Talk:Wells Cathedral/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wording issues

Now, if you don't mind telling me, is there any content dispute at this article? It seems like EC has made some sensible suggestions, which you have accepted. Is there any content that is really at issue still? Consider this sentence: "In this Wells differs from the majority of most English medieval cathedrals, which have parts in the earlier Romanesque architectural style introduced to Britain by the Normans in the 11th century." Do you really want to un-do this change? I realize that EC can be --- er ---- difficult to deal with, but in my opinion this change was a marked improvement, and I see that "most" remains in the article. First of all, "most" is much more concise. Second, as a general rule of style, "Majority should be restricted to senses that involve numbers and should not be carelessly substituted for the greater part of a whole that is not countable (e.g., sand, furniture, water)."[1] Maybe if the Wikipedia article were referring to a survey or list of English medieval cathedrals, then "majority" might be a useful term, but not when generally referring to other English medieval cathedrals as a group.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

.Anythingyouwant, why are you quizzing me about the disputed content.

Are you the parrot on Eric Corbett's other shoulder?

I would think that after my explanations it ought to be fairly clear to you or to anyone else that this is not a case of "careless substitution".

We aren't talking about "grains of sand" here. But we are talking about a number over which there is a degree of dispute.

Some current Wikipedians like to include all the recently (100 years) upgraded "parish church cathedrals" in the number. Architectural historians do not. They categorise them as the "parish church cathedrals". I am an architectural historian. (If you are in any doubt, look up this page to the picture of the facade with the spires and read my analysis of the design process behind the building of the towers.) On one hand, I do not want to take the parish church cathedrals into account, but on the other hand, I don't want to have to row with people over the reason why Manchester Cathedral (for example) is the way that it is.

The word "majority" (as I have stated) carries the implication that there is a "minority" as well. To the architectural historian, it's a minority of two; to another person it might seem more.

I don't want to use "most" and then have someone come up with a list of half a dozen "parish church cathedrals" (St Michael's, Coventry, for example) to counteract the statement.

Why are you buying into this, exactly?

Why are you bothering to buy into this, when I have been sufficiently upset by Eric Corbett's manner as to take him to arbitration, not to win the point over "most" or the "majority of" but simply to redress his rudeness?

Your buying into this at this point in time, when Corbett's edit actually stands unchanged, is tactless to say the very least.

Why is this single (and perfectly grammatical) expression of speech such an issue that the writer of it has to be hounded over their manner of expression?

I do not know how you usually express yourself. It may be very badly.

You timing is exceedingly unfortunate.

Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not a parrot. I barely know Corbett, who once rejected a feature article I was working on. You brought this matter to ANI, which caught my attention. My experience with Corbett is that he is a very excellent editor, excepting for the part about interpersonal relations. I feel good about the improved top image, on which you did a great job. There's absolutely nothing I can do regarding your justifiable feeling about that other editor, but I feel that maybe I can help suggest a way forward regarding article content, such as this sentence: "As far as In this Wells differs from most English medieval cathedrals, which have parts in the earlier Romanesque architectural style introduced to Britain by the Normans in the 11th century." I would think that the word "majority" could be acceptable to everyone if you can find a way to indicate the numerical aspect of the sentence. For example, a "sizable majority" would probably be okay if true, because that would indicate some reliance on numbers, and would not be easily replaced with any "most" language.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your explanations make it perfectly clear that you don't value any opinions but your own and you will move heaven and earth to get your own way. Eric's prose is a big improvement. J3Mrs (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict here.

Contrary to what you say, another editor expressed a problem with a longish passage in that section, and I rewrote it, to make it far more explanatory. And I was in the process of suggesting that you request me to do the same about the section that concerns you, i.e. the choir.

read below:

The part of the building called the "choir" is not known as the "architectural choir", regardless of the way in which that adjective has been used (by me) in the context of the other article.

It is clear from the context that this is "structure" but I could reword the entire sentence.

You skills at expression make me think that you are not the best person to be instructing me on the appropriate use of "most" and "majority".

Make a request, as I have suggested, and be patient enough to let it happen. I have a real life as well, and. regardless of what time of day it might be where you are, someone has to cook an evening meal, in this household. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made a request that you qualify the word "majority" with some adjective, in which case I think it could be acceptable to everyone, instead of a subject of dispute here and at ANI. This article generally looks excellent, so I don't think I can contribute much. But I do think that the meaning of the word "choir" in the lead ought to be made immediately clear, instead of waiting until later in the sentence. So, I disagree with this revert. You could alternatively use the spelling "quire" as described in the link within my edit summary. Alternatively, please see about rewording in a way that suits you. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact, my statements indicate a concern for those editors with whom I have previously had dealings over the matter of "parish church cathedrals". There opinions matter more to me than Eric Corbett's because he is in the habit of upsetting people until they take him to arbitration. I was unaware until I did it myself, that an editor on this very page had been referred to as "ignorant" so many times that they also are ffed up. I can assure you, the vast majority of Eric Corbett's changes have been accepted, and valued.

Why are you choosing this talk page, in co-ordination, to be accusing?

Would the pair of you get out of my hair for a few minutes and give me time to reword that crucial sentence in the introduction?

Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No rush, take your time, thanks. There's no coordination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding'

The building of the cathedral, conceived and begun around 1175 by Bishop Reginald de Bohun, was continued under Bishop Jocelin,...."

Why have I reverted this?

1. "The construction, conceived and begun by Bishop Reginald de Bohun
2. The cathedral's construction, conceived and begun by Reginald de Bohun....

• The reason is that Reginald de Bohun didn't conceive a construction, or do the constructing. What Bishop Reginald conceived and began was a great cathedral. Bishops are generally referred to as "building" cathedrals, because the church is built through their initiative.
• Moreover, the "building of a cathedral" is not simply a matter of "construction". There is fare more to it than that. When Bishop Reginald conceived the building, he no doubt saw it in his mind with carvings, paintings, embroideries, metalwork and stalls. Many skills were employed and different branches of the arts drawn together.

The section heading says "construction" for brevity. I would prefer it to say The building of the cathedral but "the" is not used in a section heading and Building on its own is confusing.

Amandajm (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So you say, but what you have written is poor, the average reader is unlikely to be able to read your mind and my phrase was equally good if not much better. You really do enjoy writing these walls of prose to justify getting your own way. Is this article just about your preferences Amandajm? That's the way it appears. J3Mrs (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey J3Mrs, I don't know the interpersonal background here, but please treat me like a child: no fighting in front of the kids. How about this: "The cathedral was conceived around 1175 by Bishop Reginald de Bohun,[1] and construction continued under Bishop Jocelin,...."?Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No previous interactions as far as I know, I am unwatching this as it seems to deteriorate by the minute. J3Mrs (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

J3Mrs, do you want an explanation, or don't you? Having to explain is a waste of my time. I would rather just say, "this is the way that it is usually expressed."

