Talk:Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Spelling

I notice that the cathedral itself [1] spells its name as Saint Fin Barre's. Any comments? -- Picapica 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spelling is correct. St Fin Barre is the name of the saint, and that is how it is spelled.

Yrs.

Crucifer and Organ Scholar of St. Fin Barre's Cathedral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.245.206 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this be moved to Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral?

If the spelling is correct as Saint Fin Barre's, not Saint Finbarre's, why is this page at Saint Finbarre's Cathedral and the redirect at Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral? Shouldn't it be the other way around? (It seems obvious enough that I'd do it myself if I had any idea of the correct way to swap a page and a redirect, but I don't.) MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because the spelling's incorrect. Since it's official, though, sure, we should stay consistent with that. — LlywelynII 16:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Organ

It's nice to read about the organ, but it really reads much more like a sales brochure than a factual article Tenorcnj (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and the complete absence of citations is a concern. But I'd still be inclined to leave it. The sentence: "It is now the largest organ on the island of Ireland and can safely be described as one of the truly great organs of Europe.", can safely be described as one of the most priceless phrases on Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

With the traditional stop labelled "Swell to great", one assumes. This is a deplorable thread, and you should be as ashamed of yourself, KJ, as I ought to be but am not. Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Tenorcnj & KJP1's shocking & deplorable comments, and will adress. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Reviewing the article today I noted a number of issues. Some of which I've begun to address (like the inappropriate opinion offered by apparent COI contributor to the organ section). However, I wonder whether the following items might be considered. Depending on other opinions, I may review these myself in due course:

1. History - The history section makes no mention of the previous medieval cathedral. The "story" starts from 1862. This might be OK if it were not for the fact that the lists of deans and organists stretch back several hundred years earlier. Leaving an obvious and overt gap from the readers point of view.
2. Organ - There are no cites in this section at all. This is especially problematic as much of the content is somewhat POV in tone. While it may be appopriate to cover some of it with reference to the primary source (the cathedral website), some of it would really seem to need independent sources.
3. Organists - Perhaps I'm just not au fait with the arena, but I wonder whether there is an WP:UNDUE issue with the two long lists here. Apart from the lack of supporting cites, these two lists are quite prominent relative to other aspects of the article. I note that for English cathedrals the norm seems to be to address this by removing the lists from the primary article, and avoiding UNDUE issues by "parking" musicians on a separate list. I'm not sure I would advocate that however, and I note that for St Patrick's and Christ Church the approach seems to be to avoid "assistance organists" (which frankly seems appropriate), and span the other list over a number of columns. Once the lack of cites/context is addressed, at the very least I imagine that would be appropriate.

Any other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few months since my note above. Unless there are other thoughts I will plough ahead and expand the history section (to at least MENTION the previous building), temper much of the POV and copyedit for CN issues in the organ section, and (bluntly) cull and reorganise the organist list (no cites and nothing to support notability under relevant guidelines). Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done It's been a while since I made these suggestions. Not having heard any feedback, I've addressed the smallest of them (adding a sentence or two on the preceding structures, summarising/tempering the more editorial comments in the organ section, and excising the uncited/NN "assistant organists" list). Probably could do with further work in future. (Including suggestion that perhaps the organists list belongs in a separate list - as elsewhere.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Assistant organists revisited

Following the above talk thread from July 2014, a selective "list of assistant organists" was reinstated April 2016. The original concerns with this content remain:

• the list is wholly uncited (which is a problem with the fundamental WP:VER tenet of the project)
• there is no clear inclusion criteria (is this everyone? if not, why are these members selected? what's the inclusion/exclusion criteria? per WP:LC and WP:WWPIN)
• no information is provided to support the notability of the members under the relevant criteria (per WP:NMUSIC or WP:PERSON)
• as per note from 2014, there is no apparent precedence or consensus that these types of lists are appropriate (per WP:CON)

Input on these issues are welcome before agreement consensus on what to do with this type of content.Guliolopez (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What supporting citations could possibly be expected for a list of organists or assistant organists at a cathedral? I can personally vouch for most of the names on that list, but citations? Is this not merely presenting an obstacle for the sake of it? This page is open to everyone to edit - if someone sees an error in the list, they will correct it - that's enough validation for me. I don't agree that the lists are too prominent - lists are never more prominent than substantial text - additionally, it should be pointed out that England and Ireland do not have the same conventions - so these comparisons are not relevant - the issue in any case as to whether a list exists or not is most often down to whether the actual record exists. In terms of inclusion, the dates are self-explanatory - there is no selection or inclusion issue here - there may be missing information for previous assistant organists before the first in the list, but this is again a matter of available records and again of course this page is open for correction. The notability of those on the list is tied to the post they occupied with the Cathedral. That's the extent of the notability that matters in this instance. Lists do not need to support prior or future notability beyond the material fact that they served in the post for those years - the people occupied the post and it should be on the record. The test proposed re. appropriateness is flawed - there is no one convention concerning listing and neither should there be. A public encyclopedia, above all, should encourage individual approaches and not support rigid standardisation. The content is good and is relevant to the history of the cathedral - further to that, recognition of people who devoted a significant portion of their time in dedicated service to the Cathedral deserves better than to become a matter of technical analysis which wants to delete them from the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiorix1000 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"A shabby apology"

