Talk:Lincoln Cathedral

Spire collapse

Addendum by Mark Rejhon: In case someone tries to edit the 1549 date back to 1548, I should mention... There is some confusion about the date of the 525-foot spire collapse are 1548 to 1549 from several sources, but the official church website indicates 1549, so I am using that date.

Complaint about picture

The picture chosen is not illustrative of this building (to say the least). It shows nothing that's unique about this building but rather something one may see in a thousand church or other similar buildings around the world.It would be a suitable photo for an article about furniture or church decor, but does not help anyone seeking info about this building. Pi lambda 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, well youve replaced "non free images" with "free ones". whats more important... something thats under a non commercial creative commons license and of good quality or dross thats under a gnu license? is wikipedia out to create quality stuff or simply crusade about open source? particularly like the picture of the wooden seats - could be anywhere. --Gothicform 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I can go out and snap one and stick it under a decent license, it's just down the road, tell me what face you want ;) --Streaky 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spire collapsed "thanks to weather"?

From the article:

"There was a lead-encased wooden spire that rose 160 m (525 feet), that collapsed in 1549 thanks to weather"

I tried replacing "thanks" with something else, but since I don't know the exact circumstances (storm, lightning, tornado?), I wondered if somebody else could do that? Thanks :-) Peter S. 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

the spire collapsed in a storm. --Gothicform 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

that works 98.216.8.34 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For a building disaster, 'thanks' would be a back-handed use of the word and colloquialism, so I agree with amendment.Cloptonson (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Highest point at the same height was the ural?

From the article:

"Up to that point in time, the next point on the earth's surface at the same height, looking eastwards, was the Ural Mountains in Russia."

From the article about Mont Blanc

"Its height is about 4,810 metres"

So, unless the the City of Lincoln is located 4650 meters AMSL, I don't really believe this point. I'm removing it, add it back with some explanations if it's really true. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

lincoln cathedral is approximately 140 metres AOD. most of the city of lincoln is barely above sea level, so its wrong. --Gothicform 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Mont Blanc is not due east of Lincoln. The intention appears to be to say that there was nothing higher than Lincoln Cathedral in an easterly direction until the Urals. Sbz5809 13:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Although Lincoln is in the middle of Lincolnshire which is mainly flat, the city is on a steep hill with the Cathedral near the top. Nowhere near 4000 odd metres mind! (Unsigned comment)

The statement the next point on the earth's surface at the same height, looking eastwards, was the Ural Mountains in Russia is quite clear. What is the relevance of your 4000 odd metres? Longwayround (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Images

I have Internal photos and no idea of how to post them! (Streethawk, Grimsby (Lincolnshire!) 19/11/05)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. John 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Tallest Church in UK

Wikipedia pegs both this structure and the Salisbury Cathedral as the tallest churches in the UK. I recently visited the Salisbury Cathedral and it still makes the claim. Does anyone in actual fact know which is the taller?

Dave

Lincoln is way down the list of tallest UK churches. Salisbury (123m), St Paul's (111m), Liverpool (101m), Norwich (96m) and several others are all taller than Lincoln's 83m.

On a slightly different note, I see this article makes the claim "The central tower rises to 83 m (271 feet) and remains the tallest cathedral tower in Europe today without a spire." This is not true either -- St Paul's and Liverpool Cathedrals do not have spires, and quite possibly several others in England and other countries. I haven't checked too extensively.

Ben Willetts

As far a I recall Lincoln Cathedral was the tallest Cathedral in Europe when it had a spire. Even at this height now that would not be true but back then it was 83.100.154.111 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

ben... st pauls has a lantern at the top of the dome and besides it doesnt have a cathedral tower. :) it has a dome. there is only one in the uk thats taller and that is liverpool anglican cathedral. furthermore i believe the only other cathedral tower taller in the world is the american national cathedral in washington d.c

"Tallest building in the world" claim

I'm extremely sceptical about the claimed height of 160m (before the spire collapse). Is there some hard evidence for that figure, or was it someone's wild guess? — Opie 05:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Being a historian myself, I had a quick look in contemporary 14th and 15th century sources, but could not find any evidence for the 525 feet claim for Lincoln Cathedral. First of all there are many contradictions in dating the spires and also on when the central tower spire was destroyed. (1541, 1547, 1548). I would rate the 525 claim "very unlikely" at best. But let's start from the accurate and critical work by A.F. Kendrick in 1898 titled 'The Cathedral Church of Lincoln' [1]: "The tall spire of timber, covered with lead, which originally crowned this tower reached an altitude, it is said, of 525 feet; but this is doubtful."

