Talk:List of monastic houses in England

St Julian of Norwich

Would the Church of St. Julian in Norwich, where Julian of Norwich was located, be appropriate here? I wasn't sure if it is an 'abbey' or 'priory'. --DanielCD 14:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)DanielCD

I cannot find any sources to say that her hermitage at Norwich was anything other than a solitary one.

I have chosen to limit this particular list to religious communities primarily set up for the purpose of worship.

Therefore, such locations as hospitals, convents, hermitages and the like are only included where they have at some time been abbeys, priories, friaries, minsters or preceptories, or have been referred to as such, at some time, in common parlance (in which case it is noted where there was in fact no monastic function).

JohnArmagh 18:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List?

Perhaps this ought to move to "list of..."; it currently seems to be the longest article in WP, but "list of" articles are excluded from those statistics, and this certainly reads that way... Alai 04:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warter

East Riding of Yorkshire - Warter Priory.

• Was this not a Gilbertine house?
• Was the priory on the site of the parish church (SE869505)? The Ordnance Survey has "Priory Earthworks" at the southern end of Warter Priory park at Grid ref. SE854487.

Combermere Abbey

Do you have a proper source for the non-Cistercian origin? My sources (owner's history, Images of England) all just state Cistercian. Also, it might be better listed in Shropshire, as the surviving buildings of the abbey are all over the boundary. Espresso Addict 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Combermere was originally established as a daughter house of Savigny. In 1147 all Savignac houses joined the Cistercian congregation.

The sources I have examined - including 'The Cistercian Abbeys of Britain' publ. 2002, together with Multimap.co.uk and Streetmap.co.uk show the Abbey remains as being at least 0.5km on the Cheshire side of the county border. --JohnArmagh 20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist monasteries

There are probably enough of these to justify a separate list, which I will set up if there are no objections? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

None from me - though it might be appropriate to put all the Bhuddist monasteries in the UK into one article rather than just one for England. Let's hear what others think. --JohnArmagh (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Redbridge Abbey, Hampshire

This abbey is listed under Hampshire but without any further details or references. It is not mentioned in the Victoria County History, nor can I find any other mention of it online. I propose to remove it unless someone can find a reference. Agrestis (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now found some details and added them so no longer propose its removal. Agrestis (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Temple Church London etc

a really excellent article, very useful

but some of the exclusions/inclusions are not clear (for example why is the Temple Church in London excluded?).

nor is is the signification of continued ecclesiastical use clearly defined - for example; the conversion of the nunnery church of St Radegund into the chapel of Jesus College is not marked, while counterpart ecclesiastical re-use in Christchurch Oxford is marked. Equally, Chester St John is unmarked, but Chester St Werburgh is marked.

and what about early monastic sites, Jarrow is included, Wearmouth appears not.

You have not referred to Roy Midmer's book and Gazeteer of English Monasteries 1066-1540. Do you have reason to distrust it? Is it OK if I re-edit with my own knowledge and sources (chiefly Midmer), and if so, what definitions should I apply?

TomHennell (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not yet as comprehensive as intended. I have still to complete going through the Ordnance Survey and William Cobbett sources. Please feel free to add such information as you see fit. --JohnArmagh (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