I contributed a little to this article from a Burges perspective and wholeheartedly agree with Guliolopez that it is inadequate as a description of the cathedral. It certainly requires further work on the history, the architecture and, perhaps particularly, the stained glass and statuary. From my perspective, what it definitely does not need is lists of minor office holders. The list of Deans, if it sits anywhere, would perhaps sit better in Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross. The list of Organists, and even more so, that of Assistant Organists, should be removed. They do not contribute to an understanding of the building, its history and architecture; they don't enhance the reader's experience; the subjects themselves are not generally notable, and, where they are, can be mentioned in the text; and Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of everything. This is not to detract in any way from the contributions to the life of the cathedral that these individuals have made, which I am sure have been both important and valued. But Wikipedia isn't the place to acknowledge this. KJP1 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that an article entitled St. Fin Barre's Cathedral should be viewed as solely an architectural acknowledgement of features of the building which interest you. Understanding the building is not the only angle this feature should address. You say that you don't want to detract from the contributions of these people, but you call them 'minor' and remove their names - can a detraction be more complete than that? When historians write their books, they find it immensely difficult to compile names and here all the names are listed for posterity and for information about the history of the people who put life into the building without which it would be meaningless - the lists should remain - all of them. It is an error of logic and an error of judgement to remove these names. I agree with you that more information could be included on other aspects of the church, including the building itself, but that in itself is no reason to remove other items. If Wikipedia does not address all aspects of a topic, it should stop calling itself an encyclopedia - I believe Wikipedia is interested in the completeness of information that is available about an institution, not just selective parts which you select - the list is not acknowledgement, it's history and I was delighted to see these lists there in the past and disappointed that anyone would remove one - I think you should be more concerned in adding to it any missing information - it should stay - I hope that you can belatedly recognise that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiorix1000 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ambiorix1000. Thanks very much for your notes and contributions. I can appreciate any frustration, and will try not to compound that by labouring any specific points, but might touch on a few things mentioned:

• Without being overly forceful on the WP:AGF policy, that anyone might be "presenting an obstacle for the sake of it", is flatly not the case. At all.
• On the suggestion that someone might "personally vouch for [..] the names on that list" and "what supporting citations could possibly be expected", I would refer you to this WP:BIT essay.
• On the implication that historians might rely on a list here (because the members are not listed elsewhere), I would simply point out that Wikipedia is not an original source. Per WP:NOT#OR and WP:OR. (Besides which, any historian using Wikipedia as their only source likely got their credentials cheaply :) ).
• Finally, while it is certainly true that the article should cover content on other aspects of a topic (not perhaps just it's history or architecture), that content should not be indiscriminate (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE) and should be verifiable (as per core WP:VER tenets)

Put perhaps more simply, you mention that "if someone sees an error in the list, they will correct it". As the "error in the list" was that it was unsupported by any reference, an attempt was made to correct that. Sorry to hear if this or any other core tenet of the project would lead to any other editor being "disappointed", but am not sure I can help with that specifically. In the meantime, if you're interested in improving the article, it really would be great if we could address the sourcing issues for some content we already have (on the organ/etc) - perhaps before we add more. If you are close to that area you should be aware of the relevant guidelines, but otherwise if you can assist with reliable sources, that'd be great. All the best and happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

The William Burges article is FA and excellent, and has a substantial section dedicated to Fin Barre's. If its ok with KJP1, I would like to copy some modified text to this article. Also, it goes without saying that I agree wholeheartedly with KJP1 and Guliolopez's well reasoned arguments in the thread above. As such, the article has been trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil. Looks good. If any other editors feel that the "list of deans" or "list of organists" should be included somewhere in the project, then they should likely follow the convention used elsewhere. (For example COE deans are listed separate to the article on the cathedral buildings. [2][3][4] And organists similarly listed independent of the building articles.[5] This is in keeping with WP:SS and WP:SAL guidelines. Which suggest that, where lists are impactful to balance/UNDUE/readability, they should likely be "split" to SAL format). Guliolopez (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Guliolopez, the reasons you made are something I may rely on later, these lists are a common problem; I see them often in town articles for eg; list of local parishes and stuff. A solution, if you get into a log jam, is to spin it out into a daughter article. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil, take as much text as you like! I've been meaning to get back to Fin Barre, but there's always something else to do. I've got most of the books cited if you need any references, the Lawrence and Wilson's very good. It was great to meet you and your better/other half in London, by the way. Very best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