J3Mrs, why are you being rude and accusing? I am not showing myself either hostile or unwilling to change? Amandajm (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Re intro: I have turned it into two sentences, and I think it is now perfectly clear that "choir" means "a building", rather than choristers. Amandajm (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, Anythingyouwant, I don't know anything about this person, previously and I have no interest in fighting. Amandajm (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, i took your last re wording of construction. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks fine to me. Regarding the choir, we have: "Work on the cathedral commenced in about 1175 at the eastern end with the building of the choir." I take it that there was no eastern end prior to 1175? If so, then perhaps it would be a little smoother like this: "Work on the eastern end of the cathedral commenced in about 1175 with the building of the choir. "Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. You made the following comment, and I missed it completely because of an edit conflict. My response was to J3Mrs

I have made a request that you qualify the word "majority" with some adjective, in which case I think it could be acceptable to everyone, instead of a subject of dispute here and at ANI. This article generally looks excellent, so I don't think I can contribute much. But I do think that the meaning of the word "choir" in the lead ought to be made immediately clear, instead of waiting until later in the sentence. So, I disagree with this revert. You could alternatively use the spelling "quire" as described in the link within my edit summary. Alternatively, please see about rewording in a way that suits you.

• Re adjective: what sort do you have in mind?
• Re "quire": it is my preferred form because it is absolutely clear, but it has been knocked on the head in this article by another editor who considered it "antiquated'.

Amandajm (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding an adjective, perhaps something like "sizable majority" or something like that to indicate that specific numbers have been considered.

Regarding "quire", I'm fine with "choir" given your new sentence structure: "Work on the cathedral commenced in about 1175 at the eastern end with the building of the choir." I take it that there was no eastern end prior to 1175? If so, then perhaps it would be a little smoother like this: "Work on the eastern end of the cathedral commenced in about 1175 with the building of the choir."Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption that there was no eastern end is correct. That was the commencement of the present church. I would rather leave it as it is, having also considered it the other way, simply because that really was the beginning. With many of these piecemeal buildings, bits were successively pulled down and rebuilt, so that commencing the building of the quire is a very different thin to commencing the building, even though nost of them were indeed started at the east. What often happened was that by the time they got to the west, the east was 300 years old and falling apart, or the tower had collapsed on it, or it had caught fir, or the Scots had passed through, or the Bishop wanted it upgraded to house his tomb. So they started again. Sometimes with spectacular results, as at Gloucester Cathedral and Lincoln Cathedral. Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we say: "Work on the present cathedral commenced in about 1175...."? After all, the first church on the site was established in 705. It's no big deal either way, but it might clarify a little.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No. That is the way it was. That's what they are intended to think. Work began at the eastern end. The previous building wasn't on exactly the same site, and wasn't a cathedral. The point here is, this cathedral was commenced in 11175, as a new building, not a rebuilding (unlike the vast majority of others)(except Salisbury) Amandajm (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

O my Gosh, someone has put some incredible picture of the interior of Gloucester in the gallery on that page. One of the nave with nits great fat ancient columns and 19th century glass by William Wailes and another of the east end, which still contains a lot of its ancient glass. I have had the pleasure of seeing it really close up. Amandajm (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind using the words "new cathedral", but not "present building" which implies it was replacing another cathedral. It wasn't.

As it stands, it says "Work on the cathedral..." That is correct. There was no previous cathedral. Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as far as I'm concerned everything's fine, except for the most/majority thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What we are looking at here is partly a matter of scale. There was no comparison between a Saxon parish church and a Gothic cathedral. The church, even if it was a comparatively large one, would have fitted into the choir, tower and all. Amandajm (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The best solution is the "all except Salisbury" thing, but i know I am leaving myself open to further criticism, possibly from Manchester, for example. So, basically, if I am going to go with the Salisbury connection, then I am going to need someone to beat off the critics. Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Sorry to fluctuate, but "the majority" remains the best solution, for the very reason stated above, that the numbers have been taken into account. On the other hand,it is not so definite that the parish church cathedrals are blocked out of the consideration. I am not being fuzzy. I am being as precise as possible within the constraints of the reality of the situation. And I probably grasp what is involved in this rather better than anyone else writing on this topic. See Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England, Architecture of cathedrals and great churches, Chester Cathedral, St Paul's Cathedral, St Peter's Basilica, Cologne Cathedral, Bristol Cathedral, Carlisle Cathedral, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, St James' Church, Sydney. Not to mention the little DYK that is currently on the front page, etc etc along with Stained glass and a few other related articles. I am beginning to feel harassed over my choice of words, and I think it is unnecessary, considering the obvious expertise that I bring to what I am doing. Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel harassed, which is certainly not my intent. I'm simply trying to get an expeditious solution that's mutually acceptable to you and at least two other editors who are on your case about it, while recognizing that there is some validity on both sides of the thing --- which I think there is. Also, I don’t see what would be wrong with saying, “In this Wells differs from almost all other English medieval cathedrals, which have parts in the earlier Romanesque architectural style introduced to Britain by the Normans in the 11th century." If Salisbury is the only other purely gothic, non-romanesque cathedral, then we should be all set. This language does not suggest that there aren't lots of purely gothic parishes, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) Are you telling me, seriously, that you came over to this page with an aim to sorting out something that I had walked away and left? Namely the issue of "most/majority". And that your way of doing it was to question me about unresolved issues, thereby getting the issue going, all over again?

There are two issues. One of them is a disagreement over wording. And the other is a matter of blatant bullying. About which I have complained.

I do comprehend that people like Eric Corbett, Mrswhoever and probably yourself may presume that the simpler mode of expression is to be preferred. However, you are all in disagreement with the person who has chosen the wording with considerable care to avoid particular issues. You all presume that you know better. If your knowledge of the subject is limited or narrow, then it is always much easier to presume that you might know better, than if you fully comprehend what the issues are. In other words nineteen out of twenty people can be equally wrong and only one person right if the nineteen all fail to listen to what the person who knows the subject has to tell them.

You may succeed in coming up with a better wording, but whatever that might be, it will not be the simplistic wording proposed by Eric Corbett, and supported by a number of other editors, but rejected by the major contributor to architectural history in this article. Eric Corbett has repeatedly insulted another knowledgeable editor by referring to them as "ignorant" on this page, while failing, refusing, to acknowledge what that person brought with them.

Well, something very similar is happening here. I still am at a loss to know why you have bought into this issue of "most/majority" at all!

I am not going to back down from my position that it is my preferred wording.

You have had every indication that I am not merely stubborn.

Let me put it to you this way, I am not sufficiently stubborn as to keep reverting Corbett's edit. I am letting it stand, for better or for worse.

But as for my backing down over whether my choice of words is preferable, I will not. To suggest that I should do so, when I have given very good reason for not doing so, is seriously out of place! Corbett's edit stands. And my opinion stands. My complaint to arbitration is about manners, not about content, or the reversal of my edit.

You and J3Mrs have both gone a bit too far in your expectations of me. It is extraordinarily presumptuous to think that I am going to change my mind.

Let me repeat that before you came along and forced a discussion on the issue, and J3Mrs bought into it and accused me of doing things "just to get my own way", I was attempting to work on something else, and had left the "most/majority" issue behind me.

It may not have been your intention to do so, but I can assure you that your lack of sensitivity has offended me. (NOTE: I am expressing my sentiments in the mildest terms that I can at present muster, and you may even find them circuitous. If you want to reword this more simply, then suit yourself).

