Talk:Lincoln Cathedral

message: The picture chosen is not illustrative of this building (to say the least). It shows nothing that's unique about this building but rather something one may see in a thousand church or other similar buildings around the world.It would be a suitable photo for an article about furniture or church decor, but does not help anyone seeking info about this  building.
Pi lambda 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint about picture 

message: From the article:
: "There was a lead-encased wooden spire that rose 160 m (525 feet), that collapsed in 1549 thanks to weather"
I tried replacing "thanks" with something else, but since I don't know the exact circumstances (storm, lightning, tornado?), I wondered if somebody else could do that? Thanks :-) Peter S. 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spire collapsed "thanks to weather"? 

message: From the article:
: "Up to that point in time, the next point on the earth's surface at the same height, looking eastwards, was the Ural Mountains in Russia."
From the article about Mont Blanc
: "Its height is about 4,810 metres"
So, unless the the City of Lincoln is located 4650 meters AMSL, I don't really believe this point. I'm removing it, add it back with some explanations if it's really true. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mont Blanc is not due east of Lincoln. The intention appears to be to say that there was nothing higher than Lincoln Cathedral in an easterly direction until the Urals. Sbz5809 13:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The statement the next point on the earth's surface at the same height, looking eastwards, was the Ural Mountains in Russia is quite clear. What is the relevance of your 4000 odd metres? Longwayround (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest point at the same height was the ural?

message: I have Internal photos and no idea of how to post them! (Streethawk, Grimsby (Lincolnshire!) 19/11/05)
:Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images.  John 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uploading Images

message: Wikipedia pegs both this structure and the Salisbury Cathedral as the tallest churches in the UK. I recently visited the Salisbury Cathedral and it still makes the claim. Does anyone in actual fact know which is the taller?
Dave
Lincoln is way down the list of tallest UK churches.  Salisbury (123m), St Paul's (111m), Liverpool (101m), Norwich (96m) and several others are all taller than Lincoln's 83m.
On a slightly different note, I see this article makes the claim "The central tower rises to 83 m (271 feet) and remains the tallest cathedral tower in Europe today without a spire."  This is not true either -- St Paul's and Liverpool Cathedrals do not have spires, and quite possibly several others in England and other countries.  I haven't checked too extensively.
Ben Willetts
As far a I recall Lincoln Cathedral was the tallest Cathedral in Europe when it had a spire.  Even at this height now that would not be true but back then it was 83.100.154.111 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Church in UK 

message: I think the claim for the highest building since the Pyramids of Giza deserves some better sources than we have now.
Are there any other books or papers on historical research into the Lincoln Cathedral that assessed the credibility of this claim?
Because so far we only have the A.F. Kendrick, who calls it doubtful, but gives no further explanation. We also have the other sources that were given in the Wikipedia article but I doubt the authors really verified the claim themselves, since the websites/books are not dedicated to the Lincoln Cathedral.Ckiki lwai (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original source for the 525 feet claim 

message: The page feels a little image heavy and really falls apart round about "Modern controversies" - I'd suggest either remove 4 or 5 photos or tag an image gallery onto the end and move all but two pictures into it. (Emperor 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many pictures?

message: I have tried to edit and clean up the article as best as possible. I have done the following:
* Reorganised the categories and changed the modern contrv. section to a trivia section, as well as reducing the number of overall sections to address a comment in the discussion. I have also edited the information in those sections.
* Added lots of information to the history section, rewrote it and reorganised it in a more chronological and coherent section - including more detail on St Hugh of Avalon and Eleanor of Castille
* Removed some information on the imp (because it has its own article). 
* Created a photos page as suggested above, and moved most of the photos from the article to the photo page.
LordHarris 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Isn't there also an attached library and chapter house? The floorplan doesn't have them. (24.218.139.94 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Floor plan

message: The History section unfortunately ends before the Reformation. Was there much change or destruction in the cathedral during that time? -- 85.179.175.225 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformation? 

message: Given that this was the tallest building in the world when it had its tower, the article could do with a picture  of that tower. Beorhtric 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Surely there must be a drawing of the cathedral with the spire intact.   Will Beback  talk   18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This would definitely be useful, maybe as an "artist's impression" of what he spire might look like today. -- 82.152.200.63 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Finally got one now :) --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of tower please

message: Has anyone ever heard of an earthquake in England. Certainly Wiki hasn't. If go to "List of Earthquakes" link via the "Earthquake" link, you will see that there is no listing for an earthquake in England at any time. Ever. How then, could the cathedral have been " destroyed by an earthquake about forty years later, in 1185.", I wonder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's not particularly known for them, there have been plenty of earthquakes in England. Isn't Google is a wonderful tool. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Earthquake? 

