Talk:Fountains Abbey

message: With the disappearance of the Fountains Abbey plan, quite a few references in the text lead to nowhere.
	
And I suggest to reinstate the old photo or use an alternative newer one.--Klaus with K 15:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Madmedea 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Abbey information in the Studley Royal Park article should be moved into the Fountains Abbey article. But the Studley Royal Park should stay, there is enough other information to keep it as an article on its own, the Garden, Mill, Church and deer park. Although I would further suggest that Studley Royal Water Garden is merged into Studley Royal Park. MortimerCat 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally with MortimerCat's suggestions above. Hogyn Lleol 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. LordHarris 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed (but who is going to do it?)   MortimerCat 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed but I think that Studley Royal Water Garden should be merged with Studley Royal Park, for they are refered to as the same place by visitors. The Abbey however should be a seperate article. LordHarris 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Go! Go! Go!  MortimerCat 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto.  Hogyn Lleol 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial rejig is done. The article still needs work (and I've got some pics that I can add) but its a step in the right direction Madmedea 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work! Perhaps create a gallery for images? LordHarris 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The main page for this topic will be Studley Royal Park - this will contain the relevant content from the existing page and the merged content from Studley Royal Water Garden (to become a redirect) and will be able to accomodate information on the deer park, St. Mary's Church, the mill etc.. It will also contain summaries with 'main article' links to Fountains Abbey and Fountains Hall (the hall page is short but has potential for expansion).  I'm happy get on with this, if you're happy for me to do it - I'm a newbie wikipedian so I'm happy for you guys to do any further editing when I've done the main swop Madmedea 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go! Go! Go!  MortimerCat 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto.  Hogyn Lleol 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial rejig is done. The article still needs work (and I've got some pics that I can add) but its a step in the right direction Madmedea 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work! Perhaps create a gallery for images? LordHarris 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right, this is what I think we've agreed:

message: Why was the English Heritage category removed? It is an English Heritage Property, see , albeit in partnership with the National Trust    MortimerCat 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I agree with the gallery removal either - I wish people would look at a pages history to see when and why things had changed. Madmedea 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted the last two edits by Bob Castle for three reasons. 1.) The gallery both makes the page tidy and allows for the collection of images already available + future ones. 2.) The Abbey is an English Heritage property, in join partnership, as above and 3.) Bob Castles revert removed all the subcategories that I made in a previous edit. It also reverted the movement of text from the opening paragraph, in accordance with wikifying policy. If anyone disagrees with my revert, please discuss here before changing. Thanks. LordHarris 14:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for the message. I seem to remember that the English Heritage category had already been removed before, but by reverting it, I removed it again just to undo the "gallery" edit. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of galleries, and the reason I reverted it was that LordHarris's edit left the image without an opening picture, which seemed rather odd to me. As the content of the "History and Development" subheading was largely architectural, I've subdivided it into two headings of 'history' and 'architecture', adding a little bit of the early history of the building and some references, plus one or two pictures that help illustrate or compliment the text of the article, which is what the pictures are for. Hope that's OK. Bob talk 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article looks good now, LordHarris 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll have to have a go at expanding it further at some point - you've got me interested, now. Bob talk 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Heritage 

message: I've not previously edited this article, so am raising this here out of respect for those who have. It seems to me ludicrous that the making of a 1981 music video qualifies as part of the history of this abbey. Will one of you remove it, or must I?!!   Cheers Bjenks (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, good spot - have removed. Bob talk 09:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fountains_Abbey#History|History howler?]] 

message: I thought (and Studley Royal Park seems to agree) that the abbey is part of the 18th century park, in that the park was developed specifically with the abbey in mind in terms of the vistas etc. I think there needs to be a bit more about the development of the park in this article (with a link to the main article of course), as that is a significant part of the history. What do people think? Polequant (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2012(UTC)
:I think we need an umbrella article with the Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site title, then tidy up the articles about the main features and link them in.  It's all a bit messy on Wikipedia. I was looking at the management plan pdf It provides some useful background information. The Abbey has its own unique history, though, before it became part of the Estate. --Harkey (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit awkward because the abbey was around for 600 years before the park incorporated it. I'm not sure that an overall article would help as that would be repetitive of what is in here and the park article. I was thinking that there should be a section in here regarding the park, with a link to the main article. The park article should have a bit more about the abbey with a link here (at the moment there is very little about the abbey in that). Alternatively, we just do one big article with Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal Park redirecting to it. Polequant (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think two articles is prefereable to one big one. A World Heritage section in each might suffice. J3Mrs (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of a summary article for the Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site including  things like its status and reasons for its choice, and more detailed treatment of the individual features in their own articles.--Harkey (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that might be a bit repetitive, but try it out, it can't hurt. Polequant (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it in my sandbox at first, then ask if its OK to put into Main space later. Don't hold your breath, though; it could take a while.--Harkey (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of Studley Royal? 

message: Fountains held vast holdings/estates/granges/lands etc. which contributed to its wealth and fame. I am looking to develop a section on Estates and economy, any comments?--Harkey (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Have you got decent info about its holdings? Polequant (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a fair bit here and here to cut my teeth on!!--Harkey (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make couple of illustrative maps later.--Harkey (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowments and economy 

message: Substituted at 15:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Ground-Penetrating Radar reveals the monks' cemetery at Fountains Abbey, with more than 500 graves holding 2000 bodies. See website for information. 18 November 2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.229.61 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Monks cemetery

message: and, after unsuccessful attempts to form a new monastery were taken under the protection of Thurstan, Archbishop of York
This makes no sense to me.   Is it missing a comma?   Is it missing a word?   I can't tell.   
13 monks get kicked out of their home.  I get that part.  Then they talk to the archbishop of York, I get that.   But was their attempt successful, or unsuccessful?   Did Thurstan help them or oppose them?    Hopefully someone can clarify that sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimindc (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a comma, , which I think makes it clearer. However, none of the sources I've seen says that they attempted to found a monastery before Thurstan took them under his protection. Will look further. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That claim is not in Coppack, and I've seen it nowhere else, so I've removed it. Makes the sentence easier to understand as well. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence in the introduction makes no sense to me... 

message: Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. The second stage of the project, after an assessment period, is to try to address missing references on the pages for some of the Top-10-most-visited properties, of which Fountains Abbey is one. I hope to start this work shortly, but please do let me know if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello all! I've filled in the majority of the missing references today, pending some further cross-referencing. I removed the template, as there are now I think only 2 missing citations. Please do let me know if you have any questions. I learnt so much from the content already on the page, thanks to all the contributors over the years. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I would guess that a separate page would be the way to go if there are a significant number of burial entries to be recorded. A section above indicates about 2,000 bodies. Keith D (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello @Keith D - thanks very much for this comment - I didn't see it until now. I'll let you know if anything further happens. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot 

message: Hello page-watchers, during the discussion of the page with colleagues at the National Trust, it was observed that the burials list could be enhanced, since there's many other abbots and benefactors buried there. That work might be beyond the scope of this pilot, so I wondered if the task appealed to others? I also wondered, whether if the list proves to be very extensive, whether a separate list page might be useful? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that a separate page would be the way to go if there are a significant number of burial entries to be recorded. A section above indicates about 2,000 bodies. Keith D (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello @Keith D - thanks very much for this comment - I didn't see it until now. I'll let you know if anything further happens. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Burials list