KJP1, I lived within a stones throw of the cathedral for 5 years in the 90s, and know it well to see, but it struck me, when we were chatting, how little I actually knew about its architecture, style, comission and history. I read the Burges article on the way home, and was really interested. I dont mean to pillage your article for here, more that the sourcing is obviously better, so might look up, while the structure and order of touch points in the section there are well thought through and would form the basis for a strong led here. I mean really that I'll follow your lead on these. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil, truly, I'm delighted someone's doing something to bring Fin Barre more up to scratch. It's been a "shabby apology" for a Burges article for far too long. I love collaborations on Wikipedia and would be delighted to check references, look things up, act as a sounding board - whatever you need. If I could make one immediate suggestion, I'd use the 2013 revised edition of Crook's Burges. The original's splendid, but it is over 30 years old. I have it and will revise the current Crook refs. Any more you want, just let me know and I'll get the page numbers. The bulk of the Burges FA was done before the revised version came out - sometime I'll go and do the changes there but it's a daunting task! Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thats interesting KJP1. Liz is the minister for finance in our house (if I held the purse stings there be lorries backed up at the door delivering book after book), and I have been eyeing up Crook all day. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 , the book is now in the mail. Actually it isn't, because sellers on AmazonUK won't ship to Ireland. Not for under 300 quid, anyway. Bit bummed about this. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a beautiful book, and I really would recommend the 2013 version. But one needs to be very careful on price. When it came out, it was £45, but I fear it's out of print again, certainly Waterstones doesn't have it. That was actually very reasonable, for the quality of the book, and considering the 1981 version cost £40 in 1981. Both the 2013 and the 1981 can go for crazy prices on Amazon/Ebay, upwards of £400 for the earlier one. It also weighs a ton, so postage can be an issue! KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

KJP1, are there any other books you can recommend on this? I'm going to see what I can do when in the States - things can often be found for less expense, and they will ship anywhere, and I know a place that will reprint oop books - but it would be great to have a source to hand before then. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Stuff

Not at all wanting to start a debate on this contentious topic, but appreciate what you mean about the length. Just looking at a few random examples, Wells Cathedral and St Paul's Cathedral, both have long infoboxes, but also long contents sections which avoids the problem. Maybe we just have to write more! KJP1 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed!! I was thinking similar Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Three things,

• Why is it called Fin Barre's rather than Finbarr's - anybody know? Have looked around but found nothing. KJP1 do you have material on this? Hoping to find material in the local history sect of Waterstones tomorrow but there are no guarantees
• Happy now with the format of the images and gallery if you are Guliolopez
• I prefer hand coded refs (or snf for books) rather than cite web, which seems to take up a lot of space with all that html and makes editing in preview difficult, but am happy to go with the flow if there is consensus in a collab, which I very much hope this is. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil:, Indeed, the name's been a source of discussion before. Unfortunately, neither Crook nor Lawrence/Wilson do discuss it. We really need the Cork Pevsner, which has been due out since about 2010 but has been having major difficulties. When I last asked Yale they said it was "delayed with no planned publication date". Re. references, these have always been one of my lesser strengths but I am very comfortable with sfn, if everyone else is. Certainly, I'd be delighted to work on it, and shall try to put some time aside. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have made a mistake re the cartoons for the window glass; currently attributed in the article to Burges, but of course their production outsourced based on designs. Digging back. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you did make a mistake - who exactly did what is a bloody complicated area! I'm currently looking at a small pamphlet I have entitled "Got Cork", which is the catalogue for the centenary exhibition held at the Crawford Municipal Art Gallery in 1981. This says, of the "Adam Kneeling" panel for the western rose window; "sketch by Burges, he himself (i.e. Burges) prepared cartoons for the creation window and for 21 of the clerestory windows". But of the Virgin Mary window, it says "Weekes prepared the cartoons under Burges' direction, and subsequently executed by Saunders". Whereas others were done by Lonsdale. All rather difficult. We may have to describe each window! KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Describe each window? I'm down with that. I'm still relying on web sources, but even so, there is a bunch of credible sources. Fin Barrs is just up the road from UCC and right next to the Crawford College of Art, so there has been lots of recent study, of varying quality of course. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil:, I'm not sure what these two sentences (third para. of the Architecture section) are trying to say. Have they got mangled, or are they a hangover from a previous version? "In form and shape, many of the figures in the stained glass echo figures Tympanum, although they are in generally far more down to earth. The figures can be divides between the divine, wise and foolish, and portrayed with remarkable blutisness." KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC) While I'm on, I think we'll need separate sections on the stained glass and on the sculpture. They could be sub-sections of the Architecture section, or standalone. Do you have a preference? Personally, I think there's sufficient to say to make them standalone. KJP1 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 that seems mangled to me, know what was intended, hold tough. Separate sects on the stained glass and sculptures, yes, absolutely, but am not there yet...are you brave enough ;) I'm thinking that what is now "Architecture" will subdivide under "structure" (or some such) and third level headers. Standalone (ie second level) gives a very messy TOC. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A modest beginning.KJP1 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Great work in the last 24 hours KJP1, its really starting to take shape. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

