Talk:Chichester Cathedral/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability / Sources

I am sure this cathedral is very nice and historical and everything. Is it unreasonable to expect some documentation by the contributing editors? -- KingNewbs (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaargh!

Huge gaps in text cause by info box. Please LOOKI at the effect before saving! Amandajm (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for all your little edits, Wetman! Could you take a look at Carlisle Cathedral as well? But please stop reducing pics, as the text is describing the details (eg the Purbeck marble shafts) which cannot be viewed in the tiny image. Most users do not know that thhere is an option to chose the size that one sees images. The sizing of images in art articles has been discussed, with most regular contributors wanting them larger, not smaller. (Unless there are a huge number, of course, eg Romanesque architecture where images are sized acording to the amount of info contained in the image, and whether detailed viewing is necessary). Amandajm (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I never reduce illustrations. In fact "My preferences" (upper right corner) are for 300 pixels. I don't inflict my choices for nice big illustrations on others but de-force px per the not-even-so-new-any-more MoS. I never invoke "most users" to press my own views. --Wetman (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a very fine line between "reducing illustrations" and "de-forcing px". If I may be so crass as to refer to yer average user, the effect, for them, is remarkably the same. If the MoS hasn't yet been revised about this matter, then it needs to be. Amandajm (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Capital Letters

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Capital Letters necessary. Organist and Master of the Choristers, Assistant Organist and Organ Scholar written with capital letters. Willwal (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been conflicts between editors on the matter of whether Organist & Master of the Choristers, Assistant Organists and Organ Scholars should be written with a capital letter. If you think that it shoyld be, then put YesCAPS and your name, etc. If you think it shouldn't, then put NoCAPS, name, etc. Please also put why you think that there should/n't be capital letters on these titles. -Willwal talk to me Sunday 12 July 08:10 (UTC)

YesCAPS Willwal talk to me Sunday 12 July 08:12 (UTC). They are official titles and need to be headed with capital letters because of this.

YesCAPS Amandajm (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC). It is customary. It is the form used on other cathedral pages. I might say that the parts of the building are also often referred to with capitals, this always being the case if there is a distinctive name such as the Angel Choir and St Hugh's Choir at Lincoln and the Five Sisters at York.

Thank-you for your comments; it's been 2 months since this discussion opened, so I think that with the majority being YesCAPS, we can declare that the titles, Organist & Master of the Choristers, etc will be written with capitals. Willwal, Talk to Me 08:25 Sun 27 Sept.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above section is meaningless

because the Manual of Style applies to all pages. Two editors with a poor grasp of this cannot opt the page out of the consensus arrived at by the Wikipedian community. Bear in mind that polls are evil.--Charles (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Little Boxes and....

....huge ugly impractical boxes! Someone just added a map to to info box and tipped the balance of what I'm prepared to put up with. Huge boxes full of spaced-out text (that could be within the article) take up all the right-hand space that could be used for pics and disrupt the entire layout for anyone using a wide screen.

Someone, (forgotten the name) against all my objections, came up with this horrible box which allows you to insert every single member of the staff and every possible dimension of the building. It is divided into three sections, the first of which has the unfortunate heading of "basic information" (whatever that is). We don't need this huge cumbersom template. The stuff should be written into the article.

Here is what I removed: precentor = The Revd Canon Tim Schofield canons = The Revd Canon Dr Anthony Cane, Chancellor The Revd Canon Ian Gibson Treasurer The Revd Canon Tom Inman Representative of the College of Canons The Revd Canon Derek Tansill Cathedral Chaplain The Revd Canon David Nason Priest Vicar other = Mrs Sarah Stonor Dr John Dalgleish Mrs Lesley Webster Lay Members of the Chapter Cdre David Mowlam RN Communar archdeacon = The Ven Douglas McKittrick organist =Sarah Baldock

Let me put it to you this way, the creators of the cathedral website do consider this info so vital that it takes precedence over the other information. Very few readers need to know this, or would find it interesting. The information can go somewhere lower down the article in a list of "current staff". Those who need to know a list of the canons will look for it on the cathedral's webpage where they will also find people's contact details.

Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all the info is already there, in a paragraph called "Dean and Chapter"! Amandajm (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not keen on boxes anyway, and putting in a map which contains little detail, is ugly and is easily found by clicking to the cathedral town seems quite unnecessary.--Charles (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The well-meaning editor has added them to all the cathedrals. Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)