Jump to content

Talk:St Rufus Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And now for someone who knows what they're doing

[edit]

@Girth Summit: Skeleton's up, what do you think? I took a stab at the description, mostly based off the POWiS source. The exterior was just beyond me, but I put a suggested outline there, liberally quoting what the various sources say. Aberdeenshire Council and HES share a lot of the same language of the description–I wasn't sure which is better to cite? So, bottom line, it needs the Aberdeenshire Council and HES to be integrated into the interior description, plus turning the whole exterior part into prose (assuming you agree with the organization). I figure I might look online and see if I can find something more for "current usage", and also the lead needs expansion. I haven't looked for photos yet, do you know if any PD are available? And, of course, the whole thing could use review by someone who knows what they're doing and who can figure out what else is needed that I haven't covered here. So, I look forward to your learning from your comments and edits. :-) Cheers! – Levivich 19:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​This looks brilliant! You're absolutely right about the Aberdeenshire Council and HES refs - they're always very similarly worded, but occasionally have some slight differences - I suspect that either one takes its content from the other or, perhaps more likely, they're both written from the same survey report, but then might get amended separately over time. The POSiS descriptions are always great; I've got the relevant Pevsner guide, and a book about the area by Charles McKean (whom my partner knew slightly before he died - wish I'd started editing sooner, I could have tried to rope him into filling in some of the gaps in our coverage...), so I'll see whether I can add anything to your description from those sources, and I'll flesh out the external stuff. I see you found a picture of it already - looks good. Agree about the current usage - I normally just try to see if there is a church website (found it) and add a note about who the minister is, times of service and the like based on that. It's a primary/dependant source obviously, but for simple factual statements nobody seems to mind. I should have some time to work on it at the weekend - great work so far! GirthSummit (blether) 09:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I added in some stuff from their official website and ran the archive bot. Have a good weekend! – Levivich 17:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Levivich - just a note to say that I am planning to get back onto this soon - I'm afraid the start of term was accompanied by a new head teacher, a timetable shake-up and a bunch of new subjects for me to teach, so it's been a bit like an unexpected freight train between the eyes. Hoping to carve out a bit of time at the weekend to hopefully finish the external description. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, thanks for the note, but of course "there is no rush". Anyway, I know how you feel, work's been heating up for me, too, now that summer is over. Thankfully, the church will still be here whenever we get back to it, and so will this draft :-) – Levivich 21:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, hi - sorry for the hiatus! I've finished writing up the external description - what do you reckon, does that all make sense to a lay reader? GirthSummit (blether) 10:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I think it looks great! And yes, makes sense to the lay reader–even I understood it! My only question is about In the middle of the east gable wide is a shallow porch ... – is that supposed to be wide gable, or wide porch, or is "gable wide" a term of art? – Levivich 16:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, oops, good spot - I reworded that sentence several times trying to avoid copyvio, I think the word 'wide' there is a hangover from an earlier version. I'll give it a look over again in the morning with fresh eyes, and then publish it unless there's anything else you want to add/change? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, nope, no more changes from me. I found a few more pics that I added. I'm not sure if it's too many; feel free to change the layout and captions. FYI two I found that I didn't upload are [1] and [2]; let me know if you think they should be added. – Levivich 22:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I like the pictures - I think you've selected the right ones (unless we add a section on 'Nearby litter bins'!). I've been through and added some wikilinks to your interior description, which would probably be helpful for a lay reader - I'm going to go ahead and move it into mainspace now. It's been fun working with you this - another listed building ticked off the list! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... The litter bin was installed by ACME Janitorial Services in 2011. Great working with you, too! – Levivich 14:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good stuff. I have made a light tidy including removing several references to Catholicism which seemed to be in error. Nedrutland (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps explain the dedication to St Rufus, the Latin name for Máel Ruba? Nedrutland (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nedrutland, thanks for that - yes, the Catholicism stuff was a hang-over from some stuff that was copied from another article at the start of the process, I didn't notice that was still in there. I like the suggestion about explaining the name - I'll add that now. GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Thanks! – Levivich 14:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a line or two about the predecessor church (thrice described as the "original, medieval church" - presumably copying a source) - where was it / what's on the site now? And Máel Ruba/Rufus; is there a Reliable Source linking him with Keith? Nedrutland (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The organ

[edit]