Amandajm (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then, my apologies for any offense. If you intend to leave in "most" while maintaining your opinion that "majority" would be better, then far be it for me to interfere. Sincere thanks for the new top image, the choir sentence, and the sentence about the conception and construction. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsurpassed

The synthesis of architectural form, architectural decoration and figurative sculpture is unsurpassed in Britain.[81]

The reason why this is a statement of fact rather than opinion is because Salisbury Cathedral has very few statues left, and its facade was not as impressive as that of Wells in the first place. Exeter Cathedral has about 1/3 as much sculpture and a very awkward facade put together piecemeal. There are no other contenders. Amandajm (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Probably fair enough in this instance but when "facts" may only be opinions such truth claims should be either avoided or clarified. Anglicanus (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. That is why it is supported by reference to not one but four eminent architectural historians. Thanks for getting back over it. Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bishops

Can we please sort out exactly how Bishop Reginald/Fitz Jocelin/de Bohun should be named? He seemed to be wrongly linked. I am not entirely sure which of the names/links we should apply. Amandajm (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some further comments

For the sake of continuity in lead where you write "The historian John Harvey considers this to be the first truly Gothic structure in Europe, having broken from the last constraints of Romanesque." this seems to repeat or at least revisit what you said in the previous paragraph, I'd probably move up that sentence to above and merge it in to what you say about it being entirely Gothic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As there have been previous discussions about this on the talk page I will ask User:Amandajm to comment before making any change.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Response

John Harvey is referring to the choir, specifically, not to the cathedral as a whole. Because the work was continued much in the style it was begun, over a period of more than 50 years, the statement may be true for the whole. I think it probably is. But the point that Harvey makes is that the design of the building was purely Gothic. So the essential "event" i.e. the design process, had taken place by 1175.

There are two points being made:

1. Wells Cathedral differs from the majority of English Medieval cathedrals (that is, the "great" cathedrals as distinct from the parish church cathedrals) in that it is a unified whole, unified by the fact that the architecture is all Gothic, with no trace of Norman/Romanesque. The only other cathedral with this distinction is Salisbury.
2. It has a unique status in the world of Gothic architecture in that, unlike the Gothic cathedrals of France (of which a couple predate it) it has no trace of the Romanesque style. In this it different markedly from the east end of Canterbury Cathedral which is contemporary. At Canterbury, there is a clear link with the Norman. What one sees there is a natural progression. Wells is a complete rethinking. It is as different from anything that went before it as is the extraordinary west front at Peterborough Cathedral which was under construction at the same time, though not begun as early.

The difference is not one of date. It has to do with a complete break. It is like jumping from Saint-Etienne] to Reims Cathedral, without having Basilica Saint-Denis in the middle. Wells Cathedral is one of unprecedented originality.

Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

History

• "The earliest remains of a building on the site of Wells Cathedral are of a late Roman mausoleum, identified during excavations in 1980" Sounds very interesting and I'm left a bit disappointed to not learn more about it. Can you elaborate on who excavated it and what was found etc? Obviously it wouldn't need to be much given that it's not directly about the cathedral but I think it would help to add a bit.

• There is a bit here and here about the Roman mausoleum and empty burial vault near the springs (currently in the grounds of the Bishop's Palace), but not much detail. It's significance is debated in this book and this paper but I'm not sure what else should be added.— Rod ^talk 17:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• "In 766 Cynewulf, King of Wessex, signed a charter granting endowment of eleven hides of land." Is anybody mentioned in relation to this as receiving it?

• The reference used to support this doesn't give any names.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Following the Norman Conquest, Bishop John de Villula moved the seat of the bishop to Bath" When was this?

• This was in 1090. added — Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "It is clear from the size of the building that it was planned from the outset to be the cathedral of the diocese.[20] Despite this, the seat of the bishop moved between Wells and the abbeys of Glastonbury and Bath, before settling at Wells.

In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey," -not sure why you've not linked both Glastonbury and Bath abbeys in the first instance, perhaps it's clear linking where they're discussed?

• Moved.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Wynford worked for the king " Which king was this?

• Both Edward III and Richard II according to the article about him.— Rod ^talk 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Does this need adding?— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Monmouth Rebellion of 1685, Puritan soldiers damaged the West front," -why is West capitalized and the earlier south-west tower isn't?

• Changed (also spotted another occurrence of this.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "oath of allegiance to William and Mary because James II had not abdicated." - why did you link James II here and not in the earlier part of the paragraph?

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "the great scrape" -Should this be capitalized if the name of an event? 19th and 20th centuries looks as if they could be expanded a bit but you can only go by what the sources say and it's likely you didn't find much on that period!

• I will ask User:Amandajm and others to comment on capitalisation. 19th & 20th centuries were calmer and more stable than previous periods, but are there specific things you think are missing?— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ministry

• Dean was already linked in history I believe.

• Unlinked.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Architecture

• "Canterbury, Lincoln and Salisbury" also already linked in history?

• Canterbury & Lincoln done. I can't see a previous wikilink to Salisbury.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Perpendicular, Reticulated, Geometric, links to articles?

• See sections above "What else is needed to move this article towards a FA nomination" & "Reference or note" for possible links - several may be best pointing at English Gothic architecture#Decorated Gothic but I'm aware of the risk of overlinking - help or guidance appreciated here.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Some inconsistencies in number formatting, you use numbers for measurements and centuries but "four hundred" and "twenty-four" you use words, but you are at least consistent with this other than the measurements and centuries.

• Another area where I may be confused - help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the technical architectural sentences are quite difficult to read I think like "There are transverse ribs but no continuous diagonals, the lierne ribs forming square compartments that are cusped and have curling foliate decoration where they meet, rather than bosses." To anybody not well versed in architecture it is difficult to understand. I'm frequently guilty of the same thing on things like country houses and I'm not sure there is really a way around it.

• Again I will ask for help.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The interior of the cathedral must once have presented a unity. " Perhaps reword a little so it doesn't sound OR?

• Previously discussed (I think) I will ask for help.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Can you attribute the "brutally massive" quote? according to...

• Wim Swann - done.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lady Chapel

• Salisbury linked again.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• You explain here what a lierne rib is but not above!

• I'll ask for advice.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fittings and clock

• Ogee and Saxon, pinnacles and transcept already linked I think. Some of the names of the dead also already linked in history but I think it's useful to link them again in this instance.

• Ogee, pinnacles & transept done. I can't find the previous link to Saxon.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Library/surroundings

• In library I'd probably just use the one image of the library and move the other two to the surrounding building section where the Penniless Porch is mentioned. It confused me initially in the library as I was thinking they were all of the library.

• I'll ask for advice.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delink Jocelin of Wells.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

Admittedly I'm not too keen on the main image, for me it's too distant and the colour and quality of it isn't the best. I'll have a look see if I can suggest anything, but you may disagree. Looking in the commons I can't see any other images from that angle which capture all of it which I think is your intention. The west facade of course is more striking but doesn't capture it all like the current one. Actually looking at it in Safari it looks fine as it is I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the helpful comments. I've dalt with some of them but want to ask for the opinions of others on some points.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Response.

• The lead image is problematic. Ideally we need a pic that shows the whole building, but there is no really good quality pic on Commons. Rodw took one specially, from the east, but it is a very grey day, and not exactly inviting.

