seems to make out it was a wreck during the early 18th century rebuilds. Do you think it's the same church and there is a bit missing on the C C D article? What you think ? Cheers, Si Irondome (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I normally refer to our resident expert User:Guliolopez on ecumenical matters, but ask him not to break sweat here - the now removed claim wasn't so important. Thanks very much for all the edits thus far ID and for pruning this Dublin related thorn. I hadnt realised things about Dublin had crept in. Ceoil (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Always good to work with yer C! Si Irondome (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, same from here. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval and 18th century churches section, [[Christ Church, Dublin]]? 

message: The lead section notes that "During the medieval period, the site absorbed successive wars, damage and waves of church building." Looking through the main text, this doesn't seem quite right. There's a reference to:
a) a church/shrine being built in the 7th century
b) that church either declining from lack of use, or being destroyed by the Norse, in the 12th century
c) damage to a church on the site in 1690 from a combination of a fire and a cannonball
Over the course of a thousand years or so, this doesn't feel as dynamic as "successive wars" and "waves of church building" would imply (and item c) isn't really medieval). NB: if I'm missing something, please shout! I'd therefore suggest toning this down a bit, perhaps turning it to "The 7th century church survived until the 12th century." or something simpler like that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - Hi H, and good to hear from you. Ceoil will probably reply but I’ll also check my sources. I’ve got to go out now, but will do so when I’m back. I suspect you’re right and that it needs a slight toning down. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately my sources, which are all focussed on the Burges building, shed less light on the earlier history. What we really need is the County Cork Pevsner. Originally due out in 2010, the Yale University Press site says it is finally to appear in 2019, . That said, the cathedral's own history pages refer only to the original monastery of AD 606, the medieval church which lasted until 1785, the Classical "apology" which lasted to the 1860s, and Burges's building to the present, . So four in over 1000 years probably doesn't constitute "waves". If Ceoil doesn't pick it up directly in the TFA aftermath, I'll look to make a tweak. As an aside, what a lot of collateral "interest" today provoked. Burges, Lonsdale, Nicholls all took hits! KJP1 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Have had a go. KJP1 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , your edit is a good solution. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query over "waves"... 

message: The first sentence of the body, under "History"; "Finbarr of Cork", claims that the grounds of the cathedral are located on "Holy Island". The sentence claiming this cites no sources. I checked the next cited source, the Oxford Dictionary of Saints. It does not mention Holy Island. I googled "Holy Island Cork", and at first glance found primarily info about a Holy Island in Clare, references to Sherkin Island, and one (bad) source that links Gougane Barra to Holy Island, but not the grounds of saint Fin Barre's. After further searching, I was able to find a piece that semi-reliably links the grounds of the monastic site in Gougane Barra to being on Holy Island. Please correct this. Xx78900 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the above. It's the land on which the cathedral sits. At the time of the founding on the monastery, the River Lee was quite swampy with many small islands that have since disappeared or been filled in. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Holy Island? 

message: Not sure if people are interested in adding it to the article but this excerpt from a journal published in 1892 features a sketch of the Cathedral that was dmeolished in the 1730s. https://www.corkhist.ie/wp-content/uploads/jfiles/poetry/bPoetry-028.pdf Xx78900 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be interested to see it, but unfortunately the link’s not working for me. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why that is, it's working fine for me - it's the second-to-last entry here: https://www.corkhist.ie/TOCdate.php?pageNum_rsSearch2=7&totalRows_rsSearch2=216&year=1892 Xx78900 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketch of Cathedral prior to 18th century demolition 

message: My opinion, as already laid-out above and consistent with (seemingly) several other editors (whose suggestions seem to have been omitted from the options proposed), is that there is no need for a change. The article, fundamentally, is about the building (its design, architecture, construction, etc). And not about the details of diocesan structures. And hence my suggestion is. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved option D above to keep them together. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make things more readable if discussions / observations were kept to the Discussion section while the bare vote itself was kept to the Voting section. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it odd that no voters have mentioned in the discussion section that none of the cited examples contains the "subject's location, architecture, history, design" in the first sentence. Is Notre Dame not notable enough? Does it not have enough architectural merit? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: When did it cease to be in the Diocese of Cork? Is the Diocese of Cork not extant? When it was united with 2 other dioceses, did it cease to exist as a diocese? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this burden is on you. Given behaviors here so far, am not inclined to answer random questions that are accessable via research or even Google (ie I think you are point scoring). To state the obvious, the article is not about the Diocese of Cork. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. I tried this Google thing. You were right - it had lots of information. For example, the website of the United Dioceses of Cork, Cloyne and Ross states: "The Diocese of Ross originally included part of the Beara peninsula, but following parish re-organisation in 2000 this portion is now part of the Diocese of Cork.". If the Diocese of Cork no longer existed, then why would a re-organisation in 2000 be needed? That being the case, I think that the phrase "was once in the Diocese of Cork" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to phrase it as "Formerly the sole cathedral of the Diocese of Cork, it is now one of three co-cathedrals in the United Dioceses of Cork, Cloyne and Ross.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Jesus christ. WP:SOFIXIT, but not in the opening sentence like last time you realised something that then had to be the most important thing ever. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for such intemperate language. As suggested, I have now made the above amendment. Isn't it amazing that the lead of such a prestigious article may still be improved? However did it manage to achieve FA status with such glaring errors? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  - you are now patently trolling. What you have amended was not an error, you have merely chosen to express the same thing in a different way. KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling? No. Pointing out that I'm being admonished for not fixing it here yet am abused for the fixes that I already did? Yes. That's just hypocrisy. And when can I expect to receive an apology for the bad language and the lack of assumption of good faith? So it was not an error? You have citations to show that the Diocese of Cork was formally abolished? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Well, I think your edit today on the Diocese was fine, but is a pity it was proceed by such needless drama. But fine, and actually thanks for doing the research and helping. While I tend to agree with KJP above, its not too late to slavage this, if you accept my apology for swearing and us two do a restart? Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How gracious! So grand. In that context, what do people think of punting the above "voting" to wikiproject Ireland, as as is its unlikely to get much attention apart from us lot Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can be loquacious betimes. Just not now. Yes - why not. Though that forum is fairly moribund these days. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: haha re loquacious (a new word for me!), and can be like that myself sometimes. Grand re the wikiproject, but it is one of the better ones (they are all pretty quite this decade), and I think well get good feedback, so fingers crossed. Will do the honors if thats ok, and will keep it short, NPOV and sweet,  20-30 words and no more. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Laurel, let see what happens, and talk later. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I'm a bit late to the party, but I've checked in my copy of The Church of Ireland: An illustrated History (2013) and I just wanted to confirm that piece written by the Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross does indeed refer to them as three separate dioceses. Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was once in the Diocese of Cork