message: A reasonably new editor,  Woodseats44 (talk) has repeatedly appended the following statement of a very general nature to the summary statement at the top of Lincoln Cathedral: "Like all medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England, Lincoln Cathedral is Roman Catholic in origin as it predates the Reformation."This edit has been undone today by three separate editors and, wishing to avoid an edit war, I am requesting that we discuss the matter here.GrahamSmith (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that this is not really lead material, though could be mentioned in the appropriate place in the history section. Keith D (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I was one of the reverters, so I am against this inclusion. The original editor seems to think it provides balance. Presumably it balances with the statement that it is an Anglican cathedral now. I wonder if s/he is going to change all the other pre-reformation, protestant churches in the world. As a matter of history, I don't think the term Roman Catholic (term) actually existed back then. Myrvin (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the reverters too and also think this isn't lead material. [S]he's also added the sentence to the Salisbury Cathedral lead, which I shall revert too. Arthur Holland (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Everyone: Please check the comment of the latest edit. Myrvin (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I suspect this is the same editor under a different name. S/he has also put in that the first Bishop was catholic. I'll try reverting again. There is some point to this however. People who didn't know about the reformation  in England (children, non-Christians, non-british) may think that the cathedral has always been Anglican. Is there some way we can include this information? Myrvin (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The article on Bishop of Lincoln says:Until the 1530s, the bishops were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. During the Reformation, they changed their allegiance back and forth between the crown and the papacy. Under Henry VIII and Edward VI, the bishops conformed to the Church of England, but under Mary I they adhered to the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Reformation, the bishops and diocese of Lincoln have been part of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Perhaps something along these lines could go in the History section. It does go very quiet at the 15th century. Myrvin (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with Myrvin's suggestion; and the History section is definitely the place, not the header.GrahamSmith (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I think this is the way to go too. But therefore it should probably be extended to all churches (or cathedrals at least) which fit this pre-reformation criteria? Not saying that's a bad idea, but will take a bit of work. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And let's put "now Anglican" back into the introduction, as a teaser to entice readers to read on and find out what it was before. Cobulator (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're asking to put back in one of the two edits you made that everyone else here objected to before for reasons already given? Just to clarify, can I ask if you accept any of the points we've made, or do you still feel that your original edits were fine as they were?  Arthur Holland (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't given the dignity of having it "objected to" originally, it was simply deleted (along with another change) with a blatantly rude edit summary. And I'm not "asking", I'm offering an opinion. I believe what I added first time around was honest, accurate and harmless. I've not seen any argument that persuades me otherwise. Cobulator (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm not going to get into the edit war again, so I'll leave it in for now, but unilaterally reinserting your edit in the face of numerous other editor's concerns the minute the page protection is lifted is not the way to go. Can I ask others to weigh in please. Arthur Holland (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have undone edits made by Cobulator (talk), which are at the heart of the discussion below, pending us reaching consensus on the two issues below.GrahamSmith (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I am happy to abide by Nev1's wise suggestion that we leave Lincoln Cathedral as it is for nowGrahamSmith (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to try to explain why you undid my other edit of today too, the one about its location? Cobulator (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm content to let sleeping dogs lie. If Cobulator considers that people interested in reading this article won't know that the first Bishop of Lincoln (like all his successors up to the present day) was of the Catholic faith, then so be it.  For the reasons stated below, I am opposed to further changes of any substance, unless they relate specifically to the Cathedral rather tthan the Diocesan BishopGrahamSmith (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also of course every other early person mentioned in the article should be denoted as such - unless they were Jewish. And every other old religious building. :-) Myrvin (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to throw my support behind what you're saying Moonraker12. I've said as much before (see above and below) but I think people got tired of arguing with Cobulator so he/she "won" by default, but I strongly feel (I know it's a small thing, only a couple of words, but God's in the details) that the "now-Anglican" thing is totally inappropriate. To be honest, I don't see much need for the proposed compromise either (although wouldn't object at all) but mostly just wanted to get "now-Anglican" out of the lead. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Statement about Pre-Reformation Churches 

message: The assertion that St Mary's was a Mother Church is odd. The wikilink is no help. Needs a citation? Myrvin (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to clarify which this is referring to, as there may be some confusion with so many churches of that time being dedicated to St. Mary.  Please let me know if your source(s) show something differentGrahamSmith (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Church 

message: I know this may sound so radical as to start an argument, but I perceive it as pointless having a county map filling up space, when one click on the co-ordinates will call up every type of map one could possibly want.  The map occupies a lot of space (like the horrible box full of info that is also found within the article)  and means that pictures of this, England's sublime work of architecture, are either sandwhiched or pushed down.  Right now, the pics are horribly overcrowded.  I am not suggesting fewer pictures because , as with all great artworks, a picture is worth a thousand words.  The thousand words, however, do help the less-well-informed on the subject to understand what it is they are looking at. Amandajm (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: This:-
"Its origins pre-date the Protestant Reformation by over three hundred years"
was added without explanation or discussion by IP 84.45.222.192 (talk) yesterday: As it reflects the same sentiment which has been added repeatedly to this and other pages, by a single-purposed editor (using a variety of accounts) who has not made any attempt to reach a consensus position, (see above, here and here, for previous discussions) I’ve reverted it. 
If there is any value in having this information in the article, or any point other than disruption in adding it, then explanations are invited (again!) here. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious edit 

