Talk:Tintern Abbey

'Lines Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey'

Should there be an article on the poem 'Lines Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey' by Wordsworth?

It is a mistake to suppose that Wordsworth's poem was inspired by, or had any meaning connected or referring to, Tintern Abbey -- and, by inference, to any religious motif. The complete title is "Lines Written a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey, on Revisiting the Banks of the Wye During a Tour" and the whole poem talks about the natural environment the poet had known as a young man and its influence on his later life. 201.13.104.176 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)pabzum201.13.104.176 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance level

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)

How to Measure 'Spectacularity'

"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)

Indeed. I've removed those words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Monmouthpedia?

Surely this is chepstow? Victuallers (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's neither, it's Tintern. However until there's a Chepstowpedia to go with Monmouthpedia, the question is moot. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think Tintern is in scope of MonmouthpediA. If so, we would have to cover all of the Forest of Dean, Raglan and Ross-on-Wye, for example. welsh (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this elsewhere on the M'pedia talk pages without getting much response. My opinion is that Monmouthpedia is designed to cover the town, and maybe a mile or two outside, but not places further afield - though obviously, judging from some of the articles added to the M'pedia lists, some others disagree. If there is to be a Monmouthshirepedia or a Chepstowpedia, that's fine, but let's have some consistency in approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the historical connection between the Abbey and Monmouth? There are clear historical links with the priory church in Chepstow and also with the castle - is there anything similar for Monmouth? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No direct links with Monmouth at all, I think (apart from the river!). Chepstow and Monmouth were separate lordships, and the abbey was dissolved at the same time as the county was formed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In the competition we say that the guide is whether it mentions Monmouth with a blue link. The means that you can say "White Hill" can be seen from Monmouth or whatever but you can't include a hill or village in Somerset. 95.150.68.253 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems a pretty silly criterion. See the list of pages that link to Monmouth - you are implying that all of those articles are Monmouthpedia articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Links to" is an even worse criterion. It would catch links like "Innsmouth - not to be confused with Monmouth" and also "Ankh-Morpork, twinned with Monmouth". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to move this debate about scope to here. welsh (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Better image?

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)

I agree, so I've changed them - WP:BRD! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

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 agree that two of the images are unnecessary. They don't do any harm, but I accept they're unnecessary. The others add to the understanding of the article by presenting different angles, historical depictions, etc. They were mostly added as part of the Monmouthpedia GLAM project, and there's no good reason to exclude them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As per the policy guidance above, what would you suggest the title and theme of the gallery ought to be? I've nothing against galleries if they're in line with policy and communicate something specific, but we shouldn't be adding images to an article simply because a GLAM project donated them. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My view of the fourth sentence of that guidance is that it is unexplained, inexplicable, and can therefore safely be discounted. Galleries do not have to have a theme. They often should do, but in this case the "theme" would be that the images present a variety of different views of the abbey structure, at different points in time and/or from different angles. That does not need to be stated explicitly, unless you can think of an appropriate form of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

One way to approach the policy on images is to consider what the title of the gallery would be. If it were "Different perspectives", for example, we would presumably choose images that illustrated particular architectural features of the abbey from different angles, ideally in colour and as high quality as possible, and caption them accordingly (as a contrast to "abbey in the snow", for example, which focuses on the fact that it was snowing at the time of the picture!). If the aim of the gallery was to illustrate changes in the abbey over time, e.g. "historical perspectives of the abbey", we'd probably select different images, and use the captions to highlight what was different or changing between the images. We might choose images of otherwise lower quality, because we'd be explicitly trying to illustrate historical changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Since a section is being added on paintings (and prints) of the Abbey, I have pruned the gallery of duplicate views now covered by the paintings I want to consider, and then moved up one photo of the interior today to replace what was almost a duplicate of the lead image. The aim has also been to provide different perspectives of the building, as well as to demonstrate a variety of mood and effect. The art section will be completed within the next 24 hours but by all means comment now. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

OR

I've readded the OR tag for the following section:

• "Another atmospheric approach was to demonstrate the building and its surroundings under different light conditions, of which Peter van Lerberghe’s moonlit interior of 1812 is a striking example (see Gallery)."

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:

• "the later painting by Turner in which the building is almost lost in the shimmer of light (see Gallery)."

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)

The quotation from Heath's 1806 guide, antedating the Van Legberghe painting, establishes a primary source for this particular moonlight effect. I had already explained to Hchc2009 that establishing a painting within a given stylistic nexus (as the Turner catalogue entry does) validates a referenced description of such works without its needing to be specifically named.

Hchc2009 admits he is no expert; neither is he an administrator. His blitz of destructive remarks comes arguably from too literal a reading of the guidelines and would overload the text with references. I notice he has not objected to other sections of the article, in which information is often provided without references. I would therefore welcome the opinion of an administrator specialising in this particular area. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability and WP:Original Research aren't guidelines, Mzilikazi1939, they're policies. Heath's 1806 work clearly can't be used as a reliable reference for whether a later painting in 1812 by van Lerberghe is "atmospheric" or "striking", as it predates it by six years; the judgements appear to be your own, i.e. original research. The catalogue on Turner makes no reference to the painting of the abbey, or even to Turner's paintings of this part of the country; it doesn't support the specific claims about a "shimmer of light" and "light effects" being made. Again, without a reliable source, this is simply your view, and others might interpret it differently (for example, to me the picture simply looks like a pale, not unpleasant, impressionistic watercolour).