No, I'm not saying remove it. But I find the purple bars rather garish and distracting. May we have one that is simpler and easier on the eye that contains all the same information? I'm asking first before changing because I know this is a sensitive subject. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The colour is automatic. When the "denomination" is set as "Church of Ireland", the bars automatically become purple. If the denomination was set as "Roman Catholic", the bars would be an orange colour. This is standard across the project. See the notes on the denomination parameter in Template:Infobox church and Template:Infobox church/denomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guliolopez. Thank you for the links. I guess what I am asking is whether we can have a similar infobox without the distracting colours (and who assigns these anyway?). Thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. RE: "can we have a similar infobox". If we used a less-specific infobox (like maybe Template:Infobox building), we wouldn't have anywhere to "put" the values typically associated with a church/cathedral (like denomination, dedication, diocese, etc). So, personally, I think that would be a retrograde step.

RE: "who assigns these [colours] anyway". There are extensive discussions in the archives of Template talk:Infobox church, and a recommendation to raise a thread if there's any question/proposal on changing/"re-assigning" colours. There's also a convention documented at Template:Infobox_religious_building/doc#Automatic_coloring. (I am less familiar with the convention myself, but I expect it's not random. Presumably, for example, the purple for Anglican churches [COI, COE, etc] is because Anglican bishops wear purple.)

Personally I don't see the issue. But if you feel strongly about it, I'd recommend raising a thread in the relevant area of the project. (If there is a concern with the template conventions, then it would seem appropriate to raise those concerns in the discussion on the template. Especially given that the template is used on 10,187 articles. So changing this article [so that it breaks with the convention used on 10 thousand other articles], wouldn't seem like the best approach to me....) Guliolopez (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kafka Liz:, My own view would be that we definitely don't raise the issue. As we know, infoboxes can be highly contentious, and we've lost some superb contributors due to debates over them; debates which also tend to be acrimonious and ill-tempered. And I agree with Guliolopez that to personalise a box, against the convention which applies to all other articles in the same category, would not seem a step forward. I'm very sorry you don't like the colours - and they are a little garish! - but I think the energy we could expend on this would be much better put towards improving the article's content. KJP1 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I'll drop it. My opinions are clear, and I really don't want to cause trouble. Sorry I brought it up; I missed the conversation above. And yes, I'd rather work on the content. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mostly preaching to the converted here Liz, but unfortunately there is a snowballs chance in hell of having it changed ;) The colour is one thing, the length another; but at the end of the day can live with both- I'm telling myself there are worse injustices in the world! Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

six head-shaped voussoirs

• There's a ref to "From Ireland Coming: Irish Art from the Early Christian to the Late Gothic Period and Its European Context" that is not cited in text. So I looked. It mentions "six head-shaped voussoirs" ... There is an appealing photo also of four of these on page 210 of Rynne, Colin, Wigham, B.; (2002) 'An early photographic study of the eighteenth-century St Fin barre's Cathedral'. Journal of The Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 107 (*):199-210  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