On the height of the spires, it was noted: The height of these timber spires was 89 feet from the base to the ball, and another 12 feet to the top of the vane. The central tower is claimed to be 271 feet, but this is from the top of the corner pinnacles. So the actual base from which the spire was built (on the central tower) is more like 225 - 235 feet. This means the claim here is that spire of the central tower was 300 feet(!) in height (525ft=225ft+300ft). That is simply a preposterous claim, knowing: 1) the western tower spires of Lincoln (who survived 200 more years) were 89 feet from base to the ball; and 2) the extremely tall spire of Salisbury cathedral was 150-175 feet (measured from the tower top): Salisbury cathedral's spire was only half of the 300 feet claim here for the tallest Lincoln cathedral spire. 2001:1C02:1C04:CD00:6DF8:19F5:D35F:435C (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

why are you sceptical? the smaller malmsebury abbey was 130 metres tall, salisbury was 123. st pauls cathedral was only slightly shorter. york minster had a wooden spire that made it over 100 metres tall too, infact the shorter towers were over 100m tall at lincoln cathedral. its perfectly easy to take a church and double the height from roof to tip by simply adding a spire as chichester or salisbury show today. its much harder to get it standing up as malmesbury shows. everywhere says so except for one victorian author ranging from the cathedrals own records to the guiness book. --unsigned comment by 86.6.160.50

Why I'm sceptical:

• The spire (above the main tower) would have to be about 40% taller than the one at Salisbury, on a base that is only slightly wider.
• The official cathedral site will only commit to saying that Lincoln Cathedral was the "tallest building in Europe," not the tallest in the world, which it would have been if it were 160m/525ft high (surpassing the Giza pyramid).
• Kendrick's book is the only source I was able to find that mentioned the reliability of the 525-ft figure; he called it "doubtful"

I'm not saying a 525-ft height is impossible. But since the spire fell down centuries ago and its height can't be directly verified today, it would be nice to know the source of the original measurement/estimate, so that we might know how reliable it is. If you say the height is documented in the cathedral's own records, or is accepted by the Guinness book (I don't remember it being there) then please add the appropriate reference to the article, if you would be so kind.

--Opie 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's documented records, I'm pretty sure it is, I'll have ago at badgering a tour guide or something next time i'm in the area - it could certainly be one of the highest tops of any being on top of a pretty high hill when you think about it from that perspective, there aint many, if any, that are built on top of hills --Streaky 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

it IS in the guiness book of world records. you will also find the list of the worlds tallest ever buildings replicated everywhere, for example on skyscraperpage or emporis, skyscrapernews.com has what is i believe the fullest list of britains big churches including ones that dont exist anymore, what happened to lincoln was not uncommon as york minster experienced. the extreme height would explain why it doesnt exist anymore, plenty of extremely tall buildings collapsed because of that! just to emphasise further - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=138268 "Old St. Paul's Cathedral became the world's tallest building in 1549, when the 160m (525ft) wooden central spire of Lincoln Cathedral fell down. This lasted until the 4th June 1561, when St. Paul's spire was itself felled by lightning and the title passed to Notre-Dame de Strasbourg in Strasbourg." given the tallest buildings in the world were all in europe it WAS the tallest in the world. notre-dame de rouen has a spire of similar dimensions to that of lincoln still standing by the way.

Just to add further to this discussion, the supports for the spire still exist in the tower today and you can see them on the tour of the central tower. They indicate from their dimensions and the weight they can carry that the spire was indeed around 160m tall. --Gothicform 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have very serious doubts too that the Lincoln Cathedral was over 160metres high. That would make that the spire-construction itself should have been about 77metres high on a floorplan of about 15 by 15 metres. To add to the story, the suggested spire-construction was standing for almost 250years(!). I cant take those claims serious unless someone with an engineering and construction background shows me how it could have been done in 1311 and maintained. No matter what the old documents until 1549 say, this matter needs in my POV serious recalculations nowadays to proof it, before it can enter the wikipedia as a solid fact. 06:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)sonty567 (architecture student for 5years) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.104.161 (talk)

