Talk:Westminster Abbey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pictures of Abbey Layout

If there is some Wikipedia rule regarding the following, of which I am unaware then feel free to ignore my comments, but I find it disconcerting to view the following images presented in the current orientations. I don't know how to fix this but could someone who does know, flip the image of the interior layout of the abbey? Currently, north is at the bottom, which is usually reserved for south on maps, and west is shown on the right side, which is usually reserved for east. There is a similar problem with the image, "Layout Plan Dated 1894." In the image, east is pointing upwards, the normal position of north.Carmaskid (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The first image is a user creation and can be replaced by a different version if it makes sense in the context of this article. You are free to create one or ask for someone to do it at the Graphics Lab's map workshop. The latter one is a historical image and as such should be displayed as it was drawn for encyclopedic purposes since the point is to show how the abbey was depicted in 1894. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the plan may have been made that way as the majority people view the abbey from Parliament Square, to the north, and so that orientation represents how the majority of casual visitors perceive the abbey. --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Censing Angels

I hope someone considers adding a photo of the Censing Angels to the article. Amazing beauty. Thank you. Richlevine00 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Physical Description

There is almost nothing about the physical dimensions of the abbey. What are the length and width of the various sections of it? How tall are the towers? What is the height of the vaulted ceiling? What sort of stone was used in the construction? What is known about the site upon which it stands? I'm very surprised to find so little detail about such a noteworthy historical landmark.--Beetfarm Louie (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Size?

Six by eight feet and seven feet high - or? 2001:470:28:2B1:213:E8FF:FE9D:2E79 (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

name error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2.217.172.87 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Closing this, as the poster has not specified any way in which the coordinates in the article are erroneous (and the coordinates are, in fact, correct). Deor (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Deference

The entry makes no reference to controversies in the recent history of the abbey, some of which possess wide significance. These should be evoked and,albeit sensitively,addressed - and by an objective editor less shocked than myself by the February half-mast incident---- Clive sweeting 6 March 2015

Construction

why has this grand and imposing building have so little written about its construction and feats of engineering? who were the architects? tali04/07/07

See the official site: http://www.westminster-abbey.org/history-research/art-architecture/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.155.14 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an odd comment about Henry III's construction of Edward Confessor's shrine: "The Confessor's shrine subsequently played a great part in his canonisation." The Wikipedia article on the Confessor states, "He was canonised in 1161 by Pope Alexander III." I'm pretty sure that date is correct. Also, shrines were not customarily built for those not yet canonized, even when canonization was all but a foregone conclusion. Thus, the shrine had nothing to do with his canonization. Perhaps this was meant to read, "...played a great part in his veneration." MonteGargano (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Unbuilt tower and monument hall

This might be of use to expand the article: "Unbuilt London: Imperial Monumental Halls", IanVisits. I'm not sure where it would fit in with the current layout, though, hence why I'm mentioning it here rather than adding it directly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

The user User:Bede735 change the image with a personal image no very good and full of darks,I think that the other is better or another with the full facade and without darks. Others opinions? thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the image has been in the infobox since last September. You replaced it a few days ago with a version that looks washed out, with the facade off-center, and complete with traffic and vehicles and a nice obscuring tree. After I reverted your change two days ago, you should have followed WP:BRD instead of initiating a WP:EDITWAR. Bede735 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This picture show all the facade and isn't crop like your,we must show the church and not part of it.Excuse me but of pictures i understand something [1] Thanks. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Royal Peculiar vs Cathedral

I don't think any formal status like Royal Peculiar can undo the fact from an architectural point of view , that Westminster Abbey indeed is a Cathedral. A very large church. This doesn't rule out any other status the Cathedral in question may have. But I don't believe there is an architectural support for anything else but a Cathedral. Boeing720 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The term 'cathedral' is not dependent on the size of the church. There are some relatively small churches which have the status of a cathedral, one good example being St David's Cathedral in Wales. The status of a church being designated as a cathedral is down to the presence of a Bishop's throne, or 'cathedra' in the church, hence the term 'cathedral'. Westminster Abbey does not have a Bishop's throne, therefore it is not a cathedral.Ds1994 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is 'original abbey church' misleading?

The last sentence of the first paragraph states that 'The building itself is the original abbey church.' Is this not misleading? It is true that the building itself was originally an abbey church. But it is not the original abbey church, which was built c. 960-970. Work on the present building was started in the mid-13th century. 65.255.67.14 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)