History

Ceoil, the History definitely needs a paragraph or two to bring it up to date. Apart from a brief reference on the early 20th century construction, we're missing about 100 years of history. Very happy to have a go if you'd like, although it would be mostly web-based as I don't have books on the cathedral's 20th century story, but I don't want to tread on your toes if you've plans to cover it. Just let me know. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, have a go then. I'm acutely aware of the gap, but in terms of knowledge and expertise in the area, I defer. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Will do. I'll dig around and see what I can unearth in the next few days. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I dont want to pressure you, but you are obv highly knowledgeable and well regarded, an all round good guy, so I wont complain too much. Ceoil (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's no pressure at all. I'll build it up shortly. And fix that damn PDF reference 29. But just change anything you don't like, or ping me to discuss. I'm not precious and the major improvements to the article are your achievement. KJP1 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The truth is I was just a local stoner until we chatted and I realised what an outstanding architectural traseure it is. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A few questions while I'm on. The Irish Times quotes £5M for the restoration. That's presumably Irish pounds. Does Wiki use £ for that? And do you know this book [6]? And, lastly, for English and Welsh architecture articles, the Historic England and CADW websites have the full listing (Grade I, II* etc) details for each building, which are really helpful. Does something similar exist in Ireland? This site, [7], doesn't appear to provide much detail? KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect Guliolopez will be better able to answer you re notation. Guliolopez? Ceoil (talk)

Hi.

RE: Notation. Does this cover the issue? (Referencing page 7 of John Burgess' paper?)

RE: Listed buildings. In Ireland there are in effect 3 "tiers":

1. National Monuments - structures taken into state ownership for protection purposes. Compare Scheduled monument in the UK. The OPW holds responsibility for these [and therefore most of the reports/etc].
2. Protected Structures - buildings subject to planning/alteration controls by the state for protection purposes. Compare Listed building in the UK. The local authorities oversee these from a planning perspective [and therefore hold the registers/etc ]
3. Everything else - structures deemed notable enough to record, but not necessarily to state protection. These are the 53,000+ structures on the NIAH buildingsofireland.ie site. The NIAH was in effect instrumented to uphold our commitments to the EU Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage - to record stuff (rather than neccesarily protect it). Because it has 50k+ entries, incl everything from houses to post-boxes, it's reports are not effusive.

Guliolopez (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Guliolopez, many thanks for all of this, most helpful. I've put a little in on the 20/21st centuries. What we really need is the Cork Pevsner. This was due out in about 2014, but has seriously stalled and, according to Yale University Press, there is currently no timetable for its publication. Ceoil will have finished this well before it's out! KJP1 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Guliolopez, another quick question on this. Historic England grades its buildings, I, II* and II. Scotland does the same, with A, B and C. Cadw follows the English system for Wales. Does Ireland make no such differentiation? It would seem not, from the lists on Wiki, which seems a little strange. KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is: no. The relevant acts do not (for example like the UK) define categories or grades of protection. Something is either protected - or its not. The slightly longer answer is that sometimes only parts of buildings are protected (like the building frontage alone, or including or excluding the gate works or similar). This in effect sometimes provides for similar "scales" of protection akin to the UK model ("you can change the inside, but don't touch the outside"). In principle however, any change requires permission. In practice, these protections are subject to the same "work-arounds" as they have been for near a century. (Namely, an owner waiting til the building rots away, burns down or falls down - and circumvents titular protections that way.) Guliolopez (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Imgs

Planting here for perhaps later reinstation - take up too much space atm.

West entrance facade. The six rows of life sized reliefs show left to right: 1. Saints Philip, Bartholomew, Simon, John the Baptist, 2. Saints Andrew, James major, Thomas, Matthias, 3. The Wise Virgins 4. The Foolish Virgins, 5. Saints Mark, Matthew, Jude, Peter 6. Saints Paul, James minor, John, Luke. The Bridegroom is between the Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Last Judgement is above him.

Medieval and 18th century churches section, Christ Church, Dublin?

Bit confused by this. The section says Christchurch Dublin. But the Christ Church article seems to make out it was a wreck during the early 18th century rebuilds. Do you think it's the same church and there is a bit missing on the C C D article? What you think Ceoil? Cheers, Si Irondome (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I normally refer to our resident expert User:Guliolopez on ecumenical matters, but ask him not to break sweat here - the now removed claim wasn't so important. Thanks very much for all the edits thus far ID and for pruning this Dublin related thorn. I hadnt realised things about Dublin had crept in. Ceoil (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Always good to work with yer C! Si Irondome (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, same from here. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Query over "waves"...

The lead section notes that "During the medieval period, the site absorbed successive wars, damage and waves of church building." Looking through the main text, this doesn't seem quite right. There's a reference to:

a) a church/shrine being built in the 7th century

b) that church either declining from lack of use, or being destroyed by the Norse, in the 12th century

c) damage to a church on the site in 1690 from a combination of a fire and a cannonball