UK monastic house lists

Well done for all your work on the lists List of monastic houses in Somerset etc. The symbols next to each name are supposed to link to a key or something - do you know where the original of these are?— Rod ^talk 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh bugger! I'd forgotten about that. The key's in List of abbeys and priories in England. Nev1 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added relevant bits to Somerset list but it needs tidying - if you create a standard one please replace the "lede" & key on Somerset.— Rod ^talk 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll tag the list for their county projects where appropriate and then set about adding the key from list of abbeys and priories in England. Nev1 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes made by removing the templates and creating separate county lists has effectively destroyed the integrity and totally undermined any usefulness of the List of abbeys and priories in England page. As it is the page might as well be deleted. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit extreme, it has merit in serving as a directory. If you objected, you should have raised the issue when the debate about moving the templates was raised [1]. The information certainly didn't belong in template space. What do you suggest should be done? I think now it's been broken down into individual lists it's much more managable and now the individual county projects may take an interest in improving the lists. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit difficult because, although the page is on my watchlist, this is the first I have heard of these discussions. As it is, I am somewhat astonished at the effective destruction and I am not really inspired to make any further contribution to the articles or post any further photographs. --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to throw your toys out of the pram because you don't like what's happened. Everything can be undone on wikipedia. Do you have any constructive comments? If you want, the debate can be reopened, perhaps on WT:UKGEO or WT:ARCH where a wide range of opinions can be introduced Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so much throwing my toys, it is dispiritedness. I was working on a standard format for similar pages of the British Isles - but it appears standard format is something which Wikipedia doesn't do - everyone has their own format for the lists they do. It is fruitless. --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "standard format is something which Wikipedia doesn't do" just isn't true, take a look at any FA, they have to be consistent within the article and often follow a similar pattern to similar FAs. As I said, I'd be happy to reopen the debate, we only got a few people taking part in the discussion the first time round and it might be a good idea to get a wide range of opinions. No one in the debate was aware of the other lists. The biggest problem was that the English lists were in template space; they were up for deletion and a solution was provided, without it the list would be in an even worse state and possibly would have been deleted. My own opinion is that the England list was too long and difficult to navigate; splitting it up makes it easier for readers to find the information they want and they can always look at the other lists if they're interested. At the time, I had been thinking about creating list of monastic houses in Cheshire as there seemed to be a very obvious gap in the enclopedia, then the deletion debate came up.

So do you want the debate reopened? Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience such debates are only conducted by a limited number of contributors, so there is only a very limited input from the Wikipedia community - not by any means an objective measure of opinion. Anyone who had anything to say has said it. What I have to say would be unlikely to sway things at all.

If it were a question of the new page being a directory, it is really just a directory of counties with links - it is no longer what is described in the preamble at the top of the page.

I am basing my judgement on the lack of standardisation on a cursory glance of lists of heads of state etc. which, although I have tried to implement some kind of format, these have often been changed in a very ad hoc fashion, according to who contributed subsequently. The resulting variation of formats is nothing short of a mess, unbecoming of a work with the aspirations of Wikipedia.