The present pic has been rejigged a couple of times, including a close crop. But the close crop loses the Lady Chapel. The present version has been much tonally adjusted to reveal some detail of the foreground, without losing the sky. What we need is a really good photo.

• The library gallery. I'll reorder those photos so that the library comes first. They were further down, but then Rodw discovered the beautiful watercolour by Turner, which was just too good to leave out, and the gallery of other buildings got pushed further up the page. The formatting is difficult (taking into account wide screens. It's rarely a problem on ipads and so-on. The arrangement of those images is a compromise, because the nicest image of the wall and moat is a left-side, rather than right-side image. I'll go through what is available again and see what arrangement I can come up with.
• The sentences in the intro have been written and rewritten a number of times, to suit a couple of editors who had difficulty with the ideas. If your current complaint is that they are a bit repetitive, or over explanatory, then I'll take another look, but it might be better to over-explain than have someone say that don't quite get it.
• With regards to the details of the vault in the choir, well, I find it fascinating, but that is not to say that everybody else will! There may simply be too much description for the average reader.
• "twenty-four" etc. I always prefer to state numbers in full when they are not dates, measurements or money.
• Did some work on "The interior of the cathedral must once have presented a unity. " hope it's better

Amandajm (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Re "twenty-four" etc. What does WP:MOSNUM say? --John (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, my point was that the figures of measurements and the centuries were not consistent with the written words but it seems that's fine. Usually when I see people writing numbers as words I see centuries written in words too, that was the main thing which stood out to me. Thanks Rod for addressing them, I look forward to seeing this at FAC at some point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the centuries to words, if you both agree it would be better. Amandajm (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is necessary or helpful. MoS is quite happy that we use "twenty-four" and "11th century" on the same article. --John (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Simplified

the ribbish stuff by removing part of it. "Lierne" doesn't get a mention until the explanation in the Lady Chapel. I can't come to terms with the fact that William Joy, who did the Lady Chapel and the scintillating retrochoir was also held responsible for that vault in the Choir. It doesn't look like his work. I don't believe he did it. Amandajm (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rod, dear, next time you stand on top of your car with a camera pointed at Wells Cathedral, could you please do it on a sunny day? Amandajm (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The sun has just come out - I'm tempted to drive over there again, but exactly what view do you want? If it is the view from the east (over the wall) the problem is that afternoon sun will be behind the cathedral.— Rod ^talk 13:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a view from the north taken along the road outside which has the archway (Cathedral Green/St Andrew Street) would be ideal and try to get as much of it in from the front as possible, and as Amanda says when the sun is shining!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most of the area north of the cathedral is occupied by buildings from the Vicars Close, Music school, museum & offices & the herbal garden along to Browns Gateway. It is pretty much impossible to get far enough back to get a picture of the whole cathedral without a fisheye which would just look weird. I'm a bit lost on the archway - is this Chain Gate, Browns or what. The view from Browns Gate is of the West front eg File:The West Front - Wells Cathedral - geograph.org.uk - 986698.jpg.

I've lost the sun (& light) today. I've been looking at the postcard image & think I know where in the grounds of the Bishops Palace it was taken. There shouldn't be too many leaves on the trees at this time of year so it may be possible. Tomorrow is likely to start cloudy but may brighten by lunchtime, If I'm clear about what is wanted I may try to get over there about then.— Rod ^talk 15:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just been looking through several hundred suitably licenced photos of the cathedral and Bishop's Palace (which I might have a go at improving at some time). I found a few with a similar view to the postcard which might be useful: here, here, here and here.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rodw! I don't think they are better than the postcard. It would be lovely if you could get a nice pic, with the trees bare.

Amandajm (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The other solution to all this is that we give up trying to get a good view of the whole building, and just settle on one of the views of the West Front. Let's see how Rodw goes with the project

Amandajm (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is very grey and overcast this morning. The forecast is for lots of cloud all day so I don't I'm going to be able to get anything very useful. I have one day in the week when it might be possible otherwise I will think again next weekend.— Rod ^talk 08:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

House next door

If anyone fancied taking a look at the Bishop's Palace next to the cathedral, which I've just expanded, that would be great.— Rod ^talk 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

Do we like the old postcard better?

the angled view?

...good angle, but such a grey day!

Yellow removed

• I have put the postcard in place, and think it may be the best option, but would like feedback.
• Re photos of buildings in precinct. I agree that having the three pics in the section "library" was confusing, particularly as the library referred to in that section is not the same library as shown in the pic. The small pic is the library in the Vicars Close, while the main library is actually above one range of the cloister. Unfortunately, there isn't a photo of it so we have a gap where a nice photo of the interior of the cloister looking towards the library could be, if someone was so good as to stand in the cloister garth and point a camera in that direction.
• The pics are not sitting as nicely as they could, as they are displacing a major heading. What it needs is for someone to write half a dozen more lines about the various buildings in the precinct, either more buildings, or more info about those already mentioned. :-)

Amandajm (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the postcard pic yesterday actually although the bottom needs to be cropped off slightly. My problem with the other one was mainly that over half of the picture was trees and it was quite distant, and the image looked rather "gold". this crop is much better I think although the lighting does make it look like the cathedral is made of gold.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That crop looks OK on its own at a largish size but once it goes into the info box, it looks too cramped, and as if the bottom of the Cathedral doesn't exist. It's not good at small format. It also cuts off the Lady Chapel. I'll try a crop that is between the two. Amandajm (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Re cropping the postcard pic: that is a no-no. If you use an historical image that is obviously a postcard, then it needs to be treated like an artwork and kept intact if possible. Whatismore, that is a very carefully composed image. The moment you crop that, you are going to loose the composition. Also, you will return to a "compressed" look, which I am trying to avoid. Amandajm (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely the postcard image for me. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The postcard looks dated, like its been sitting in the Sun too long. It's in great shape for a photo so old, but why use an old photo? My druthers would be to go to the Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab, give them the link to the Commons page, and ask them which could be the best top image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Amanda, it would only be trimming off the label which is right near the bottom so it would barely affect the picture. You can barely see it in the main image though so it doesn't have to be cropped. I believe the postcard is a better image that the original though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll edit it out. Amandajm (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the script from the bottom.

Re comment by Anythingyouwant, the photo is dated. It was published in 1890 and that is the way it looks. However, a great many of the articles about historic buildings use older images, for a number of reasons. In this case it is because it is the best image that we have, unless we go with a picture that only shows the West Front. Sometimes, as in this case, it is a better overall design choice to put the historic image first, than try to put it into the text, where it doesn't fit any relevant date in the history and will not sit well alongside the modern images.

I think it is a good image to head up the article.

Rodw is going to try to get a shot from a similar angle. However, this may not be possible as there are a number of trees which have grown a great deal in the last 120 years. Several will have lost their leaves, I would expect. He could take an axe to the thing that looks to me like a gum tree, but the Yews might prove a little intractable.

We will have to be patient and wait for a bright day, when he has the time and opportunity.