Over the course of a thousand years or so, this doesn't feel as dynamic as "successive wars" and "waves of church building" would imply (and item c) isn't really medieval). NB: if I'm missing something, please shout! I'd therefore suggest toning this down a bit, perhaps turning it to "The 7th century church survived until the 12th century." or something simpler like that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hchc2009 - Hi H, and good to hear from you. Ceoil will probably reply but I’ll also check my sources. I’ve got to go out now, but will do so when I’m back. I suspect you’re right and that it needs a slight toning down. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately my sources, which are all focussed on the Burges building, shed less light on the earlier history. What we really need is the County Cork Pevsner. Originally due out in 2010, the Yale University Press site says it is finally to appear in 2019, [8]. That said, the cathedral's own history pages refer only to the original monastery of AD 606, the medieval church which lasted until 1785, the Classical "apology" which lasted to the 1860s, and Burges's building to the present, [9]. So four in over 1000 years probably doesn't constitute "waves". If Ceoil doesn't pick it up directly in the TFA aftermath, I'll look to make a tweak. As an aside, what a lot of collateral "interest" today provoked. Burges, Lonsdale, Nicholls all took hits! KJP1 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Have had a go. KJP1 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, your edit is a good solution. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Where is Holy Island?

The first sentence of the body, under "History"; "Finbarr of Cork", claims that the grounds of the cathedral are located on "Holy Island". The sentence claiming this cites no sources. I checked the next cited source, the Oxford Dictionary of Saints. It does not mention Holy Island. I googled "Holy Island Cork", and at first glance found primarily info about a Holy Island in Clare, references to Sherkin Island, and one (bad) source that links Gougane Barra to Holy Island, but not the grounds of saint Fin Barre's. After further searching, I was able to find a piece that semi-reliably links the grounds of the monastic site in Gougane Barra to being on Holy Island. Please correct this. Xx78900 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xx78900: None of the above. It's the land on which the cathedral sits. At the time of the founding on the monastery, the River Lee was quite swampy with many small islands that have since disappeared or been filled in. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s interesting, thank you! Do you have a source for it though? Xx78900 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sketch of Cathedral prior to 18th century demolition

Not sure if people are interested in adding it to the article but this excerpt from a journal published in 1892 features a sketch of the Cathedral that was dmeolished in the 1730s. https://www.corkhist.ie/wp-content/uploads/jfiles/poetry/bPoetry-028.pdf Xx78900 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Would be interested to see it, but unfortunately the link’s not working for me. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why that is, it's working fine for me - it's the second-to-last entry here: https://www.corkhist.ie/TOCdate.php?pageNum_rsSearch2=7&totalRows_rsSearch2=216&year=1892 Xx78900 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

These grounds have been a place of worship since their association with Saint Finbarr of Cork

Associated? Isn't that a bit WP:Weasely? In what way associated? Did he picnic there? Did he open a chipper there? Or did he found a monastery? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. You changed it from "dedicated to Saint Finbarr" (which it is and is supported by the refs). To "consecrated by Saint Finbarr" (which is not supported by the body and refs). I changed it to "associated" because that avoided completely ripping apart your unexplained changes. If you want to restore it to the original (consensus, FA, verifiable) text, along the "dedicated" lines, then feel free. "Consecrated by Saint Finbarr" is, however, a claim which is not supported by the text or the refs. Guliolopez (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, given your concern with the "associated with" text (and my concern with the "consecrated by" text), I have restored the original (stable/accurate/reflective) "dedicated to" text. Guliolopez (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are no texts that say that Finbarr founded a monastery there? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: Finbarr founded V Finbarr consecrated. Sure there are texts which refer to Finbarr as founder. But that's not what you added. You added text which stated that "the grounds [on which the cathedral stands] were consecrated by Saint Finbarr". There are no texts which establish that. Hence that is what I tweaked. In attempted compromise. I'm not sure why you're picking an argument over as much.

