Talk:Gloucester Cathedral

Latest comment: 8 months ago by Thomas Norren in topic Age contradiction

Bits and pieces

edit
  • V&A candlestick - Commons
  • Domesday Book
  • Shakespeare 4th Folio

KJP1 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Merged material from Gloucester Abbey

edit

I have merged in material from Gloucester Abbey prior to converting that page into a Re-direct of this. The Talk and the History are both preserved at the re-direct page, [1]. Thanks and acknowledgement to all authors who contributed to the Abbey article. My apologies in advance if I've not gone about it correctly. KJP1 (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Francis Niblett

edit

I've removed this addition as I can find no mention either of the architect or of the source. It can go back in with proper sourcing, of course, KJP1 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC):Reply

"The ceiling of the south choir aisle was carefully rebuilt 1878 by Francis Niblett using some of the original stone work that could be salvaged (ref: Francis Niblett Architect - local publication - D Alderton 1923 p88."

KJP1 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Age contradiction

edit

In the article there's a paragraph which says:

Modern period

edit

The cathedral celebrated its 900th anniversary in 1989. In 2015 Rachel Treweek was installed as bishop, the first woman to be appointed to a diocesan bishopric in the history of the Church of England. In September 2016 Gloucester Cathedral joined the Church of England's 'Shrinking the footprint' campaign, intended to reduce the Church of England's carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The cathedral commissioned a solar array on the cathedral roof which is expected to reduce the cathedral's energy costs by 25%. The installation was completed by November 2016, making the 1,000-year-old cathedral the oldest one in the UK with a solar installation.

The start of the paragraph says it celebrated its 900th anniversary in 1989 and the end of the paragraph says it was 1000 years old in 2016. But if its 900th was in 1989 wouldnt that make it 927 years old in 2016 not 1000? I realise it says 1000 in the source and there's no source for the '900th anniversary in 1989' part but isn't there a way that we can rectify this contradiction without braking any of Wikipedia's rules? Thomas Norren (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit of journalistic licence. The traditional founding date is 1089. I've tweaked it. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sweat, thank you Thomas Norren (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply