Talk:St Mary Redcliffe

St Mary Redcliffe has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 2, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Bristol High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has a map
	This article has an infobox

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	St Mary Redcliffe is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location map

I note from the article history some editors removing the location map from the infobox and then others reinserting it. Rather than an edit war developing could people suggest their arguments for an against the map being included here. I believe they are useful in helping those who are unfamiliar with the local geography to place the topic of the article within its geographical context. I have also found their use to be standard (and therefore probably expected) within this infobox (Infobox religious building) and Infobox Historic sites and various others which are used on articles about buildings etc.— Rod ^talk 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for standardisation in any non assessed article - even at FAC there is no requirement for an infobox. I'm in that camp that think they're vile, and wouldn't have them in my own articles - however usually the principle editors are deferred to - if they want it, who am I to disagree? (to quote the Eurthymics)

So with that tolerance regarding the infobox in general in mind, we turn to the map. It is currently occupying extraordinary amounts of space and giving very little in return. We already have the building's coordinates twice (was 3 times!) by means of which users can navigate to the whole google earth streetview extravaganza if they choose, so it's utility is of questionable benefit. In my view that space would be better used by an image.

I'd accept an alternative compromise that included a map at the bottom of the article where it wasn't so prominent and where its importance can be properly reflected. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bristol Wikiproject has these maps in the infoboxes of virtually every building in the city (see the articles in Category:Buildings and structures in Bristol). Standardisation like that is a good thing and the consensus for their use is clearly established. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - so if I set up Wikiproject:Infobox removal for editors who don't want them, splashed my banners everywhere and argued that was a consensus - that would be ok then? Why is standardisation a good thing? And the removal of the map here simply proves that WP:Consensus can change. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly worried by your comment "wouldn't have them in my own articles" which might be an example of WP:OWN. No one "owns" this article, although I believe I have edited this article more than anyone else. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) for recommendations. One approach thrashed out at Talk:Montacute House was to have a collapsible infobox. As far as including the map is concerned, it gives the context without have to click on other links, which readers may not be aware that you can click on the coords to get further maps etc. Standardisation is a good thing if it helps the readers to quuickly and easily find the information they may be looking for - surely anything which helps that is useful. Yes consensus can change but I would welcome a link to where you feel this has been discussed.— Rod ^talk 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware of WP:OWN Rod and largely disagree with it. Principle editors should, for non-controversial articles, in general have a say in their work and the way in which it is presented. That said - as you are the principle editor - I defer to your better judgement and withdraw, but urge you to think of the compromise I suggested - is where it is in Bristol, more important than what showing off it's architectural merits? regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious withdrawal. I (& I'm sure others) will consider it & if we can expand the article with more about the architecture this would give more opportunity for images to illustrate it. Would you like to look at St Mary Radcliffe on Commons & suggest which you think should be included?— Rod ^talk 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the infobox exterior image is the best and so is the interior of the nave. I'd include one of the historic prints in the history section to illustrate the loss of the spire. There's rather a dirth of decent images on the commons as far as I can see - the architectural 'juice' is really going on in the massing, (which is illustrated) the detail of the interior and the mouldings of the exterior (which sadly is not). Anyone from the Bristol project fancy a trip out with a camera? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some lovely pics on Flickr with Wiki-compatible licences. See this search which reveals them. Uploading to Wikimedia commons is easy I've done many using this tool and would be happy to do the uploads if you flagged any particular images. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a pretty good representative sample IMHO. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am slowly adding better quality photos of St Mary Redcliffe. If you have suggestions which features of the church should be (re)captured, please let me onow. kovsky (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Mary Redcliffe. 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/20071208081913/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=380316 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=380316
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weldgen.tripod.com/bristol-history-com/id4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on St Mary Redcliffe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Recent Development

Take this incident what you will. Apisite (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]