Addon to my above comment : it seems the roofplan of the centraltower is nowadays roughly about 70metres above ground. This would make the suggested wooden spire on that central tower even more doubtfull because that would result in an approximate 90metres high wooden spire on the central towers rooffloorplan of roughly about 15 by 15metres. 83.83.104.161 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)sonty567

Having read the above I've moderated the recent qualifications regarding building height to a more neutral tone. The previous remarks of "but this height is regarded as doubtful" imply quite clearly that a consensus exists against the 525ft height, whereas the most basic research reveals the opposite to be true, with widespread agreement on the world record height with the notable exception of Kendrick's opinion. I would suggest the prevalence of references is a better indicator of the truth than a comparative analysis of engineering techniques. As others have said, it collapsed because it was too audacious rather than eminently achievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.235.97 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was reputedly the tallest building in the world for 249 years (1300–1549). cites Kendrick's book (which is still under copyright, possibly explaining why it no longer appears in Project Gutenberg, so I shall replace the link with reference to the book.) I cannot, however, find anywhere in the book which makes this or a similar statement. Could someone please find the relevant passage? Longwayround (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the link I have replaced is [2] Longwayround (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Original source for the 525 feet claim

I think the claim for the highest building since the Pyramids of Giza deserves some better sources than we have now.

Are there any other books or papers on historical research into the Lincoln Cathedral that assessed the credibility of this claim? Because so far we only have the A.F. Kendrick, who calls it doubtful, but gives no further explanation. We also have the other sources that were given in the Wikipedia article but I doubt the authors really verified the claim themselves, since the websites/books are not dedicated to the Lincoln Cathedral.Ckiki lwai (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And we are left with "some historians claim", not "all relevant contemporary historians stated, but some guy on wikipedia with '5 years engineering experience has doubts'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.86.7.57 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The article History of the world's tallest buildings has

The 159.7 m (524 ft) height of Lincoln Cathedral is disputed by some, but accepted by most sources. The completion date for the spire is given as 1311 rather than 1300 by some sources.

Some of those are books I can't access, one one of them 404s, and none of them may be particularly good, I'm just laying them out here. Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

---

References

Too many pictures?

The page feels a little image heavy and really falls apart round about "Modern controversies" - I'd suggest either remove 4 or 5 photos or tag an image gallery onto the end and move all but two pictures into it. (Emperor 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Soneone should put a picture of the Linclon Imp in instead of the view form the tower which is sort of out of place ... I think there's one on the Lincoln Imp page. (24.218.139.94 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Edit

I have tried to edit and clean up the article as best as possible. I have done the following:

• Reorganised the categories and changed the modern contrv. section to a trivia section, as well as reducing the number of overall sections to address a comment in the discussion. I have also edited the information in those sections.
• Added lots of information to the history section, rewrote it and reorganised it in a more chronological and coherent section - including more detail on St Hugh of Avalon and Eleanor of Castille
• Removed some information on the imp (because it has its own article).
• Created a photos page as suggested above, and moved most of the photos from the article to the photo page.

LordHarris 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Floor plan

Isn't there also an attached library and chapter house? The floorplan doesn't have them. (24.218.139.94 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Reformation?

The History section unfortunately ends before the Reformation. Was there much change or destruction in the cathedral during that time? -- 85.179.175.225 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture of tower please

Given that this was the tallest building in the world when it had its tower, the article could do with a picture of that tower. Beorhtric 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Surely there must be a drawing of the cathedral with the spire intact.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This would definitely be useful, maybe as an "artist's impression" of what he spire might look like today. -- 82.152.200.63 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a model of the cathedral complete with spires in the Cathedral Museum. My photograph of the model didn't come out very well; there is a very nice one, however, on Flickr. I've contacted the author to see if he'd be willing to post it for use in the article.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/8478947719/
Rushton2010 (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally got one now :) --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is an etching from 1743 with the smaller spires, it's in the British Library, I assume that that's like a boomer deviant art site. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-south-west-prospect-of-the-city-of-lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.86.7.57 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Tower, spire

What confusion!