RE: Other changes. I note, and would invite Ceoil's input on this, that you have introduced unnecessary editorial and POV statements ("fine example of Gothic Revival architecture" over "Gothic Revival architecture") when none was/is needed. And have reorganised the opening sentence (in a manner which I do not personally understand) to focus on other subjects (other cathedrals elsewhere) rather than on the the subject here. This cathedral. This is unusual. And, in my view, not an improvement. (Normally the opening sentence establishes what the subject is. In absolute terms. Not in relative terms. In comparison to other subjects. "An island in Europe". "A Georgian house in Dublin". "A model of car". Not "one of 120 models of Ford car". Or "one of many houses in Dublin"....) Absent some explanation I've restored the less subjective phrasing and the more absolute framing.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: It is a cathedral. Whether it's Gothic or modern is not as important. Whether it has spires or not is not as important. Cathedral should be the first fact stated.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Laurel, its being a cathedral is mentioned in the article title. The issue with you edit was mainly prioritising mentions of others in Cork. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the very reason why it has to be the first fact. If you want to leave the fact that is it not a cathedral but only a co-cathedral to later, then fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Really not sure what the issue is here. The article title calls it a cathedral; the fourth word of the lead calls it a cathedral. Is anyone really in doubt that it’s a cathedral? And while all articles on here can, of course, be improved, I think one needs to be cautious about rewriting an FA lead under the edit summary “tidy”. KJP1 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For the first sentence, I suggest: Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral (Irish: Ardeaglais Naomh Fionnbarra) is a co-cathedral church building of the Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross in the Church of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For myself, I much prefer the FA-approved form of words. KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Kindly stop weaponising FA. What is wrong with the suggestion? See also St Macartan's Cathedral, Clogher, a similar co-cathedral in the Church of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Personally I favour the existing wording. As absolute and descriptive and similar to other similar articles. ("St Paul's Cathedral is an Anglican cathedral in London", "Notre-Dame de Paris [..] is a medieval Catholic cathedral", "Saint Patrick's Cathedral [..] is the national cathedral of the Church of Ireland", etc). I appreciate that the existence of three other cathedrals ("co-cathedrals") makes it slightly different than these examples. But this characteristic is covered immediately after - also within the first paragraph. And with the additional context confirming that, while a co-cathedral now, that wasn't always the case. I just don't see that this "nuance" is such a defining characteristic of the subject that it needs covering immediately (to the extent that this characteristic has greater precedence than location and other more prescient characteristics). I'm just not seeing the need for such a (frankly complicating) change. (Not when the same information is covered immediately after. And with more context.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, you have an interesting approach to building consensus. I am not “weaponising FA” but I am recognising that the article has gone through a, very thorough, FA review. As you demand ask, I personally do not consider the Co-cathedral status of the building is the most important aspect of St Fin Barre’s, such that it must be the first characteristic mentioned. I also think having its location as a diocese, rather than a city, is unhelpful to the reader. Most think in terms of places, not dioceses. And I really don’t like “a co-cathedral church building”. “Church building” seems completely superfluous, and clunky, when we’ve already said it’s a cathedral. KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for the first sentence

(A) Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral (Irish: Ardeaglais Naomh Fionnbarra) is a co-cathedral church building of the Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross in the Church of Ireland.

Rationale It defines cathedral, diocese and denomination in the first sentence. See also these examples for all to ponder. Suffice to say that there is a distinct lack of uniformity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• St Paul's Cathedral is an Anglican cathedral in London. As the seat of the Bishop of London, the cathedral serves as the mother church of the Diocese of London.
• Notre-Dame de Paris is a medieval Catholic cathedral on the Île de la Cité (an island in the Seine River), in the 4th arrondissement of Paris.
• Saint Patrick's Cathedral (Irish: Ard-Eaglais Naomh Pádraig) in Dublin, Ireland, founded in 1191, is the national cathedral of the Church of Ireland.
• Christ Church Cathedral, more formally The Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, is the cathedral of the United Dioceses of Dublin and Glendalough and the cathedral of the ecclesiastical province of the United Provinces of Dublin and Cashel in the (Anglican) Church of Ireland.
• St Macartan's Cathedral, Clogher is one of two cathedral churches in the Diocese of Clogher (the other is St Macartin's Cathedral, Enniskillen) in the Church of Ireland.
• St Macartin's Cathedral, Enniskillen, is one of two cathedral churches in the Diocese of Clogher (the other is St Macartan's Cathedral, Clogher) in the Church of Ireland.
• Christ Church Cathedral, Waterford, or more formally, the Cathedral of The Holy Trinity, Christ Church, is a cathedral of the Church of Ireland in Waterford City, Ireland.
• The Cathedral Church of Saint John the Baptist and Saint Patrick's Rock is a cathedral of the Church of Ireland in Cashel, County Tipperary in Ireland.
• St Mary's Cathedral (Irish: Ard-Eaglais Mhuire) is the cathedral church of the Diocese of Tuam, Killala and Achonry in the Church of Ireland.

More options:Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(B) Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral (Irish: Ardeaglais Naomh Fionnbarra) is a co-cathedral of the Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross in the Church of Ireland.

(C) Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral (Irish: Ardeaglais Naomh Fionnbarra) is a Church of Ireland co-cathedral of the Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross located in the city of Cork, Ireland.

(D) Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral (Irish: Ardeaglais Naomh Fionnbarra) is a Gothic Revival three-spire cathedral in the city of Cork, Ireland. It belongs to the Church of Ireland and [..] was once in the Diocese of Cork; it is now one of the three cathedrals in the Church of Ireland Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross.