Amandajm (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Not sure what the clergy will think of a Wikipedian with a chainsaw. In the mean time, the Graphics Lab may comment.[2].Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I do not want to see a major upgrade job done on a genuine, old postcard. It looks like what it is. It is an historic image. I am perfectly capable of tweaking the colour and removing every speck to make it look like new. (Just for the fun af it, I spent a few minutes turning one of Rodw's very grey shots into a sunny day with green trees and bright blue sky) Anything can be done, but it will cease to be the historic image, and it will never be a current image. I already made this comment about the over-cleaning and improving of historic images that are put up potentially as featured pics. Amandajm (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing that can be done without too much stuffing with the image is that some of the yellowness can be removed, so that it looks less as if it has been in the sun. Amandajm (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That might work. It's an interesting dilemma. In the past, the Graphics Lab has taken awful old photos that I gave them (of Joseph Story and John Bingham), and made them look almost brand new. As long as the improvements are fully described at the image pages, it seems innocuous. Your concern is very understandable, but I'm not sure whether there is a policy or guideline about it. Anyway, it never hurts to ask ( the Graphics Lab) what they think. Please feel free to chime in there too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the current lead image. I don't think it is a major issue and I will try to get there and take some more pics when I can (tomorrow was a possible day, but the weather forecast is for mist & fog all day! England in December. Friday is the next possible for a chilly stroll with my camera). If that is the only outstanding issue why don't we do the FA nomination and come back to the image as and when, because I'm sure the reviewers there will find some other issues to deal with?— Rod ^talk 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's one with the yellow removed. I have just realised that it is morning and all the birds have woken up. Over and out! Amandajm (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice restoration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks better with the purple border than the yellow did. Amandajm (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Completed facade

Wells Cathedral. This is a version from December 2013, post-dating the discussion, and including the extra stage. Clearly shows how square changes to octagon. Spires are about 215-230 feet high

William Wynford undoubtedly had something like this in mind, when he designed to towers. Well, actually the spires are perhaps what Thomas Norrey would have visualised 150 years earlier. Either way, it didn't happen. Nikolaus Pevsner bemoans the fact that the towers were not built as Norreys would have intended. We don't know whether Norreys wanted spires or not. But it is absolutely clear from the form of the towers that William Wynford (late 1300s) planned them. I might draft some towers that have more of the early-mid 1200s style about them. Amandajm (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is weird. Having looked at "hundreds" of pics of the west front & visited a few times, I suppose this freaked me out. It would need incredibly strong sources to support the speculation of what it "might have looked like" if spires had been built. Looking again I think it is nice work - but I'm afraid I don't think we should use it.— Rod ^talk 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• West front (1230-60) has plainly been designed to have towers. The massive buttresses that are around three sides of each tower are a clear indication of that. The proportions of the various horizontal stages are increasingly wider. There was intended to be a taller storey on the early ones. That horizontal course that runs right around on the second level, below the stepped gable, is the visual foundation for the upper stage of the towers.
• When William Wynford (or whoever it was) looked at it a hundred years later, architecture had changed a good deal. I say whoever it was because on one hand the date 1365 is too early to be Wynford as he would have been a kid at the time, but on the other hand, the style looks like Wynford, and Oh Boy, was he a competent designer! He is the person creditted with taking the old Norman nave at Winchester and literally carving a Pependicular nave out of the existent material.
• So Wynford looked at what Thomas Norreys had designed. He looked at the mathematics of the progression in height of the existent stages, and knew how high the next stage was to be. The proportions gained from this calculation informed him that the towers were not going to be high enough and would need a least one more stage, presumably spires rather than very tall towers

He looked at the buttresses and saw that one of the design problems was how to diminish the massive buttresses in the next stage, which he did, on a level with the uppermost horizontal of the stepped gable. (more about the buttresses to come)

Wynford looked at the architectonic decoration that was plastered all over every surface of the earlier work, including the buttresses, where it is not entirely expected. There were niches, quatrefoils, mini-gables, and dozens of fine marble shafts, attached to the stonework with little bangles. Not to mention half a zillion statues. But this was the 14th century, Man, and it was a New Era!....

So he is very selective. He takes the tall blind arches of the stage two and makes them his main motive for the wall surface of stage three. But he has taken on board the significance of the niches in the buttresses at the lower level and uses the same division in the upper window. Then, cunningly, he runs a shaft right down the centre of each of his wide arcades, passing visually through the slits in stage two and linking with the verticals of the windows at stage one.

He has omitted the marble shafts and their bangles, but he has made up for this by rotating the various attached mouldings so that they form knife-edges which cast sharp shadows in a similar way to the marble shafts, and on a dull day, they still catch the light, stressing the multitude of verticals, while minimising the amount of time/cost/skill that it took to achieve the effect.

When we look at the stage-three buttresses, we see that he has given them all little corner pillasters and pinnacles, which again have been rotated in relation to the main surface. This is important, because it is introducing something major.

At the level of the main facade gable, each buttress has its own little gable, framed by two pinnacles. These terminal details are the sign that the buttress is about to take a major step back. This lessens the weight, both in actuality and visually.

• But at this point we become aware that something odd has happened. As hinted by the angled pinnacles, the buttresses themselves have become angled. Each corner of the tower is effectively rotated so the the outer surface of the tower no longer has four planes. It now has eight.

There is only one possible reason for the architect to do this. He is creating a structural and visual merge between a square tower and an octagonal spire.

For any architect who designed a tower that was intended to take a spire (particularly a stone spire) this was the ultimate challenge- how to build a tower on square plan that subtly merged into an octagonal plan.

The basic solution is purely structural- build some squinches inside the tower and stand the spire on them. If the chapter or the bishop says it looks clumsy, then you add broaches to the tower or pinnacles at the corners. If they still complain you add battlements round the edges and tall poppies above the belfry windows.

But not Wynford. What he was attempting here is something very much more subtle: a tower of square plan that gently becomes an octagon as it rises through the third stage.

• On the evidence that I have, I know that my clumsy reconstruction is not really anything like what Wynford had in mind. I have merely cutnpasted two convenient spires bang on the stumps of the towers.

I am sure that Wynford planned another stage to the tower, before the actual springing of the spire. At this stage, the octagonal form would have become clearly apparent. He would have thought of a method of drawing in the corners while narrowing and emphasising the four cardinal surfaces of the tower. My thought is that he may have planned a single wide opening with a central shaft.

Above this stage, the spires would have raised themselves effortlessly into Heaven.