If the former templates were not suitable then a return to the earlier list format without the templates would be a preferable option. The new county-oriented lists would still have their independent relevance - but this would mean duplication of data between the England list and the county lists. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's probably a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing (or perhaps that it even exists). The debate was lumped in with a load opened that day, and I wouldn't have known about it had it not been the Cheshire template that was proposed for deletion. I'm sure we could get more comments if taken to the talk page of a project such as UK Geography or Architecture. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicating the content would be frowned upon, and the county articles would be delted as a content fork or the England article stripped down to what it is now so that would be back to square one. If consensus is in favour, I would not be averse to integrating the lists back into the England article (leaving behind redirects to the appropriate section in the article). I can think of probably at least two people who've noticed the new lists and might want a say in their fate, and there are probably other people who would comment if the debate was put in a high traffic place. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I am just anxious for consistency and accessibility of information. Naturally those with an interest in counties, especially the particular county of interest to them, will have a different expectation from those interested in monastic establishments per se. If there were a way of having the county pages actually displaying within the 'England' article (which is what the templates were implemented to do - showing all the England-relevant information without it being contained in a single large page) then this would serve the purpose without duplication. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be done quite simply: instead of linking to the page thus [[list of monastic houses in Cheshire]] this {{list of monastic houses in Cheshire}} would transclude all the information onto the page while keeping it in the original article, essentially making it a template but without the inconvenience of being in template space where it might come under scrutiny. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an attractive solution however... each of the county articles need to include a lede saying what it is about & a key for the symbols to make sense - would these then appear multiple times in the 'England' article?— Rod ^talk 09:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok - this is sounding good - apart from the duplication of the key - even if the key was set as a template, that would still be repeated for each transclusion - and I'm not currently aware of any way round it - short of a nifty bit of programming to suppress repeated transclusions. --JohnArmagh (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have a solution (totally untested as yet) - I've been playing with List of monastic houses in Somerset (all changes can be reverted if you think this version is better). If you use notes grouped into a 2nd set of refs you can loose the key (if the same refname is used in all counties I'm hoping it will only show up once on the England one) and write the abbreviations in full (good practice anyway), I'm hoping that include or noinclude tags will enable just the table (without the lede etc) to be transcluded into the England article & still pick up the notes & references - more work & testing later, but any thoughts on this welcome.— Rod ^talk 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at List of abbeys and priories in England with Somerset transcluded in. Changes on one article show up on the other & I've got just the table to display with notes & refs after all entries so it works for one. Next test would be to do another county using the same noteref labels & see if these work. Perhaps we should transfer this to the talk page so that others can comment & we have used up enough of Nev1's talk page getting this far?— Rod ^talk 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - looks cool. I have only a couple of immediate observations, neither based on this solution but incidental on looking at the format: I had put the detail other than the name of the establishment in small text as I felt the table looked a bit overwhelmed with the normal-size text - is this a sticking-point? And also, whilst I agree with the addition of the article about the location in the Location column, I was populating the coordinates (as with the Bristol section) so that the location could be 'visited' in the arial photographs; is this considered a superfluous excercise? (It certainly helps me as I do use the article when mapping out where to go to visit the establishments and is quicker than clicking on each individual article (where there is an article, and where the coordinates exist in the article so that I can punch them into the sat-nav) --JohnArmagh (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been told off at Featured list discussions for using small fonts and referred to Wikipedia:MOS#Formatting issues and accessibility issues. I think with the references moved to the place they should be (after the table) there is enough space for full size text. As far as the map links go both gb grid refs and other formats link to the same geo hack tool which enables the selection of maps/ariel photos etc - but I agree it would be best if they are all the same. I personally use the OS grid ref because I can quickly find this on a (paper) map. It may also be possible (but I don't know the code) to get a link to google maps which includes all the locations listed in an article & they show up on the map (& I've even less idea if this could work with transclusion). I also think including the name of the village etc is useful to people who may know the area & for looking at road signs.— Rod ^talk 18:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course that does beg the question what is the point of having the functionality for small fonts?. The reference does seem to specifically relate to specific pt sizes - I tend to use the small, /small construct for smaller text - and usually to mitigate the columns either being overly-wide or the rows overly-deep in the overall page layout --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we seem to be heading in the direction of a workable solution. OS grid references don't work with the coord template that plots all the points on google maps (take a look at the link at the end of the lead in list of castles in Cheshire for what I mean). I agree that smaller text looks tidier, but accessibility is an issue; 95% font size seems to be allowed though [2] and still looks ok. Column widths can also be forced to make columns line up throughout the list and to prevent them from being too wide or too thin. Nev1 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have found that the kml template is a bit hit-and-miss when showing the listed locations pinned (both on Google Maps and Bing) - intermittently just displaying North America and saying the page cannot be found. --JohnArmagh (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Is the list for Somerset now long enough that it should be moved to a separate page, like most of the others?--Brunnian (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The list already exists here but is transcluded into this article so that it isn't just a directory page but can be used to look at monastic houses across England. Which reminds me that I need to get back to fixing this page after I split it up Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a case for two lists? a 'full list' with all the pages transcluded, and an 'index list' with just the county links seen at present?

come to that, is there a case for list pages at all? would this be better handled by the category mechanism? then gadgets like {{kml}} could be used.--Brunnian (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories in external lists

When I first came to the Lincolnshire list it was in one category: 'United Kingdom monastic house templates|Lincolnshire' This appeared to have been carried over when copying the template to make the page: the template is not, of course, transcluded.

I replaced this with actual categories for the subject, but I notice that other pages are not properly categorised. For example:

• List of monastic houses in Cambridgeshire
• List of monastic houses in Greater London

and most of the others. Some have retained the template category while adding others. The category added for Northampton looks questionable.

Is it possible that someone who knows how to programme bots can sort this out? or is it plod-and-edit? --Brunnian (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been playing plod-and-edit through the list, and done all of them down to County Durham--Brunnian (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

KML template and coord lists

Some of the lists use the kml template. It offers a choice of maps of all the coordinates on the page. This works best if the coordinates are named with |name= - otherwise the map pages just have lists of numbers. |name= is useful for other wikiatlas type applications too.

I've done all the ones on the list down to County Durham--Brunnian (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Undone undiscussed dramatic change

I have undone the recent change to the article on the following grounds

a) The article is entitled "List of ..." - removing the items of a list and replacing them with a map totally negates the purpose of the page.

b) There have been lengthy discussions on this article and a suitable concordance was arrived at. The recent change undermines this consensus.

c) A map-link is a valid link article, but is not a suitable substitute for a list page and it should exist separately. --JohnArmagh (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that all the county links have been transcluded, which makes the KML thingy very useful. I like it. And I agree wholeheartedly with the reversion, which is also necessary to make the kml thingy useful, as well as making the List of an actual List.

