Talk:St Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth

amused by one interpretation

..a window ... by the church curate... showing ... Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the church's architects Francis Smith and G. E. Street.

lol.... I think it was a bit lacking in modesty for the architects to be in the stained glass :-) ... but I know what you meant!

This is a brilliant collaboration Victuallers (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but the window was put in a long time after the architects had died (1938 - they died in 1738 and 1881). So, it seems reasonable that they remembered them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that is a surprise I thought you'd made a mistake. Apologies. Maybe this needs to be underlined mataphorcially or maybe its just me Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Bright green grave stone

Grave stone in St Mary's Parish Church isn't bright green, I'll get a better image --Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't it be adjusted digitally? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

46,000 ways?

I can't get that figure for the number of ways to read John Renie's gravestone. It seems to me, you need to start at the central H, and reach one of the corner E's (of which there are four choices). Once you've selected your target corner E, you've got 18 steps to make, 9 of which must be vertical & the rest horizontal.

So altogether, the number of ways to read this is 4 times 18 choose 9, which is 11,440. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwbulger (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also pondered this and your explanation looks very reasonable. The answer certainly has to be divisible by four, as far as I can see. I am still trying to track down the original source for this claim. Kelley's (1901) just says "in any direction", which is perhaps even less accruate, but doesn't seem so. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says "It is claimed that....", which is true. The claim may be false, and it would be good to find its original source, but nothing in the current article is untrue, and it's not up to us to do WP:OR to disprove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair enough. My combinatorial hackles were raised by the "Did you know" entry, which omitted the "it is claimed" qualification, reading, "Did you know that a gravestone in St Mary's Priory Church in Monmouth says "Here lies John Renie" in 46,000 different ways?" (I didn't know that, and I still don't!) Davidwbulger (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read in DYK! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nor here. Truth vs verifiability folks! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, as there are 16 movements to go and 7 of them must be vertical, the actual answer is 4 times (16 choose 7); that is, 4 times 11,440, or 45,760. So someone probably just rounded this up to 46,000 way back when :-) --85.141.128.211 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quadrant grid pattern of steps

Yes, as you describe, in each quadrant it's all those possible paths in the grid here. But I'm not familiar with the expression "16 choose 7". Is there a published example of an expanation of this, or is it considered "common knowledge"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is considered a common de-abbreviation of ₁₆C₇, referring to binomial coefficients. I personally based my explanation's terminology on Davidwbulger's "18 choose 9" (thinking this to be obvious). [the same anonymous as above] --82.179.218.138 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said somewhere else, many of us gave up math(s) when the high point of technology was the slide rule. I have no idea what a binomial coefficient might be, but I believe you...  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks "same anon". So you have at least two editors who are prepared to believe you. The question is - should the average general Wikipedia reader do likewise? If so, then it seems that the figure in the article should be 45,760. Would a small explanation in a footnote, with a link to binomial coefficients, help perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just seeing this again. For completeness, I ought to concur with "same anon". Thanks for clarifying this. I'm not sure how I made such a mess of that calculation in the first place; my logic was sound, but I seemed to be typing random numbers. I totally agree with your 45760. Davidwbulger (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

How does a picture of the spire clad in scaffolding add anything of encyclopaedic value to the article? If it doesn't, it shouldn't really be there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

William Jones

According to Charles Heath in 1804 - here - there was at that time a monument in the church to William Jones. Is it still there, or, if not, do we know what became of it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes (can't see any page numbers in that book) It also says he died in 1613 and describes him as a "Hamburgh merchant". It seems to say that his "monument" was "On the North side of the altar". But if that monument was simply an actual "Table of Benefactors", perhaps it was just a hung wooden plaque, long since perished? (N.B. no mention at genuki) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It says he made his will in 1613, so far as I can see, not that he died then. I made my will many years ago and, so far as I can tell, am not dead yet. Aaaarggghhhhhhhhhh................ Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

ROFL, (or is it ROFD?) You are quite right. He hung on for two more years. £9,000 was a fair sum in those days. Does wiki have a value converter template? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I called in recently and see could no sign of any memorials on either side of the altar, or on the adjoining walls (apart from one brass plaque that is dated about 1883, I think). There are only embroidered wall hangings. So not sure what this was or where it went. In the entrance porch, however, I did see a very old bell (originally 1604, I think) which was later re-cast and which has been recently re-dedicated to one of the former bellringers. Apparently it was used as the town fire bell for many years amd was hung on the outside of the tower. Certainly worth a picture if anyone could take one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nice things"

Can I just say "nice things" here. This article started out as a very short article and is now easily a "c" and one of the best out of Monmouthpedia - its good to see so many editors involved. Interesting to see the debate between verifiability and truth. As I understand it 46,000 stands even if someone can show that its actually 24,000. Although I'm not sure we could say that a maths proof was POV. Anyway "nice things" Victuallers (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy if anyone could show that it's actually anything! And, you're right, maths can't be POV, can it. Maybe worth a note to `project maths'? Martinevans123 (talk)

(see the thread 46,000 ways? above) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

The article seemed to be a little image-heavy. I've therefore removed two images of the steeple, as the infobox already has one, deleted a photograph of the Vicar (I've never before seen a church article with such a feature), and removed the, not very helpful, image of the tower entirely covered in scaffolding, which has been criticised before. I've then re-ordered the remainder, to have some chronological flow, and some relation to the text. Hope I haven't offended anyone, particularly the Vicar. I did this in a single edit, to allow for easy reversion, but I do think the article was becoming a bit cluttered and "gallery-like." KJP1 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement. Perhaps an image of The Adoration of the Magi by James Watney Wilson would make a great addition, if a copyright free one was available? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I hope it's an improvement. A image of the altar painting would indeed be a great addition but the image in the Imaging the Bible in Wales series has a clear copyright. And my photographic skills aren't up to it, even if the picture wasn't as dark, dirty and over-varnished as it was the last time I saw it. The other one I'd love to see would be a good picture of the very beautiful Four Rivers window. My effort [1] is very subpar. KJP1 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of my church interiors are equally "ambitious". I think one needs some skill, a good camera and an empty church. I usually manage just the last of these. But your image gives a good idea of what that beautiful window is like and I'm sure would be a perfectly acceptable addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cockerel

[2] - need to add something from this. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Fred Dibnah in a tutu, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Gilding funded by “Jumbo” Matthew who taught me many moons ago. KJP1 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Did he have very big ears? Or perhaps a long trunk? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Some interesting history there: "The copper was from the Swansea Vivian copper works which also supplied the same copper to the Royal Navy." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that bluelink. There is indeed some good stuff here - John Rudge of Ross (who he, ed?) and the, shamefully redlinked, Church of St Giles, Goodrich. Some digging and writing to do. KJP1 (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[3] The cockerel by papal edict, no less. KJP1 (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but if so has yet to find it's way to Pope Nicholas I. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Added something, and blue-linked St Giles. KJP1 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Good stuff. Any ideas about the cockerel sandwich? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)