• While Nikolaus Pevsner bemoans the fact that the original scheme was not completed, I regret that Wynford's solution was not taken to another stage. There are only a few Gothic spires that do this really well. Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll give a Barnstar to anyone who can identify the spires! (Johnbod excluded because he knows already) Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Assuming another English Cathedral it could be Chichester, Norwich, Salisbury, Lancaster or Newcastle. My first thought was St Mary Redcliffe, but how about St Michael's at Winterbourne, Gloucestershire?— Rod ^talk 12:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW Rod, there are no sources to support this. It can't be included in the article. It's OR. I really ought to cut and paste it to my blog and put my name to it. Amandajm (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you should claim that one.— Rod ^talk 12:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no, no,....you're guessing!..... Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

St Mary's Redcliffe is very pretty, isn't it! But it illustrates perfectly th problem encountered by the architect in trying to fit an octagonal spire on a square tower. Amandajm (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it is the spire from Cathedral of Our Lady of Chartres. But I didn't identify that really, I just looked at the license on the image and then at User:Atlant's upload log! Harrias ^talk 10:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

New "reconstruction". The upper stage is a bit more elaborate than Likely, but I had to work with the elements available. The shift from square to octagon is made in the final stage of the tower, before the spire. Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New pics

The east end of Wells Cathedral taken from the gardens of the Bishop's Palace

The east end of Wells Cathedral taken from the gardens of the Bishop's Palace

Wells Cathedral from the east

The east end of Wells Cathedral taken from the gardens of the Bishop's Palace

It wasn't as sunny as I'd hoped this morning, but I have been and taken some more pictures from the same spot as the postcard (and some of the Bishop's Palace). These will be uploaded to commons but in the meantime a few here to see what people think. Lots more similar and original files available if needed.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was standing on top of my car to take the over the wall image.— Rod ^talk 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rodw, the postcard shot is absolute exquisite! You have excelled yourself!

The carish-wallish with the sunlight slanting off the verticals of the tower is ver good also! Let's wait for the comments!

Amandajm (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nice pictures. It appears, though, that the top left picture is the same as the bottom right picture. I'd say that the "Wells Cathedral from the east" is the best of the new pics. The others are either too far away, or trees interfere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I put the more striking brightly lit pic in the box where I think it holds its own, and the idyllic pic in the "ministry" section, where there is room to enlarge it, more than if it was in the box. I am almost certain that if it was the box- picture someone would want to crop it, instead of taking in the whole beautiful view.

Well done, Rodw! Amandajm (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed: two of the files are misnamed. The lower building to the east, with all the traceried windows, is the Lady Chapel, not the Chapter House. The Chapter House shows in the sunlit image as the building to the far right.

The only way to get a file renamed is to request it. It happens in a day or so. I think it needs doing. The confusing thing is that because the Lady Chapel is quite a bit lower than the Chapter House, you can still see the pinnacles of the latter, even though the building is screened. Amandajm (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have requested renaming.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

New Bishop

It was announced today that Peter Hancock will become the Bishop in 2014. Not sure how or when this should be added.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we keep an eye on the news and announce when he is going to be enthroned? It's not mentioned in the article. Just says 2014. But the seat is vacant. Amandajm (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Re new section on West Front iconography

(copy pasted from Amandajm's talk page)

Re: Iconography etc You have been busy while I've been at work. I think it is good & has made me look at them again. I would suggest merging the first two (very short) paragraphs. I was surprised by the sentence "All are naked, but some are defined by crowns as royalty and by mitres as bishops" as I initially thought this related to all of the statues (most of which are clothed) but reread it to identify it is the row near the top. Do we have any alternative viewpoints of what they represent otherwise this is very reliant on the view of Cockerell - he may be respected in the field but it is still a lot just to base on one persons view 150 years ago. ..... Rod ^talk 19:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed both the parag. format and possible misconception.

I agree over the heavy reliance on a single source. However, I suspect Cockerell's is the definitive study. His numbering of the zones is effective, his statement about the south side being reserved for the sacred and the north for the secular seems to be accepted, for example tombs of bishops are more likely to be located to the south and knights to the north of the chancel, (though this isn't always carried through by any means, see the Black Prince at Canterbury for example.) His identification of most of the series e.g. half-length angels, Old Testament stories, New Testament stories, the Resurrection of the dead, the angels, and the row of twelve apostles is without question.

The only possible queries relate to the broad statement as to what the "big picture" represents, to his theory that the lowest south range had prophets and patriarchs, and the lowest north had missionaries; and to his identification of certain individuals.

To take the latter first, I have only quoted his identification of particular saints where that identification is made with a degree of certainty based on the attribute of the saint, e.g. St Andrew carries his distinctive cross, St Bartholomew carries his flayed skin. In the lowest range, on the back of the northwest tower, he identifies Augustine and others. I have only included the three where the attributes make their identity certain. That the three identified persona were all among the earliest missionaries to Britain is beyond question. Cockerell has extrapolated from this to suggest that all the missing figures on the north of the west front fit this pattern.

I haven't repeated his interesting statement that in levels four and five, all the Saxon royalty are on the west front, with the Norman dynasty on the north and eastern sides of the tower. He identifies a number of the kings such as Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror etc. which could go in an expanded article, but it's all a bit much here.

Moreover, in looking at the Commons photos of the statues, I looked at the details of the architectural decoration (as against the grand scheme of buttresses, walls and openings). What I found was extraordinary. When John Harvey describes it as "the supreme triumph of the combined plastic arts in England", he really isn't exaggerating. There is a degree of stylistic innovation which I suspect is without precedent and includes forms that one would not expect for another hundred years. The formal rigidity of the architectural units have indeed become "plastic" and merge into organic forms that are not contained by the boundaries defined by capitals and bosses. Discovering these details (which I simply hadn't noticed) gave me the same sort of shock that I had when encountering the pulpit of St Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna which dates from the 1460s. Amandajm (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Value convert templates

Sorry, I must have missed the discussion on the use of value convert templates during the GA review. What was the outcome and why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wells Cathedral/archive1 in an item called "Comment on OR" on 30 December commented on the use of that conversion template saying "it is "only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets)" and warns that "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research". A follow up pointed to an alternative at Manchester Ship Canal which I used for the price of the organ.— Rod ^talk 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Rod. That is also very useful to know for other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean I should put the value convert template that I jus deleted back again? Sorry Rod! I'll have to find it. If The cost is from a very long time ago, can we be sure that it really is relevant? The comparative value of things changed? The first DVD player that I ever used cost $1,000 and was for "promotions" only. Amandajm (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that the other referred to the misericords. I don't think that it is really relevant. Amandajm (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, if the cost is from "a very long time ago" the more need I feel for some kind of conversion to present value, however approximate. But I realise there may be practical problems. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure you are right. The price of the west window, for example, is very hard to gauge without conversion. I am thinking in the wrong terms. I had a long ongoing problem with a large team of (mainly) elderly museum volunteers who converted everything from pounds, shillings and pence into Dollars and cents, by simply doubling it, as they had in 1976 (Australia). So a shilling for a train ticket became 20cents. But that shilling in 1854 had been worth a great deal more than 20 cents in 1995.