However, for historic reasons this page is "list of abbeys and priories..." and the indicudual pages are "list of monastic houses in...", making the transclusion a bit difficult to track down. I was going to suggest getting the individual headings to link, not to the county page but to the transcluded link. But having now see this map setup that was reverted, can I return to s previous suggestion? How about using that map - which someone put some effort into - on a different page called "Index of....." ? to make access to the individual transclusion pages, and also to provide a shorter way in: the huge page can be a bit daunting.

Then we could offer two views of the same data, to suit people with different expectations? And avoid the problem of having pages transcluded only once, (which I find oddly unsatisfying)--Brunnian (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see that has already been done.--Brunnian (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

References from transcluded articles

There appears to be some problem with the references for this list. The references from some counties eg Beds, Bristol & Somerset show up in the list, but other counties do not? I suspect this may be to do with the way include & noinclude is being used on the various articles, but I haven't investigated too closely.— Rod ^talk 11:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article and its transclusions are currently undergoing a consistency implementation excercise - it will take a while to complete though. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

When I read the page there appear to be two blocks of references, but nothing in the source to suggest why. Perhaps one of the transcluded pages has inclusion metas in the wrong place? --Brunnian (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple article transclusions

This article takes 46 seconds to load. You have got to stop transcluding so many articles into one. Leave it as separate articles. There is no need for it to be all one page. As it stands there is no way that it could achieve featured list status. MRSC (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While this list may never achieve FL status, neither would the proposed directory to replace it. The long list is unwieldy, but the current design allows the map links to work (although the servers are currently down) so readers can look at the distribution of religious houses nationally and notice patterns and groupings. That was the intention of the original list before I divided it and one I think is useful, so I understand why the England article is in the current format is used and I'm fine with it. And it still acts as a directory page as the individual lists are linked from the article. I don't see the issue of the England list as particularly important, it's more important to concentrate on the county level lists and to get them up to a good standard. Turning the external links into formatted references and perhaps adding a "notes" column. Nev1 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I find Map_link_to_county_listings_of_monastic_houses_in_England quite useful for getting to the county lists, and think there is room enough for both techniques. I agree that having one big list makes the mapping tools very much more useful.--Brunnian (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I've created quite a lot of lists on Wikipedia. My opinion is that it is better to keep the number of columns down. The foundation, alt name, formal name and location info could all be combined into one column. the communities and provenence column is fine, the refs column could be renamed "brief history" (a brief history given and referenced) and the images column moved to the right. Images at 150px are a reasonable size for lists. There should be plenty of useable images at Geograph if there are none available on Commons. See Commons:Category:Monasteries in England, Commons:Category:Abbeys in the United Kingdom and Commons:Category:Priories in England. The use of {{oscoor}} should be considered as well as that of {{coord}}. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I have identified six entries on the Lincolnshire list, mostly things that I suspect may be erroneous or misplaced. I have put the appropriate tag on them, but the snag is that from the main list pressing 'discuss' takes you to this talk page, not to the one for the transcluded page where I have listed my concerts.

If whoever originated the list is still about, can I point them at Talk:List of monastic houses in Lincolnshire#Dubious ? --Brunnian (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while. All the work seems to have been on layout, not content. I lost interest in contributing to this list because of doubts on accuracy. Does anyone have any idea about these anomalys? Brunnian (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still going through the lists. I'm working alphabetically through the counties, and with over 1000 establishments to check it is not a quick job, and L comes half-way down the list. --JohnArmagh (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger RogerBrunnian (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a little more to attend to now at Talk:List of monastic houses in Lincolnshire and someone has been creating stub articles based purely on the redlinks. So see: Talk:Brackenholme Priory -- Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

sublists

Should not the talk pages of the sublists be redirected here?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Organization

While it's great that we have these lists of monasteries and similar institutions in England, I'm afraid the organization chosen here, which involves transcluding these already long list on the parent lists, is far from optimal. List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties B-K already hits the parser limits, and other pages in the series take relatively long to load. I think this page should just provide a list of links to the county-specific pages, and the pages like "counties B–K" should be deleted. Ucucha 20:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the page hits the limits of the wiki software. But to have a list of hyperlinks to each county hardly deserves to be called a list of abbeys and priories in England - all it would be is a list of counties in England having abbeys and priories, and would negate the purpose of having a page listing abbeys and priories in England. I have attempted to mitigate the issue of the limitations of the Wiki software by puting the noinclude /noinclude around the references so that the references are only visible in the transcluded pages, but to no avail, it appears that the very presence of the ref /ref tags in the page counts towards the limit, irrespective of whether they are actually visible on the page. It appears that Wikipedia is not as adept at handling large content as a printed encyclopaedic work is. And the more is the pity. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of abbreviations