@Girth Summit: This source says "The organ built in 1890 by Nicolson of Malvern". Different page of the same website (same publisher, of course) says "The organ, originally built in 1892 by Ingram, extensively modified in 1926 and restored in 1986 by Nicholson of Malvern, has two manuals and pedals with twenty-two speaking stops." I googled and couldn't find any other sources. Do your books have anything? Do we just remove it altogether from the article? – Levivich 13:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich I'm about to leave work - I'll take a look in Pevsner when I get home (after I've walked the dog...) and see whether it can shed any light on this. Both Nicholson and Ingram were active in 1892, so either source could in theory be correct - if we can get a source to support one or other that would be better. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich Good old Pevsner. "...dominant organ at the W end in a handsome case, the organ of 1890 by Nicholson of Malvern." - I'd go with that, and use it in preference to the other sources given that they're affiliated and obviously don't have the same academic heft. I'll take a look at paraphrasing the stuff about the war memorial now... GirthSummit (blether) 17:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

[edit]

Levivich Hi - hope you've been having a good holiday season? How are you placed at the moment to go for a GA nom on this article? I just read through it again, and nothing is jumping out at me as needing improvements. I'd be happy to nominate it, but if you want to go through the process then go ahead and I'll watch and contribute to anything the reviewer brings up. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GS, holidays have been great so far, hope yours have been, too! I made one slight copyedit to the lead but otherwise I agree with you. Yes, please go ahead and nominate it, and I'm happy to help out. I've only helped with one GA before so I'm happy to take the ride-along seat. Thanks! – Levivich 21:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, yes, it's been great, thanks. I tweaked your tweak, and have nominated - looking forward to working with you again. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! I've added the GA page to my watchlist. Thanks for the tweak and the nom! – Levivich 19:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:St Rufus Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could I recommend starting with what it is rather than its origins? You could also mention the fact it replaced another church a little earlier. (Did that church have a name?) How about opening with something like "St Rufus Church, also known as Keith Parish Church, is a Church of Scotland church in Keith, Moray. It was built in the style of [blah] in [year] by [person] as a replacement for the existing village church, [Name]."
  • What is "Old Keith"? Is that any different from Keith? (I see this is explained in the following sentences, but maybe this needs to be brought to the forefront. If you moved the history section first and included all the stuff about the old church and Old and New Keith there, that may be one way to structure things...)
  • "of Gillespie Graham's work" I'd introduce and link him here, rather than relying on the link in the lead.
  • recessed and traceried come across as jargon; could we have wikilinks or explanations? gallery, too. And cornicing. And gable.
    I've started making some changes - I think what I've done addresses the points above this comment, will look at the next ones ASAP. GirthSummit (blether) 19:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that something has come up at work, I'll not be able to look at this further until the weekend, but will definitely get onto it then. Timing is everything... GirthSummit (blether) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry at all. Let me know when you're done and I'll take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was removed during the old church's demolition and installed within one of the walls of St Rufus Church, serving as a memorial to James Duncan, a church elder who died in 1970" The tenses are a bit funny here - presumably it didn't originally serve as a memorial? Or was the old church only demolished on or after 1970? (Again, an earlier history section setting up the relationship between the churches could have been useful here.)
    Reworded to say that it now serves as a memorial to him.
  • Are James/John Oglivy worth wikilinking? How about Milton Tower? Don't be scared of redlinks.
    I've linked Milton Tower. I'm not sure about the Ogilvys - if I could track down exactly who it was this might work, but they were one of the major families of Moray for hundreds of years - this would require quite a lot of digging even with the Milton Tower link (if I know anything about Scottish noble families, there were probably generations of them all called John and/or James!). I might circle back to this if I get round to writing about the tower though - I don't like red links, they feel like unfinished business.
  • "36.6 metres (100 ft)" Is that false precision? What does your source say?
    So, here's the oddity. The source (Pevsner) says 36.6 metres - it doesn't give the height in feet. I am certain that they have simply converted the value in feet for their publication, but that's the actual number they give. What else to do other than stick with the source and convert for our American readers?
    Great, no objection. Maybe it genuinely is 36.6m... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "ashlar gate piers" and "carriage gates"?
    I intend at some point (perhaps this summer) to sit down with a couple of architectural guides and write a bunch of short articles that will allow me to blue-link terms like this. Ashlar is smoothly carved stone - it's linked to earlier in the section, I can stick another one in if that would help. Gate piers are the vertical bits that you attach gates to. Carriage gates are wide double gates that you can drive a horse and carriage through. Do you think this is too jargony, should I make this more descriptive (e.g. 'wide double gates made of cast iron')?
    Yes; I think spelling it out would be great if we don't have a wikilink. If ashlar's linked earlier, that's fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the history section: I'd definitely like to hear more about the old church. Generally, the article seems heavy on architecture and light on history/religion.
    This is probably fair comment. I'll take a bit of time over the weekend to see what else I can dig up history-wise - I agree that a bit of background about the old church would be beneficial.
  • What makes the Masons Marks Project a reliable source? (Other than that, happy enough with the sources and won't quibble about formatting...)
    Mmm. You've got me there - it does look a it ropey and self-published; on the other hand, I think that it's probably an 'expert' SPS, and contains information that would probably be hard to come by elsewhere. Let me look to see whether I can see any scholarly citations to it. I won't be too gutted if we can't include it, but it seemed like an interesting little nugget that would be worth retaining if we can.