So my automatic impulse is not to convert. Amandajm (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It was 1967, actually. Amandajm (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::The tool I used (following the Manchester Ship Canal example is here (currently ref 112 in this article). It provides several different conversions depending on the type of thing being costed. If we use £140 in 1672 (we don't give an exact date) it gives "In 2012, the relative value of £140 0s 0d from 1672 ranges from £19,840.00 to £3,350,000.00." - depending on whether it is commodity, income or wealth, or project - labour or economic cost. I used "historic opportunity cost" for the organ calculation.— Rod ^talk 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was 1967 it is in the wrong section 1660-1800.— Rod ^talk 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry I think I got the wrong and of the stick & had assumed 1967 related to the donation in 1672ish.— Rod ^talk 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

[Removed irrelevant off-topic comments Amandajm (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)]

Image detail - minor query

Does any one know what this image is a detail of: File:Wells08,Cathedral.jpg? The source does not say. Perhaps the original photogrpaher/uploader will know. I was consdiering expanding the caption for that image, which seemed to be a bit stranded. But I see that it has now been relocated and the caption changed. So perhaps it doesn't really matter. Just still a bit curious. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'll see what I can find out. I also want more info on Rod's photo of the children carrying the cross. But I'm just a bit busy as the layout of the pics, as it was, prompted concern on the FA page. I am trying a different approach. Amandajm (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am now in a quandary. The design of these niches is the same as those of the 14th century pulpitum, but they don't appear to be part of it. Also, they are in extremely good condition and the stone is very white which does suggest that they are part of the Victorian restorations by Salvin. Amandajm (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does look very clean and modern, doesn't it. I searched Google Images but could find no other example than the one we use here. User:Schnobby seems to be still about, so maybe they will spot this and add any info they have. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll go back to the books for the "nodding ogees" in the choir when I get some time. The children carrying the cross is called "The Weight of our Sins" & by Josefina de Vasconcellos according to this entry on geograph (but I wouldn't use it as a reference). I haven't yet been able to find a date for commission or installation.— Rod ^talk 17:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Have added Wells at de Vasconcellos' article. But needs source there also. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few sources for "The Weight of our Sins" BBC, ScultSite, Shadowness and Deviant Art.— Rod ^talk 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re File:Wells08,Cathedral.jpg.

• Malden (1947) (p47-48) says "The wave of the "Gothic Revival" broke keavily over Wells shortly before the middle of the last century, and Richard Jenkyns (Dean 1845-54) removed the old wooden stall, which had seats above them for the families of the dignitaries, and replaced them by the present stone ones. One of his objects was to increase the accommodation available for the general public, and in this he was successful. But there are not now sufficient stalls if all the prebendaries were present. If this contingency be remote, it ought not to have been ignored. The new work was done well, but it is in a sense a sham, as it intends the visitor to believe that it was carried out during the fourteenth century. The carving seems to have been inspired by Alan of Walsingham's work at Ely, five centuries earlier. The wood-work which it displaced did at least represent the genuine characteristics of the period during which it was executed. Between the years 1935-46 hangings for the backs of the stalls were worked. They display various for the backs of the stalls were worked. They display various heraldic and emblematic devices. A set was also made for the Bishop's throne. This work has done much to give the interior of the quire the colour which it lacked."
• Colchester (1987) (p126-127) says "Anthony Slavin's restoration of the quire began in 1848. The wooden canopies over the prebendial stalls, probably like the stalls of Chicester or Hereford with a straight top of battlements or brattishing, had already been spoilt in the sixteenth century by the addition of timber galleries on top with Perpendicular traceried fronts, much of which has since been reused for reredoses and barriers. The galleries had to be removed because the timber supports and stairs of softwood leading to them occupied much of the space of the quire aisles, and were were extremely unsightly as well as inconvenient. When the galleries were removed,the problem was how to provide seating for those who had to be accommodated there. The architect's solution was to set back the wall behind the back stalls, and put in a new row for the prebendaries between the pillars. The old back row, which ran immediately in front of the pillars had to be moved forward slightly and gangways made." [It then goes on to discuss the misericords].

• Hope this makes sense.— Rod ^talk 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rod. Yes, all makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to copy all of that here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rod, that's all very interesting, including the dates of the hangings, which I will add, along with a reference for the sculpture.

Do either of you have a suggestion for the name of that gallery which gives a sort of summary of the history through its objects Amandajm (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dates of construction

I think the subheader "Dates of construction" could be improved, for example by changing it to simply "Architects". The problem with the current subheader is that there's already another subsection titled "Construction" in another section titled "History". The subsection currently titled "Dates of construction" is not even in the History section. I don't think the content of the "Dates of construction" subsection would necessarily have to change, but the article structure would look more sensible without this competition among headers and subheaders.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Another option would be to simply remove the subheader "Dates of construction" so that that material becomes an intro to the section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy for the sub head to be removed & that text would then act as intro to the architecture section but can we wait for User:Amandajm to express an opinion please.— Rod ^talk 18:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Trivial little caption issues

Per WP:Caption, "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." So I made a few minor edits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I guess a sentence fragment can end with a period as long as there's a complete sentence in the same caption that ends with a period. Please feel free to adjust accordingly (I won't since it seems fine as-is).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I changed them back to fragments because in each case the verb adds confusion rather than clarity. It is common for a caption about a building or artwork to begin with a fragment that states what it is, and in the case of a building, this often includes the direction from which it is viewed. In the case of a painting the first fragment might just state name artist date and medium. Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Can we erase that the header that says "Dates of construction" (see previous talk page section)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed both captions. The first is Building the cathedral which is what the successive bishop would have seen themselves as doing. I rephrased some of the section to emphasise the bishop's role. The second section is Dates, styles and architects which is what the section is about. Previously it was all in a box but has been rejigged as text. Amandajm (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's better, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Caption

Re the west front: '"As a synthesis of form, architectural decoration and figurative sculpture it is unsurpassed in Britain", an explanation like "many scholars consider" is fine within the text, except that even within the text one would be obliged to state which scholars. It is dealt with, in the text, and various scholars have been quoted on the matter of the west front. Within the context of the caption, it is wordy and unnecessary.

There is no other contender for "unsurpassed synthesis of form, architectural decoration and figurative sculpture". This is not really a qualitative statement that has ever been questioned, any more than it has ever been questioned that the Parthenon is the most sublime ancient temple or that St Peter's Basilica has the greatest dome of the Renaissance. Wells Cathedral is not as well known as these two buildings, but in point of fact, is almost as architecturally significant. Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I wrote it like that is that without the qualifying "Many scholars believe" it appears to be an assertion of some unassailable truth. If the text were in quotes then fair enough, but it isn't. As for "one would be obliged to state which scholars", that would be the three quoted in the references at the end of the sentence, which is how this type of statement is generally handled in Wikipedia. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 05:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How about if we replace "unsurpassed" with "considered to be unsurpassed"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a Wikipedia-wank. I am sick of having to insert wankish-weasel-words into articles in oder to get around the possibility that someone out there might think there was a greater 1st century religious leader than Jesus or a more renowned building in India than the Taj Mahal or a more famous screen goddess than Marilyn Monroe.

But if the end satisfies the means, then you had better do it!

Amandajm (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Amandajm, I agree, but that is my own opinion and therefore original research and not permitted :) ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re the very blue image of Wells Cathedral

The first image earlier image that went up for "Fine Image" was clearer in its architectural details, not so intensely coloured and didn't have shadows across the towers. It was an altogether more pleasing picture and more useful in the context of this article. Amandajm (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

New Image Available

Purple Parishioner - Wells Cathedral

The article is already well illustrated but thought this may suit better for the front façade. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Also for the Lady Chapel Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lady Chapel of Wells Cathedral.jpeg

Lady Chapel of Wells Cathedral

Thanks - nice pics. User:Amandajm has done most of the work on the images so I'd like to wait for her comment.— Rod ^talk 08:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Such wonderfully clear images!