Lincoln, from a distance

LIncoln was the tallest building in the world, for several hundred years, with Strasburg, Old St Paul's (gone in the 1600s) and a church in Finland(?) coming in behind it. Salisbury was about 150 feet shorter that Lincoln. But Salisbury had the tallest solid masonry spire ever constructed. Not lead over wood and not open latticework but big lumps of stone, perfectly cut and laid, for 404 feet. Salisbury's spire has survived, with some resurfacing, and remortaring, but not reconstruction. It is the supreme masterpiece of 13th century engineering. Most big spires now date from the 1800s.

Lincoln's spire was wood covered with lead. It blew down in a gale. But it had stood for about 300 years. It came down in the 1500s, and there is no picture. But the enormous tower that the spire stood on, 270 feet high, still stands as the tallest church tower in England. It is probably the tallest "central tower" on any church in the world.

Think of this: most towers stand on four solid walls, with a door or two at the bottom. But the great central towers on England's Cathedrals do not stand on four walls. They stand on four feet! In other words, under each of these towers are four big arches, up about 75-80 feet high, and between the arches are piers. The piers are like four huge columns which carry the four corners of the tower. The English were so expert at this that they built huge central towers at Norwich, Durham, Wells, Salisbury, Canterbury, York, Lincoln, Worcester, Gloucester, Lichfield, Chichester, and towers that were not quite so spectaclarly high at some of the others. All these towers are still standing. However, Chichester has a rather nasty mishap- its stone spire suddenly collapsed inwards on itself like an old telescope folding up. It had been standing for about 450 years, before it gave up.

• 
  Lincoln, with the ruins of the bishops palace in front
• 
  The largest church tower in England is carried on four arches.
• 
  Canterbury
• 
  And here we are looking up the tower of Canterbury.
• 
  Salisbury
• 
  This shows the dark Purbec marble shafts under the tower. One of them has bent under the weight.
• 
  The tower at Peterborough is only 143 feet high
• 
  Peterbough. A tower with windows like this is called a "Lantern tower".

English Earthquake?

Has anyone ever heard of an earthquake in England. Certainly Wiki hasn't. If go to "List of Earthquakes" link via the "Earthquake" link, you will see that there is no listing for an earthquake in England at any time. Ever. How then, could the cathedral have been " destroyed by an earthquake about forty years later, in 1185.", I wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not particularly known for them, there have been plenty of earthquakes in England. Isn't Google is a wonderful tool. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Earthquakes in Britain are actually quite common: we've actually had 14 in the last month! Most are extremely minor but there are usually 1 or 2 a year that are big enough (or cause enough damage) to make national news and few more on top that that make local news. They're nothing on the scale of foreign earthquakes though
Over the years a sizable number of cathedrals in Britain have been damaged by earthquakes: just look at List of earthquakes in the British Isles (which is a FAR FROM COMPLETE article)
Take a look at http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html for a full list of British Earthquakes. The British Geological Survey (BGS) is the world's oldest national geological survey: recording earthquakes in Britain since 1835.

With specifics of the Lincoln Earth Quakes the BGS has a database of historically recorded earthquakes taken from: "Musson R.M.W., 2008. The seismicity of the British Isles to 1600. BGS, Earth Hazards and Systems, Internal Report OR/08/049".
There was a recorded earthquake which was felt at Lincoln in December 1140; and another one larger one in 15 April 1185. Of this one in 1185 it says: "This is one of the largest and most interesting earthquakes of the period. The following facts can be gleaned from the sources: it was felt throughout all of England, but especially in the north; it was the worst ever known in England; stones were split; stone houses were thrown down; and Lincoln Cathedral was badly damaged". The epicentre is thought to have been somewhere in the North see as it was also felt in Norway.
The simple chart is available here:http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/historical/query_eq/
The full report at: http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/historical/data/studies/MUSS008/MUSS008.pdf

