Talk:Fountains Abbey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-Class) Catholicism Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. WikiProject Yorkshire     (Rated B-Class) Yorkshire Portal Fountains Abbey is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's assessment scale. See comments for details. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the Project's priority scale. WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-Class) Middle Ages Portal Fountains Abbey is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) . Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Text refers to a book but what is it - move to references & give more detail Text refers to a ground plan but unable to locate this Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS e.g. dates & units Keith D 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject Museums (Rated start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, and see a list of list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

With the disappearance of the Fountains Abbey plan, quite a few references in the text lead to nowhere.

old photo

newer photo

And I suggest to reinstate the old photo or use an alternative newer one.--Klaus with K 15:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Madmedea 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Fountains Abbey has more content and is better structured. Much of this is duplicated in Studley Royal Park, which also seems to contain some factual inaccuracies. I propose that any unique information present in Studley Royal Park should be merged into Fountains Abbey and the page deleted or redirected.

I agree that the Abbey information in the Studley Royal Park article should be moved into the Fountains Abbey article. But the Studley Royal Park should stay, there is enough other information to keep it as an article on its own, the Garden, Mill, Church and deer park. Although I would further suggest that Studley Royal Water Garden is merged into Studley Royal Park. MortimerCat 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally with MortimerCat's suggestions above. Hogyn Lleol 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. LordHarris 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with it but... both Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal Water Garden are major features in Studley Royal Park. So maybe Studley Royal Park should be an article on the whole estate (and the features that don't warrant a whole article like the mill etc.) and include a summary section with links to the full articles on Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal Water Garden (and Fountains Hall)? Madmedea 11:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (but who is going to do it?) MortimerCat 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but I think that Studley Royal Water Garden should be merged with Studley Royal Park, for they are refered to as the same place by visitors. The Abbey however should be a seperate article. LordHarris 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right, this is what I think we've agreed:

The main page for this topic will be Studley Royal Park - this will contain the relevant content from the existing page and the merged content from Studley Royal Water Garden (to become a redirect) and will be able to accomodate information on the deer park, St. Mary's Church, the mill etc.. It will also contain summaries with 'main article' links to Fountains Abbey and Fountains Hall (the hall page is short but has potential for expansion). I'm happy get on with this, if you're happy for me to do it - I'm a newbie wikipedian so I'm happy for you guys to do any further editing when I've done the main swop Madmedea 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Go! Go! Go! MortimerCat 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Hogyn Lleol 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial rejig is done. The article still needs work (and I've got some pics that I can add) but its a step in the right direction Madmedea 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Perhaps create a gallery for images? LordHarris 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Heritage

Why was the English Heritage category removed? It is an English Heritage Property, see [1], albeit in partnership with the National Trust MortimerCat 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the gallery removal either - I wish people would look at a pages history to see when and why things had changed. Madmedea 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the last two edits by Bob Castle for three reasons. 1.) The gallery both makes the page tidy and allows for the collection of images already available + future ones. 2.) The Abbey is an English Heritage property, in join partnership, as above and 3.) Bob Castles revert removed all the subcategories that I made in a previous edit. It also reverted the movement of text from the opening paragraph, in accordance with wikifying policy. If anyone disagrees with my revert, please discuss here before changing. Thanks. LordHarris 14:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I seem to remember that the English Heritage category had already been removed before, but by reverting it, I removed it again just to undo the "gallery" edit. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of galleries, and the reason I reverted it was that LordHarris's edit left the image without an opening picture, which seemed rather odd to me. As the content of the "History and Development" subheading was largely architectural, I've subdivided it into two headings of 'history' and 'architecture', adding a little bit of the early history of the building and some references, plus one or two pictures that help illustrate or compliment the text of the article, which is what the pictures are for. Hope that's OK. Bob talk 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Article looks good now, LordHarris 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to have a go at expanding it further at some point - you've got me interested, now. Bob talk 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)in 2007