The Lady Chapel pic has just gone into the article. I prefer not to use pictures that give a distorted image of the architecture (even though people who take 360 degree panoramas always want one included). In this instance, the pic shows the arrangement of the windows very well and gives a good dense of "presence" so I have put it in the stained glass section, where there was a gap just sitting waiting for it.

Re the facade: the clarity of your image is fantastic, even though it was quite a dull day. Every statue and detail can be seen. I have two problems with replacing the present image.

1. The colouring of the present image looks better in the context of the gallery.
2. You have digitally adjusted the vertical perspective to make the verticals parallel. Please don't. The end result is that the towers appear to splay outwards, because the eye automatically registers a horizontal view point, (the level of the camera) and the verticals should converge from that.

There are many situations where manipulation of the perspective is desirable. Sometimes there is only a very poor image of a building of major importance, and it needs radical adjustment in order to be used. But as one of the major users of architectural images, I don't want pictures with the verticals horizontal. (unless of course, the photo has been taken from a great distance.) A good architect, Palladio, Michelangelo etc, is aware of the effect of perspective on a building and takes that into account in the design. The "corrected" version almost always looks top-heavy, and much lower than it actually is. Can you please replace the image with an un-corrected, or less corrected version? I am sure that I can use it. Also, it is very handy to have a horizontal image of regular photographic format as well as the cropped squarish one, the more regular the better. I would crop out some of the foreground.

I will definitely find a place for the facade pic, if not in this article, then in Gothic architecture. Amandajm (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed commentary. I will create a new edit from the raw with your ideas in mind. I am sure I can address the colour of the masonry with a bit of a warmer treatment as this is quite cool after the CA correction. This is after all Cotswold limestone if memory serves and should be that warm golden yellow. I did chuckle a bit at the perspective correction issue, as the prevailing wisdom at COM:FPC takes quite a different approach. As such I will upload the new less corrected edit seperately. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice! Amandajm (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Wells Cathedral in film

The trailer for the upcoming ABC show Galavant appears to have been filmed at least partly in Wells Cathedral. I don't have any sources besides recognizing the interior from the clip, but I wanted to put that on the radar if anyone has a source to add it. Finarfen (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also Hot Fuzz had scenes filmed in Wells, including some right by the Bishop's Eye. 62.7.177.210 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

But that article says this:

" Wells Cathedral was digitally painted out of every shot of the village, as Wright wanted the Church of St. Cuthbert to be the centre building for the fictional town of Sandford; however, the Bishop's Palace is identifiable in some shots."

Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

An interesting fact in its own right that it was digitally removed, but I am referring to the Bishop's Eye and other parts of the Bishop's Palace, for example thic scene, 0.20 seconds in, which shows the marketplace side of the Bishop's Eye.62.7.177.210 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. And to think I used to get worked up over snippets of pop songs in mobile phone adverts... or classical standards in bread adverts.Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

All things considered, this is strictly trivia. I think we have enough information without including a trailer from which they removed the cathedral. Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Cathedral mog story

This light hearted article appeared in the Telegraph. I think it might be of interest to parents of younger kids -not least as it shows the Cathedral story continues -& had there been a gift shop section I would have added it. Feel free to add it elsewhere, otherwise unless there are objections I will add it in due course as an external link. JRPG (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Wells Cathedral in the reflecting pool in the grounds of the Bishops Palace.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Wells Cathedral in the reflecting pool in the grounds of the Bishops Palace.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 19, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Wells Cathedral, an Anglican cathedral in Wells, Somerset, as viewed from the reflecting pool in the grounds of the Bishop's Palace. The cathedral, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present cathedral, built from 1175 to 1490, replaced an earlier church built on the site in 705. Its architecture is in the Gothic style, mostly the Early English Gothic of the late 12th and early 13th centuries.Photograph: Rod Ward

Sure it's a nice picture, but its current location in the Bibliography section obviously serves no illustrative purpose. I suggest it (and the other image there) be removed or relocated. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Choir or Quire?

Should this article refer to the choir of Wells cathedral or the quire? "Quire" is extremely archaic, yet it does seem that Wells themselves use this term. It was added further this morning (it has been in long-term as one heading), and even though this was done by some rapid hopping between IPs, it seems to have been a good-faith edit.

So, choir or quire? I'm inclined to quire.

How far does this go? Is "retro-quire" even a term? Obviously the choir (and staying as choir) are those who sing in the quire.

As always, references are necessary, and they need to be Wells-specific ones for this case. My own library on early cathedrals is decent, but poorly read, so I'm not as familiar with the subtleties as I'd like to be. So is anyone already an expert, or familiar with Wells? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look in Talk:Wells Cathedral/Archive 2#Wording issues you will see that quire v choir for the part of the architecture (as opposed to the group of singers) was discussed at some length @Amandajm: (who did a lot of work on this ion the process of getting it to FA) said "Re "quire": it is my preferred form because it is absolutely clear, but it has been knocked on the head in this article by another editor who considered it "antiquated'." @Anythingyouwant: said "I'm fine with "choir"". There are also other mentions of both quire and choir in that archive.— Rod ^talk 16:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Choir (architecture) says "sometimes called quire" so I don't think there is a definitive right or wrong on this.— Rod ^talk 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously "quire" is past antiquated and heading for antediluvian. That's not my point though - there seems to be some theme from Wells cathedral themselves that they're still using quire. Should we go along with that? If we do, how far does it go? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should be in standard UK English, so "choir" for the singers and the architectural feature. If interesting enough (which I rather doubt), local variant spellings could be mentioned or footnoted.Bmcln1 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wells 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/20130523001635/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/the-venerable-nicola-sullivan/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/the-venerable-nicola-sullivan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402183619/http://www.wellscathedralschool.org/wells/index.php/history to http://www.wellscathedralschool.org/wells/index.php/history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726020242/http://olddeanerygarden.org.uk/index.php to http://www.olddeanerygarden.org.uk/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113210029/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/music-the-choir/music-outreach/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/music-the-choir/music-outreach/

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) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wells 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/20131113214430/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/canon-nicholas-jepson-biddle/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/canon-nicholas-jepson-biddle/

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) 15:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wells 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/20130523011230/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/canon-andrew-featherstone/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/canon-andrew-featherstone/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523011230/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/canon-andrew-featherstone/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/whos-who-contact/the-cathedral-chapter/canon-andrew-featherstone/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011185453/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/time_measurement/1884-77.aspx to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/time_measurement/1884-77.aspx

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) 14:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wells 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/20131113210132/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/worship/baptisms-weddings-and-funerals/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/worship/baptisms-weddings-and-funerals/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331043623/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/history/historical-highlights/the-clock/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/history/historical-highlights/the-clock/

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) 08:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wells 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/20131113211325/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/worship/general-services-calendar/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/worship/general-services-calendar/

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) 04:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wells 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/20110810060121/http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/history/historical-highlights/the-jesse-window/ to http://www.wellscathedral.org.uk/history/historical-highlights/the-jesse-window/

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) 02:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wells 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/20140221211806/http://www.keltektrust.org.uk/downloads/Great_bells_of_GB.xls to http://www.keltektrust.org.uk/downloads/Great_bells_of_GB.xls

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) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

From Wells Cathedral, March 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6snzF-i5Sw

Perhaps this could be inserted on the page. By someone who knows how to format it. Amandajm (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)