message: Should the country say in England or United Kingdom?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readthisandlearn (talk • contribs) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The country should be England which is more specific. Keith D (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Keith - England is more specific, and fits with the way it is described in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree also. I was surprised to see that it looked (I may, as always, be getting it wrong) as if Readthisandlearn changed it again after asking this question and after at least one reply. Given that he/she has done the same change at Brian Garvey and also been reverted there, I would have thought it was something worth discussing rather than just continuing with. To do the latter is almost bound to cause irritation, I fear. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Country

message: Does anyone know what facts need citing according to the banner? I reckon we could make this a B and move it on toward GA.  But I'd like to sort the banner out as a first step.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few. I'd start by scanning it for particular facts/claims that currently lack citations - e.g. "The cathedral is the 3rd largest in Britain (in floor space) after St Paul's and York Minster, being 484 feet (148 m) by 271 feet (83 m). It is Lincolnshire's largest building...", and the sections which lack any citations at all - e.g. Little Saint Hugh, Rose windows, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I loathe drive-by tagging, I might stick some  tags in if I can't come up with any references myself.  Next time I'm up there I'll buy the official guide book.  I bet half of it comes from there!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Quite understandable that edits should be made to the article but recent edits rollbacked because it removed numerous facts with footnotes but only offered one main one relating to the bells at. Given this is a developed article, could we stick to single edits with clear NEW footnotes so sources are clear for each change and rollbacks aren't required? AnonNep (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll explain what I did- I removed several of the redundant categories in the infobox such as nonexistent dome details and demolition dates, also the sourced text says that Remigius died 2 days before consecration so I inserted that. The spire collapse is repeated so I removed that and corrected the date where it says the wrong year. Some of the details of its current size don't belong in History so I moved that to the lead section and I shifted the bell details to where the bell installation is covered. I clarified the wording "build quality" and I then removed the unsourced material about being used as a landmark that has been tagged for over 3 years because it is repeated a couple of lines later and also tagged there. Also there are errors flagged in the date format of the reference for Kendrick that the WP software didn't recognise so I removed them because, again, it was duplicating information anyway (actual information and reference itself are unaffected). Developed or not, the article is studded with mistakes and typos amongst other things, many of which you have preserved by reverting me. Can you rather request clarification before a rollback instead of afterwards?--Mevagiss (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  And for all of those changes you introduced one source that was quoted once. Why? (NB: To restate above, all sourced edits and corrections are more than welcomed. Do them sourced and singular, don't wrap a bundle of unsourced edits around one (possible) fact.)AnonNep (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

text: So why did only one of your bundled (multiple) edits include a source (refname or otherwise)? AnonNep (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All of my changes affected the presentation of the sourced material, but no new or different material - so there are no introduced sources, only the info from the sources that are already there. If you think that I added more details to the article then that is wrong. All the editing I did relates to text that was already there. No facts were removed only statements that have been challenged and not sourced, and the text is still there as before just in more order. I hope that makes my position clearer.--Mevagiss (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add information to an already existing link you can use a refname. Some of your additions, such as on the Lincoln Imp, come up on Google text searches back to 2012. Without a source how are we to know they're not cut and paste WP:COPYVIO? AnonNep (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Rollback

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lincoln Cathedral. 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/20060820005339/http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Lincoln.htm to http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Lincoln.htm
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) 03:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This source (p.19) says it spends "£1.6m a year" on essential repairs. So I think "850 million a month" is a mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of maintenance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lincoln Cathedral. 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/20061005011720/http://www.lincolncathedralchoir.co.uk/ to http://www.lincolncathedralchoir.co.uk/
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) 14:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln Cathedral. 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/20120119151144/http://lincolncathedral.com/2011/11/appointment-of-new-subdean/ to http://lincolncathedral.com/2011/11/appointment-of-new-subdean/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130411065757/http://lincolncathedral.com/events/installation-of-subdean-and-canons/ to http://lincolncathedral.com/events/installation-of-subdean-and-canons/
*Added  tag to http://www.lincoln.anglican.org/pdf_view.php?id=455
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) 12:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I question the appelation 'The Blessed' prefixing Edward King's name; the title implies beatification, which I understand is only done in the Roman Catholic Church (he being a Church of England bishop who lived post-Reformation), commonly to martyrs and those to whom miracles were attributed after death. Am I right?Cloptonson (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct title of Bishop Edward King? (Burials section)

message: There's an AfD-merge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Mystery Plays), not actioned for many months, with an outcome of merge to the Lincoln Cathedral page. Looking at Lincoln Mystery Plays, though, it seems that the content would be out-of-place and unbalance this page. Rather, I think that a better target for hte merge would be N-Town Plays, with Lincoln Mystery Plays having a distinct section there as a modern adaptation of a traditional collection. That would seem to place the material better in context. Klbrain (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln Mystery Plays