Discussion

My opinion, as already laid-out above and consistent with (seemingly) several other editors (whose suggestions seem to have been omitted from the options proposed), is that there is no need for a change. The article, fundamentally, is about the building (its design, architecture, construction, etc). And not about the details of diocesan structures. And hence my suggestion is. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved option D above to keep them together. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It would make things more readable if discussions / observations were kept to the Discussion section while the bare vote itself was kept to the Voting section. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it odd that no voters have mentioned in the discussion section that none of the cited examples contains the "subject's location, architecture, history, design" in the first sentence. Is Notre Dame not notable enough? Does it not have enough architectural merit? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Voting

• (D) (opening is fine as is; The article focuses on the subject's location, architecture, history, design, etc. And hence so does the opening few words; Rejigging the opening few words, to focus on other things [diocesan structures, etc] doesn't seem like an improvement or a reflection of the body). Guliolopez (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• (D) Apologies for being late to the party here but was not a good week to gather thoughts, though have followed the above closely. A few things.

• I prefer the standard historiographical term "associated with" when dealing with attribution that is based on legend (a word used in the lead) than recorded fact. My understanding is that 7th-century AD religious claims are basically pre-history, and the word associated nicely delineates belief from fact.
• The reason Saint Fin Barre's is known internationally is because of its unique architecture, hence the emph on its splendor in the opening sentence.
• To give context as to who you are talking to here Laurel, I sourced a lot of the article and did a some of the expansion, while Guliolopez (who wrote much of the early drafts of the page) kept it grounded in historical fact & NPOV, and I roped in KJP1 (a self admitted William Burges enthusiast :)) added or verified the architectural detail. So apart from perhalps me, Guliolope and KJP1 know what they are talking about. I did live next to it for over 10 odd years, if that's any good...and bty here is a nuce tune to descripe really looking at it as a 17 year old country boy at 2am in the morning[10].
• Hope this helps, and we can come to agreement soon. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• (D) - as is. The points LL wants emphasised appear in the lead but, in my view, they are not the most significant aspects of the cathedral’s history/notability. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It was once in the Diocese of Cork

When did it cease to be in the Diocese of Cork? Is the Diocese of Cork not extant? When it was united with 2 other dioceses, did it cease to exist as a diocese? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this burden is on you. Given behaviors here so far, am not inclined to answer random questions that are accessable via research or even Google (ie I think you are point scoring). To state the obvious, the article is not about the Diocese of Cork. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I tried this Google thing. You were right - it had lots of information. For example, the website of the United Dioceses of Cork, Cloyne and Ross states: "The Diocese of Ross originally included part of the Beara peninsula, but following parish re-organisation in 2000 this portion is now part of the Diocese of Cork.". If the Diocese of Cork no longer existed, then why would a re-organisation in 2000 be needed? That being the case, I think that the phrase "was once in the Diocese of Cork" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to phrase it as "Formerly the sole cathedral of the Diocese of Cork, it is now one of three co-cathedrals in the United Dioceses of Cork, Cloyne and Ross.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Jesus christ. WP:SOFIXIT, but not in the opening sentence like last time you realised something that then had to be the most important thing ever. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for such intemperate language. As suggested, I have now made the above amendment. Isn't it amazing that the lead of such a prestigious article may still be improved? However did it manage to achieve FA status with such glaring errors? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged - you are now patently trolling. What you have amended was not an error, you have merely chosen to express the same thing in a different way. KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Trolling? No. Pointing out that I'm being admonished for not fixing it here yet am abused for the fixes that I already did? Yes. That's just hypocrisy. And when can I expect to receive an apology for the bad language and the lack of assumption of good faith? So it was not an error? You have citations to show that the Diocese of Cork was formally abolished? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think your edit today on the Diocese was fine, but is a pity it was proceed by such needless drama. But fine, and actually thanks for doing the research and helping. While I tend to agree with KJP above, its not too late to slavage this, if you accept my apology for swearing and us two do a restart? Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

OK then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How gracious! So grand. In that context, what do people think of punting the above "voting" to wikiproject Ireland, as as is its unlikely to get much attention apart from us lot Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I can be loquacious betimes. Just not now. Yes - why not. Though that forum is fairly moribund these days. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

haha re loquacious (a new word for me!), and can be like that myself sometimes. Grand re the wikiproject, but it is one of the better ones (they are all pretty quite this decade), and I think well get good feedback, so fingers crossed. Will do the honors if thats ok, and will keep it short, NPOV and sweet, 20-30 words and no more. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Done Laurel, let see what happens, and talk later. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I see I'm a bit late to the party, but I've checked in my copy of The Church of Ireland: An illustrated History (2013) and I just wanted to confirm that piece written by the Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross does indeed refer to them as three separate dioceses. Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)