Other abbreviations

ante	before		c.	circa (about)
post	after		abnd	abandoned
blt	built		dis	dissolved
dstr	destroyed/destruction		fd	founded/found/foundation
gnt	granted/grant		poss	possibly/possible
prob	probably/probable		rblt	rebuilt
rfd	refounded		rmv	removed
rst	restored (either the community or the building)		trns	transferred
dtr	daughter		dep	dependent [on]/ dependency of
trns from/to	move of community with closure or demotion of status of donor establishment
- from	move of some members of a community without closure of donor extablishment

User:JohnArmagh and I have been having a discussion about the use of abbreviations in these lists (it originated about the Bristol and Somerset lists but applies more widely) and I would like to invite wider comment. The table to the right is included on each of the articles and I feel it would make the information more readable to write these words in full. Eg the use of "gnt" rather than "granted" requires the reader to consult the list of abbreviations and detracts from the flow of text. It leads to entries such as : "fd post1154/ante1189 (post1174(?)/ante1220), reputedly by William de Say;" which to me do not make any sense. I would welcome the comments of others.— Rod ^talk 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Here following a notice at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board I cant see any reason why the abbreviations should be used, they break up the text and make it difficult to understand what should be a summary of the related article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. On the one hand, the WP:MOS#Abbreviations tells us that, providing we spell out abbreviations on first use, they are fine; not helpful in this case. My own view is that strings of abbreviations, such as noted by Rodw above, are hard to interpret unless a person is very familiar with the code. Such incomprehensible strings should be avoided --Senra (Talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any difficulty with it - definitely dump the abbreviations. Also why the micro-text? Some of us are over 20! Pterre (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see the rationale for having the symbolic abbreviations for the current condition of the buildings, and also the two-letter abbreviations of the trusteeship, but the additional abbreviations for commonly-used words is in my view awkward, arbitrary and unnecessary. Although the use of the abbreviations may make it easier to fit text into the table format (which may also explain the micro-text), unfortunately the effect on the general reader is obstructive, plus perhaps a little irritating. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I see no point discussing it further. I just hope that those who decide that the abbreviations are unnecessary are prepared to comprehensively go through all the pages, as I have done, to implement their decision, and not just the counties which appeal to them, leaving one great inconsistent and unencyclopedic mess - when I have strived, single-handedly, for consistency over a long period of time. JohnArmagh (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I had initially felt that as long as the abbreviations are show on each page then it's not much of an issue, but then the abbreviations reminded me of reading a medieval manuscript where every other word was abbreviated in some way. Even with a key, it made reading it slow and laborious. With practice and familiarity it became easier, but I still found myself wishing that the original writers had written out what they meant fully. In this case, as long as it's consistently applied, I think expanding abbreviations would be beneficial. I don't see the descriptions taking up too much space. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@JohnArmagh: I can quite understand how the above consensus would seem to be dispiriting, after all the obvious hard work you and others have put into this series of articles. I suspect that any attempt at manually implementing the above will be error prone and, as you say, may lead to one great inconsistent and encyclopedic mess. Consider posting a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks where I am sure an AWB expert will jump to your aid providing, of course, that the abbreviations have indeed been applied consistently :) No worries, eh? --Senra (Talk) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have started to do these (without the use of AWB) using find & replace, & trying to standardise dates & fix some MOS issues - however I have not changed any of the italics or "include", "noninclude" tags. I have so far done: Somerset, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Bristol, Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire. Could people take a look and report (or fix) any problems they spot?— Rod ^talk 09:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for not de-italicising the previously abbreviated terms? Normally italics are used for emphasis, so as they currently stand there is the possibility (initially at least) that they may be misconstrued as having such a role. Also would the entries read more naturally if new 'sentences' began with upper case? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Previously, the italicised abbreviations served as a visual aid to highlight "standard" information occuring throughout the entries, acting as visual bullet-points. In the absence of the abbreviations it is left to the italicised words to act as the bullet-points. Even within narratives, italicisation is not restricted to use for emphasis. (Possibly before and after no longer need italicisation now that they have been changed from ante and post which were italicised because they are non-English terms. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