That's what jumps out at me from a first look. Images seem fine. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, thanks - that all looks reasonable and doable, I'll try to get onto it tomorrow or in the next few days. GirthSummit (blether) 18:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn I've addressed most of these points, but will take some time at the weekend to dig a bit deeper into the history of the original church - I'll let you know when that's done. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn I've expanded the history section a bit now, including what details I was able to find about the old church. There's a bit more detail I could go into about old churchyard, since there are apparently some notable monuments still there, but I thought that would be a bit off-topic in an article about the new church. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the Mason's Mark Project, I found this which seems to suggest that the project is supported by the archaeology service of Aberdeenshire Council. Looking around at other stuff, I think it's a legitimate academic project, albeit one probably run on a shoestring budget. It's not something I'd rely on for contentious claims obviously, but it doesn't seem too bad for an assertion about a stonemason having worked on the church; if you're concerned though I'll cut it. GirthSummit (blether) 15:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that description of the Mason's Mark Project. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little copyediting of your new additions (please double-check) and replied to a few things above. The only other thing I will say is that I'd probably go for two short paragraphs for the lead, but one paragraph is definitely OK, so your call! I'll have another quick look through the article when you make any final changes, but I think we should be good. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn thanks. The only thing I'm not sure about is saying that Rufus went to spread Roman Catholicism - he was from Ireland, and while his mission took place after the Synod of Whitby, I'm not certain whether the flavour of Christianity he would have been spreading would be better described as Roman or Celtic. Might it be safer just to say 'Christianity'? GirthSummit (blether) 18:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that. I do think there needs to be some acknowledgement of a change, though, as this is now a COS church, but the old church predates the COS. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, fair point - ill draft something tomorrow about the reformation. GirthSummit (blether) 21:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting aside Crikey. Have just been doing a bit of reading about Milton Tower - definitely enough for an article, which I'm going to draft - one possible contender for the inscription on the sacrament house would be John Ogilvie, who was born there. If I can confirm a connection, then I think that a blue link would definitely be in order! Unfortunately, everyone else in his family appears to have been called John, and I can't find a date for the sacrament house. Something to come back to, perhaps... GirthSummit (blether) 19:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy. I'll give you a last chance to double-check my final edits, but if you're happy, I'll promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, thanks - yes, agree with all your edits, much appreciated. I popped in a DYK for Milton Tower too, cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great; promoted. Pleasure working with you again. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, likewise - thanks again. GirthSummit (blether) 19:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be Johnny-come-lately, but I just expanded the history section a bit. I hope that doesn't get the article de-listed :-) Please feel free to revert any/all of it. Thanks, JM and GS for getting this up to GA! Levivich 01:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also I added an OSM map; my first time using that template. Not sure if that's a keeper. Levivich 02:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I suspect we'll warm to the OSM template as more and more articles start to include them. I agree that, right now, it looks a little odd... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the streetmappyness of the OSM template maps that is distracting, specifically the street name and route number labels. I like it a little better when it's in [Full screen] mode. Even better though is the way the maps are presented on this website, with multiple map backgrounds (modern, historical, etc.). The historical map used there is this 1870s map (here's another from 1969), both of which are nice, but I'm not sure they can be used because apparently these Ordnance Surveys are CC-BY-NC. A map showing the location of the church vis-a-vis the river and the old church, New Keith, Old Keith, etc., seems like it'd be very helpful for the reader. Haven't looked too much into whether there's a better map background that can be used for the OSM template (or uploaded and used with the old map location template). Levivich 08:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1870s and even 1969 OS maps are (apparently) in the public domain; see {{PD-OldOS}}. As such, we shouldn't be worried about using them if we prefer them. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, we have a template for that :-) I think I'll take a shot at marking up the 1870s map to highlight the relevant locations and uploading it. Levivich 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

[edit]
Labelled
Unlabelled

We have three different maps now: (1) the infobox classic location map showing the location of Keith in Moray, Scotland; (2) the newfangled OSM map showing the location of the old and new churches within Keith; and now (3) this old Ordnance Survey map from 1871 (the oldest available), which show the old and new church, along with Old Keith, New Keith, and Fife-Keith, labelled and unlabelled. Thoughts? Levivich 03:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interiors

[edit]

It is beautiful little church with old architecture. I am curious as to how it looks from the inside. If possible please add some pictures of the interior too. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Rufus_Church&oldid=1209463463"