This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should there be an article on the poem 'Lines Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey' by Wordsworth?
I will probably get shouted down for rating this article as high without discussing this, but I'd rather rate and get shouted down. In my eyes Tintern Abbey is a European treasure. If anyone wants to lower, please discuss. FruitMonkey ( talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"It is one of the most spectacular ruins in the country". Not the most encyclopedic of sentences, is it? -- 86.52.71.73 ( talk) 17:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Surely this is chepstow? Victuallers ( talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to move this debate about scope to here. welsh ( talk) 08:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Second image has less tractor, less fence and more cowbell while being sharper and providing better contrast/detail. The cows provide perspective and interest. Recommend it replace the existing one. Saffron Blaze ( talk) 00:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ref the gallery, the policy at WP:Gallery is that "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images... Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted... A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery"... as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."
As it stands, I don't think that the gallery fits the description above, and should either be improved or removed. It appears to be a slightly eclectic sequence of images, without any clear theme. Why include the picture of the abbey in 1965, for example? Why two pictures (one rather blurry) of the Abbey from across the river? etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I've readded the OR tag for the following section:
The policy on using primary sources such as paintings on the wiki states that: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Using phrases like "atmospheric approach" and "striking example" are interpretations, not facts, and need a reliable secondary source. If the sentence simply ran "Peter van Lerberghe’s 1812 painting depicted the abbey's interior by moonlight (see Gallery).", there wouldn't be a problem, as there'd be no interpretation going on, although you'd still want a reference for the comparison of light conditions.
and for:
Similarly, the interpretation of Turner's work as being about "shimmering light" - as opposed to being, for example, an impressionistic watercolour piece, which is what it looks like to me (admittedly as a non-expert!), really needs a reference, which is doesn't have. Again, if the sentence simply went "and the later painting by Turner (see Gallery).", you'd be avoiding the personal interpretation.
A general observation is that this part of the article is heavily reliant on primary sources; it might be easier if it made reference to a secondary work on the abbey and its presence in poetry or painting. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever Hchc2009 calls them, he is not the final arbitrator on their interpretation and I question why only that new section is targeted when others in the article also seem to fall short of so literalist an approach. I repeat here some of the points I made on Hchc2009's personal page.
I found his approach unhelpful and arbitrary, especially in the paragraphs dealing with the poetry. Much said there is in the WP article on Wordsworth's Tintern poem, to which there is a link, and there is a reference to the Wordsworth text for the description of what it is about. I did, however, alter the wording to something nearer the neutral encyclopaedic tone suggested by the guidelines. They are there to help shape an encyclopaedic article and I have found in the past that administrators are prepared to allow a greater breadth of interpretation and understanding of their constructive intent. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the Turner watercolour was only identified in 1997 and it may never have been on general display to generate discussion. The Tate has a vast collection of more notable works. The clues are its description as a colour study by the cataloguer and the assigned date of 1828, which was the period when Turner began his experiments with light. It's a fair bet that this is why Eric Shanes ascribed the painting to that date. Stylistically it fits with other works of the period and descriptions of like works is the only way to define what is otherwise a rarely documented work. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You have a point. The Peter can Lerberghe painting seems rarely mentioned. It appeared in the catalogue of a Tate exhibition last year but I don't have access to that to see what the commentary said, so I've modified the wording and given the subject context. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's in the same biographical section which mentions inclusion in Heath's guide: - "Heath indicates that the piece was extracted from an earlier “Guide to Chepstow and Tintern". That looks like a shortened version of the Pine title mentioned at this site. Google Books gives Pine as the publisher; Berkeley World Catalogue says the work is by 'Cambro-Briton' but doesn't comment on the identification. The work certainly exists, but maybe attribution should be deleted. Otherwise, since Heath copied it from some earlier work, perhaps the original 'about 1790' date should stand. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 20:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thin ice, yes. And now that's sorted I want to bring up the matter of your discriminatory behaviour. Even before your intervention, there were more references in the section I added than the rest of the article together. I want to know why you targeted just that and have not cavilled at unreferenced statements like "In the next two centuries little or no interest was shown in the history of the site" in the section before it; and "In the 19th century ruined abbeys became the focus for scholars, and architectural and archaeological investigations were undertaken". Those are the most glaring examples but there are others. Such an inconsistent approach makes it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in any battles over this article... but, if people have concerns over the factual accuracy of some of the statements, it might help if you gave notice on the talk page. I live locally to Tintern and have a wide range of offline sources concerning its history. At some point (not today, not tomorrow, but when I get round to it - there is no rush) I shall rewrite and improve those sections. But, it's really an abuse to tag uncontentious if poorly referenced sections multiple times. Happy to discuss further if the editors involved are willing to do so. I haven't been involved in the recent discussions, because I have less interest in the artworks and writings than I do in the history of the buildings, and because the tone of the recent discussions hasn't encouraged my participation. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Mzilikazi1939, I haven't seen Gmyrtle "claiming responsibility" for the text in question either. They've replaced some specific sentence "citation needed" templates with a generic one at the top, that's all. Nor do I have any particular privileged relationship with Gmyrtle, at least that I'm aware of (!); from memory, our only substantial interaction has been over the galleries in this article (see above), where there was no consensus in favour of my proposed changes, so the article stayed as it was previously (as WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS). Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tintern Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sweetpool50 - This has been tagged with a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for well over three years. I think that has given editors ample time to:
I'm at a complete loss as to how it helps readers to have such a tag in place for over three years. I also note that, while it could certainly do with enhanced referencing, as could many/most of our articles, it has 60 which doesn't seem a bad number. I'd be interested in why you think it is of benefit to retain the tag. KJP1 ( talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
User:Sweetpool50 and I are planning an overhaul of this article. I set out below a possible structure, followed by some notes on sources etc. Any comments/suggestions would be most welcome. KJP1 ( talk) 09:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Have been playing around with this. It was template: monastery, which makes sense, but doesn't allow for more than one historic designation. As TA is both a Grade I listed building and a Scheduled Monument, with multiple designations, it would be good to show these. Have therefore used template: historic site, which allows for this, but not, as far as I'm aware, for other monastic elements, like Founder and Order. Anyone got any ideas how to surmount this problem? KJP1 ( talk) 09:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins - Re., the banner, I'm hoping it doesn't cause any problems to the reader. It does accurately describe the position of the article in that I and a colleague are working on an expansion. As you'll see in the Architecture section, it's really nothing more than a skeleton at the moment, listing the buildings we need to cover. That's why I put the tag on, to indicate to readers that it was a work in progress. You're quite right, I've not given it the attention I planned, as real life suddenly got busy and I got distracted by another building article. But I'm planning to return to it very soon. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 07:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sweetpool50, Rodney Baggins - You know what I think would be great here, a Sweetpool & Baggins collaboration to take this one to FA. The subject fully merits it, we have all the books, and you are both have the passion, for the site and for the article. I think it would be a really good collaboration. KJP1 ( talk) 20:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted a recently added print of the south window view already illustrated lower down in the article. It was added, seemingly, as evidence of the building serving as a tourist attraction that was already well established over the course of the preceding century. The print was from a doggerel "Poetic Guide" of the area published in 1850 that is not discussed in the text and without apparent merit. Since the view brings nothing new to the article, its inclusion seems redundant. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should there be an article on the poem 'Lines Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey' by Wordsworth?
I will probably get shouted down for rating this article as high without discussing this, but I'd rather rate and get shouted down. In my eyes Tintern Abbey is a European treasure. If anyone wants to lower, please discuss. FruitMonkey ( talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"It is one of the most spectacular ruins in the country". Not the most encyclopedic of sentences, is it? -- 86.52.71.73 ( talk) 17:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Surely this is chepstow? Victuallers ( talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to move this debate about scope to here. welsh ( talk) 08:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Second image has less tractor, less fence and more cowbell while being sharper and providing better contrast/detail. The cows provide perspective and interest. Recommend it replace the existing one. Saffron Blaze ( talk) 00:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ref the gallery, the policy at WP:Gallery is that "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images... Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted... A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery"... as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."
As it stands, I don't think that the gallery fits the description above, and should either be improved or removed. It appears to be a slightly eclectic sequence of images, without any clear theme. Why include the picture of the abbey in 1965, for example? Why two pictures (one rather blurry) of the Abbey from across the river? etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I've readded the OR tag for the following section:
The policy on using primary sources such as paintings on the wiki states that: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Using phrases like "atmospheric approach" and "striking example" are interpretations, not facts, and need a reliable secondary source. If the sentence simply ran "Peter van Lerberghe’s 1812 painting depicted the abbey's interior by moonlight (see Gallery).", there wouldn't be a problem, as there'd be no interpretation going on, although you'd still want a reference for the comparison of light conditions.
and for:
Similarly, the interpretation of Turner's work as being about "shimmering light" - as opposed to being, for example, an impressionistic watercolour piece, which is what it looks like to me (admittedly as a non-expert!), really needs a reference, which is doesn't have. Again, if the sentence simply went "and the later painting by Turner (see Gallery).", you'd be avoiding the personal interpretation.
A general observation is that this part of the article is heavily reliant on primary sources; it might be easier if it made reference to a secondary work on the abbey and its presence in poetry or painting. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever Hchc2009 calls them, he is not the final arbitrator on their interpretation and I question why only that new section is targeted when others in the article also seem to fall short of so literalist an approach. I repeat here some of the points I made on Hchc2009's personal page.