If you'd like to seek a view from an administrator, then I wouldn't be offended if you wished to leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or you might want to seek a third opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Again, though, I'd urge you to find a reliable secondary source that directly discusses the paintings, poems and the abbey, rather than relying on your interpretation of the original paintings and poems themselves. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:53, 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)

Perhaps another way of phrasing the question would be... when you were researching the abbey, were there secondary sources that you read which discussed the paintings and poems and the abbey, and which talked about the way that light was used, or their Gothic quality etc.? If there were, could they be used to support the statements you're making? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 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)

First, Administrators have no authority over content - nor do members of the Arbitration Committee. I'm both but that gives me no special status here. But I am also a very experienced editor and a statement that a painting is a striking example of something should not just be sourced but also attributed to a known expert. It should be removed or sourced. If anyone disagrees they can go to WP:NORN. Doug Weller (talk) 20:04, 7 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)

Mzilikazi, I've checked back over the references again, and removed material that was still uncited etc, after you removed the tags again. I've directly quoted what Matthew Immes says about the paining. I still can't see any mention of 1790 in one of the sources, and have added a tag to highlight this (the webpage used only mentioned a third edition, published in 1803). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939, I'm looking at the cited source, http://www.lib.umich.edu/enchanting-ruin-tintern-abbey-romantic-tourism-wales/poetical.html#entry6. I can't see any reference to 1786, or Pine, there though, even with "find on page". Whereabouts is it? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:05, 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)

The blog you've listed talks about a book entitled "Chepstow; or, A new guide to gentlemen and ladies whose curiosity leads them to visit Chepstow" (William Pine), which doesn't necessarily sound identical to the work you've described above from the Michegan website, titled “Guide to Chepstow and Tintern" (no author given). The "around 1790" claim doesn't seem to be mentioned in either website. As far as I can see, the only hard fact so far is from the Michigan website, which confirms it was at least prior to 1793, as it notes that "Davis’ Poetical Description' was included in the 1793 Historical and Descriptive Accounts of...Tintern Abbey" but that it had been previously been published. Unless we've a source that actually supports "in the 1780s" or "around 1790" claims, we shouldn't be stating those dates, otherwise we're back in OR territory once again. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:39, 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)

Mzilikazi, there's undoubtedly lots of questionable, unreferenced material on the wiki, and lots of OR. It shouldn't be there, but unfortunately it is. We shouldn't be adding to it, though. I've a particular interest in paintings and poetry associated with the 18th and early 19th century tours of the area (but, as noted am not an artistic expert!), and I've struggled to identify good, reliable secondary sources in the past, which is why I originally took the time to read through all the references for the section you added. I thought the statements themselves were interesting, and was hoping to find some good secondary sources that I could read and use for other articles. Particularly as the wiki matures, it is really important that the material we add is supported by the references we use, and doesn't include accidental OR, etc. That's most easily done at the point when material is added, when editors are still active, when we can debate it, and - when necessary - correct the text or find additional references to support uncited claims. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Foundation and buildings

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)

Yes, I had the impression that you lived locally. I was in Tintern last month checking on what remained in reference to 18th-19th century illustrations and on the industrial archaeology. I sensed too that Hchc2009 was hesitant to become embroiled with you. It will be added evidence of his discriminatory practice if he stays silent now that you have claimed responsibility for the passages requiring references. And now you have had experience of what such a disruptive assault feels like, perhaps you'll understand my hurt feelings and come to the support of a harrassed fellow-editor in future.

For the record, at your request, there seem to be editorial issues with the following:

1. The second para of the Foundation section needs more references. In particular the statement mentioning “one of the most successful orders” should, according to Doug Weller in the preceding conversation, "not just be sourced but also attributed to a known expert. It should be removed or sourced. If anyone disagrees they can go to WP:NORN".
2. The final para of the Development section, where unreferenced conclusions are drawn which also invite deletion unless they are.
3. The same may be said of the opening sentence of the Dissolution section's second para.
4. The opening para of the Heritage section is very short on references.

Your statement that you will "rewrite and improve" these sections is welcome and will obviously add to the article's encyclopaedic scope. In the wake of Doug Weller, however, I do not agree that all instances mentioned are "uncontentious". Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no quarrel with Hchc2009's edits - quite the contrary. I have not "claimed responsibility for the passages requiring references" - or indeed for any part of the article, and it would be wrong for me to do so. But, I agree that those sections need expansion and better sourcing, and in time I will try to do that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use me as a reason. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point:

• If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
  • do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source.
  • do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.

Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018213750/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pd/j/jmw_turner,_tintern_abbey.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pd/j/jmw_turner,_tintern_abbey.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716021002/http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/part-of-the-ruins-of-tintern-abbey-21775 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/part-of-the-ruins-of-tintern-abbey-21775

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed

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:

• identify and remove any contentious material, or,
• find references for any contentious material, or,
• remove the tag.

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.

The majority of sources in the article were provided by a single editor; the tag is to serve as a reminder to another who promised "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". Therefore it stays as a spur to his conscience. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweetpool50 - I think that's a crap reason and have removed. The trout is incomprehensible. Try thinking about the reader rather than some stale old vendetta you may have had from three years ago. I'll be working on this over the coming months and would appreciate your assistance. KJP1 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with KJP1. That other editor might have forgotten or moved on, and the article is not woefully under-referenced (as the tag suggests), even if it's a long way from the standards of Wikipedia's best work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Not only had I forgotten about adding the tag in 2015, I'd entirely forgotten about all the kerfuffle about the references that I've now noticed further up on this page, and I'd even more comprehensively obliterated from my mind any suggestion that I might try to improve this article myself. So, don't rely on me. Or my "conscience", if I ever locate it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible outline

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)

Intro;

History

• Cistercians
• First abbey - 1131-?
• Second abbey - 12??-1536
• Industry - 1536-?
• Tourism - 17??-?

This item coincides with literary depictions of excursions (18-19C); in addition several prints (some based on paintings) catered to tourists requiring mementoes. Skilful dovetailing of sections or themes will be necessary. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweetpool - agreed. We may find that the Tourism content is comprehensively covered by the Art piece. In which case we can just drop it. I'm thinking, however, that a short section on, something like, the Rise of the Wye Tour in the Napoleonic Age/the Picturesque and the Gothic and Tintern's rediscovery within this, may warrant a separate section. KJP1 (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• 20th and 21st centuries

Depictions

• In art
• In literature

Architecture and description

• Church
• Rest?

Notes

• sfn
• Sources

Brakspear, 1910,

Henderson, Tintern Abbey, Then and Now, 1935,

Craster, 1969,

Driscoll, Tintern Abbey: An Historical and Architectural Examination of a Medieval Cistercian House, 1982,

Bulmer, 1986

Taylor, Tintern Abbey and Its Founders, 1994,

Newman, 2000,

Robinson, The Cistercians in Wales: Architecture and Archaeology 1130-1540, 2006,

Robinson (Cadw), 2011

• incorporate gallery

partly disagree; pictures illustrate and break up solid text; the gallery supplements the art section and demonstrates diversity. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I love images and think they're close to essential for an article about a building. I just think that, as a general rule, they work better if they're incorporated into the text, illustrating the points being made, at the appropriate point in the article. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• lose Abbots

Comments

• Before this progresses any further, can I suggest some reformatting, and signing of posts, to ensure that we know who is suggesting what? Otherwise, I think these notes will become an unreadable mess quite quickly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion. KJP1 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Under construction banner

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)

Thanks KJP1, might I suggest that you move the banner down to the Architecture section and make it an article template, rather than putting it up top where it distracts the reader. The rest of the article above the Architecture section appears to be pretty much full and finished. In the meantime, I'll do a bit of minor copy editing for you because I'm quite interested in this subject at the moment – I'm currently working on the Timeline of Welsh history article that I created last week. Please take a look! Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Rodney Baggins, according to his Talk page, has only recently begun editing. For all his busy scurrying around, that does not make him a policeman, of which there are more than enough amateurs on WP already. If he wants to help with the planned expansion, which is what that tag is announcing, that would be great. The two of us currently interested have discovered that there is more reading than was anticipated, and we need time to digest information and, equally important, establish a convergent style. The rewriting will cover most sections ultimately so the suggested remedy is no solution. If the user really means to make himself an officious nuisance, I'll revisit the article every day and make one small change each time - which seems to be his preferred editing style. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I was only trying to help, no need to get one's knickers in a twist :) I'll make a few good faith edits for you today and if you object then I'll ultimately go away and scurry around somewhere else. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RB does have a point. But then so does Sweetpool. The history sections, although they look more "finished", will actually require complete re-writing to take the article down the route we plan. But I agree, to the reader, they look more complete and therefore having the tag across the whole article may confuse. So I've moved it down for now. We can look to move it back up when we begin the recasting of the whole. Hoping that leaves everyone content! KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

p.s. - RB, as Sweetpool says, it's always great to run across another editor with an interest in an article one's working on and your thoughts/contributions are very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion

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)

KJP1, the proposal at the start of the year was for us to aim for that status together. It seems to me that rather than tinkering about before the other half of it is complete, it would be better to leave establishing a consistent style until completion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that copyedit I did earlier was fairly sound, but you reverted the whole damn lot, not just the "overlinking". Probably best leave it thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Tintern Abbey and Courtyard.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. However, I've replaced it with the only other Good Picture of the abbey that we have. Will do the same on other affected pages. KJP1 (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Having a picture of the ruins against the background of the Wye's wooded banks is a brilliant choice. Well done, KJP1 (talk · contribs)! Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Redundant view

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)