By the same token, perhaps "possibly" and "probably" can also dispense with being italicised, as these are not 'key' terms such as "founded" etc? Also, returning to the second point of my previous post, I wonder if using capital letters at the start of each statement will also assist in locating 'key' information, considering that many lines start with these terms (eg founded becomes Founded etc) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

First question: indeed. Second: I am not so sure. The clauses have been deliberately deliminated by semi-colons, so as not to appear as sentences. Personally I don't think capitalisation of verbs looks good - I feel it breaks the textual flow - which is the issue originally arising regarding the abbreviations. JohnArmagh (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have so far done down to Kent (working alphabetically) & JohnArmagh seems to be doing further cleanup on the ones I've done. I will attempt to take out italics on before, after, possibly & probably from now on.— Rod ^talk 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now done all the counties to the best of my ability & tools (I apologise for any errors in advance). While going through them I did spot on one or two articles a couple of other issues: The use of "q.v." next to a wikilink which I don't think is needed, and phrases such as "entry immediately below" or "entry immediately above" which will become redundant if someone adds another entry between them or converts the lists into sortable lists. I hope they are more readable now.— Rod ^talk 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of q.v. refers to the entry in the table, whereas the Wikilink links to the article about the establishment, rather than the table entry.

Given that the lists will comprise every known and conjectured establishment in England, the use of "entry immediately above/below" has been placed where establishments are initimately connected both chronologically and geographically, so that no entries should at any future time be rationally placed between the entries so denoted - even if, in the unlikely event that it was discovered that a community moved to an interim location, the "entry immediately above/below" would still be relevant in the entries where they currently appear. JohnArmagh (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing q.v. for supra - earlier entry in the table, and infra - later entry in the table - as per the convention used in Knowles & Hadcock. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dorset list: Hilfield Friary question

I posed a question about Hilfield Friary on the Dorset monastic houses talk page a couple of days ago. I think it might have been overlooked in all the recent flurry of activity on all the lists, so I thought I'd alert people about it here as well. Thanks in advance for any contributions... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The main thrust of the updates have been with regard the medieval establishments due to their sheer number. Modern foundations are intended to be listed, but have yet to be as comprehensively researched - mainly by going through the web pages for each monastic order's current houses. I have added the entry for Hillfield Friary ahead of this excercise. JohnArmagh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

map

the map is bizarre as it mixes Ceremonial counties (e.g. Rutland) with contemporary counties (e.g. South Yorkshire). Why? Brownturkey (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This question is more appropriate to Ceremonial counties of England rather than this page. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Project Inclusion

Many of the individual pages such as Bardney Abbey or Axholme Charterhouse have only a subset of the projects shown above on their talk pages. Some have only the geographic project, e.g. Deeping St. James Priory. What is the 'correct' set of projects for the individual pages? is there a commonly held view on it? Some pages have a Catholicism/Anglicanism dispute at various times. Is there a rapprochement on this issue?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the same query applies to Talk:Alien priory - what would be the 'correct' set of projects there?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

redlink alien house

There are an awful lot of redlinks to alien house and a reasonably serviceable redirect for Alien house. Does anyone have a bot to edit all those county pages?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

They are not redlinks - they are deliberate burgundy font colour highlighting the distinction between a house's alien or denizen status at points in its history JohnArmagh (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Lancaster Priory

The entry here is inconsistent with the separate article Lancaster Priory; specifically as to whether the priory continued as a monastic house after its transfer to Syon Abbey. So far as I am aware, the evidence is not conclusive; the problem being that the Bridgettine order included both enclosed nuns and non-enclosed brothers - and there are indications that several of Syons Bridgettine brothers may have been regularly resident in Lancaster - not the least in that the reconstructed 15th century church does appear have been to be fitted out for conventual worship. TomHennell (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why 'England'?

Why not 'England and Wales'; since at the date of the dissolution legislation, the two countries were in union?

Firstly because the England list is quite big enough. England and Wales are conveniently divided into their respective countries for this purpose. And England and Wales were only in political union from 1536, when monastic establishment was starting to be dismantled. The article is not so much about the dissolution as the history of the establishments. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Deerhurst St-Marys.jpg
• Little Malvern Priory Hills.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)