I found his approach unhelpful and arbitrary, especially in the paragraphs dealing with the poetry. Much said there is in the WP article on Wordsworth's Tintern poem, to which there is a link, and there is a reference to the Wordsworth text for the description of what it is about. I did, however, alter the wording to something nearer the neutral encyclopaedic tone suggested by the guidelines. They are there to help shape an encyclopaedic article and I have found in the past that administrators are prepared to allow a greater breadth of interpretation and understanding of their constructive intent. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the Turner watercolour was only identified in 1997 and it may never have been on general display to generate discussion. The Tate has a vast collection of more notable works. The clues are its description as a colour study by the cataloguer and the assigned date of 1828, which was the period when Turner began his experiments with light. It's a fair bet that this is why Eric Shanes ascribed the painting to that date. Stylistically it fits with other works of the period and descriptions of like works is the only way to define what is otherwise a rarely documented work. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You have a point. The Peter can Lerberghe painting seems rarely mentioned. It appeared in the catalogue of a Tate exhibition last year but I don't have access to that to see what the commentary said, so I've modified the wording and given the subject context. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's in the same biographical section which mentions inclusion in Heath's guide: - "Heath indicates that the piece was extracted from an earlier “Guide to Chepstow and Tintern". That looks like a shortened version of the Pine title mentioned at this site. Google Books gives Pine as the publisher; Berkeley World Catalogue says the work is by 'Cambro-Briton' but doesn't comment on the identification. The work certainly exists, but maybe attribution should be deleted. Otherwise, since Heath copied it from some earlier work, perhaps the original 'about 1790' date should stand. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 20:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thin ice, yes. And now that's sorted I want to bring up the matter of your discriminatory behaviour. Even before your intervention, there were more references in the section I added than the rest of the article together. I want to know why you targeted just that and have not cavilled at unreferenced statements like "In the next two centuries little or no interest was shown in the history of the site" in the section before it; and "In the 19th century ruined abbeys became the focus for scholars, and architectural and archaeological investigations were undertaken". Those are the most glaring examples but there are others. Such an inconsistent approach makes it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in any battles over this article... but, if people have concerns over the factual accuracy of some of the statements, it might help if you gave notice on the talk page. I live locally to Tintern and have a wide range of offline sources concerning its history. At some point (not today, not tomorrow, but when I get round to it - there is no rush) I shall rewrite and improve those sections. But, it's really an abuse to tag uncontentious if poorly referenced sections multiple times. Happy to discuss further if the editors involved are willing to do so. I haven't been involved in the recent discussions, because I have less interest in the artworks and writings than I do in the history of the buildings, and because the tone of the recent discussions hasn't encouraged my participation. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Mzilikazi1939, I haven't seen Gmyrtle "claiming responsibility" for the text in question either. They've replaced some specific sentence "citation needed" templates with a generic one at the top, that's all. Nor do I have any particular privileged relationship with Gmyrtle, at least that I'm aware of (!); from memory, our only substantial interaction has been over the galleries in this article (see above), where there was no consensus in favour of my proposed changes, so the article stayed as it was previously (as WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS). Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tintern Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sweetpool50 - This has been tagged with a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for well over three years. I think that has given editors ample time to:
I'm at a complete loss as to how it helps readers to have such a tag in place for over three years. I also note that, while it could certainly do with enhanced referencing, as could many/most of our articles, it has 60 which doesn't seem a bad number. I'd be interested in why you think it is of benefit to retain the tag. KJP1 ( talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
User:Sweetpool50 and I are planning an overhaul of this article. I set out below a possible structure, followed by some notes on sources etc. Any comments/suggestions would be most welcome. KJP1 ( talk) 09:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Have been playing around with this. It was template: monastery, which makes sense, but doesn't allow for more than one historic designation. As TA is both a Grade I listed building and a Scheduled Monument, with multiple designations, it would be good to show these. Have therefore used template: historic site, which allows for this, but not, as far as I'm aware, for other monastic elements, like Founder and Order. Anyone got any ideas how to surmount this problem? KJP1 ( talk) 09:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins - Re., the banner, I'm hoping it doesn't cause any problems to the reader. It does accurately describe the position of the article in that I and a colleague are working on an expansion. As you'll see in the Architecture section, it's really nothing more than a skeleton at the moment, listing the buildings we need to cover. That's why I put the tag on, to indicate to readers that it was a work in progress. You're quite right, I've not given it the attention I planned, as real life suddenly got busy and I got distracted by another building article. But I'm planning to return to it very soon. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 07:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sweetpool50, Rodney Baggins - You know what I think would be great here, a Sweetpool & Baggins collaboration to take this one to FA. The subject fully merits it, we have all the books, and you are both have the passion, for the site and for the article. I think it would be a really good collaboration. KJP1 ( talk) 20:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted a recently added print of the south window view already illustrated lower down in the article. It was added, seemingly, as evidence of the building serving as a tourist attraction that was already well established over the course of the preceding century. The print was from a doggerel "Poetic Guide" of the area published in 1850 that is not discussed in the text and without apparent merit. Since the view brings nothing new to the article, its inclusion seems redundant. Sweetpool50 ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)