Rushton2010 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

General Statement about Pre-Reformation Churches

A reasonably new editor, Woodseats44 (talk) has repeatedly appended the following statement of a very general nature to the summary statement at the top of Lincoln Cathedral: "Like all medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England, Lincoln Cathedral is Roman Catholic in origin as it predates the Reformation."
This edit has been undone today by three separate editors and, wishing to avoid an edit war, I am requesting that we discuss the matter here.—GrahamSmith (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think that this is not really lead material, though could be mentioned in the appropriate place in the history section. Keith D (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I was one of the reverters, so I am against this inclusion. The original editor seems to think it provides balance. Presumably it balances with the statement that it is an Anglican cathedral now. I wonder if s/he is going to change all the other pre-reformation, protestant churches in the world. As a matter of history, I don't think the term Roman Catholic (term) actually existed back then. Myrvin (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I was one of the reverters too and also think this isn't lead material. [S]he's also added the sentence to the Salisbury Cathedral lead, which I shall revert too. Arthur Holland (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone: Please check the comment of the latest edit. Myrvin (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has amended the opening sentence to read "Lincoln Cathedral (in full The Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Lincoln, or sometimes St. Mary's Cathedral) is a historic, now Anglican, cathedral in Lincoln". Is this not the same crowbarring-in of a not-that-pivotal fact that we took issue with before? Are we going to do this for every mediaeval church in the country? Thoughts? Arthur Holland (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this is the same editor under a different name. S/he has also put in that the first Bishop was catholic. I'll try reverting again. There is some point to this however. People who didn't know about the reformation in England (children, non-Christians, non-british) may think that the cathedral has always been Anglican. Is there some way we can include this information? Myrvin (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The reverting is getting out of hand so I've fully protected the page for three days so efforts can focus on discussion. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article on Bishop of Lincoln says:

Until the 1530s, the bishops were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. During the Reformation, they changed their allegiance back and forth between the crown and the papacy. Under Henry VIII and Edward VI, the bishops conformed to the Church of England, but under Mary I they adhered to the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Reformation, the bishops and diocese of Lincoln have been part of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

Perhaps something along these lines could go in the History section. It does go very quiet at the 15th century. Myrvin (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Myrvin's suggestion; and the History section is definitely the place, not the header.—GrahamSmith (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the way to go too. But therefore it should probably be extended to all churches (or cathedrals at least) which fit this pre-reformation criteria? Not saying that's a bad idea, but will take a bit of work. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And let's put "now Anglican" back into the introduction, as a teaser to entice readers to read on and find out what it was before. Cobulator (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're asking to put back in one of the two edits you made that everyone else here objected to before for reasons already given? Just to clarify, can I ask if you accept any of the points we've made, or do you still feel that your original edits were fine as they were? Arthur Holland (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't given the dignity of having it "objected to" originally, it was simply deleted (along with another change) with a blatantly rude edit summary. And I'm not "asking", I'm offering an opinion. I believe what I added first time around was honest, accurate and harmless. I've not seen any argument that persuades me otherwise. Cobulator (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm not going to get into the edit war again, so I'll leave it in for now, but unilaterally reinserting your edit in the face of numerous other editor's concerns the minute the page protection is lifted is not the way to go. Can I ask others to weigh in please. Arthur Holland (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have undone edits made by Cobulator (talk), which are at the heart of the discussion below, pending us reaching consensus on the two issues below.—GrahamSmith (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cobulator has reverted GrahamSmith's revert, can we leave it at that for now. Cobulator shouldn't have restored it while discussion was ongoing, but someone needs to break the cycle and I'd rather not protect the article a second time. The word "now" doesn't change the article drastically and leaving it as it is would not be introducing an innaccuracy. There needs to be a discussion over why that particular word in the lead is perceived to be problematic by some users.

It's just a suggestion, but perhaps the issue would be mute if the lead could be expanded? Five lines isn't really adequate and an expanded lead could remark on what happened to the cathedral during the Reformation. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to abide by Nev1's wise suggestion that we leave Lincoln Cathedral as it is for now—GrahamSmith (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to try to explain why you undid my other edit of today too, the one about its location? Cobulator (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, given that Cobulator has simply reverted to his original edits in the face of various editor's concerns ([s]he's also done this to a number of other Lincolnshire church articles), I'm asking for opinions again from all interested. If we can't get consensus then I believe we have to look at outside opinion (I've not done the dispute resolution thing before so I'm not too familiar with the procedure). Therefore, in my opinion, the "now Anglican" remark in the lead and the "Remigius de Fécamp, a Catholic and the first bishop of Lincoln" remark both feel like they're pushing an agenda and making a meal of an implicit fact. The compromise that was suggested before by Myrvin on 29 Feb seemed to me to be an excellent one. Therefore, can we have a show of hands – who wants to incorporate Cobulator's edits and who wants to go with Myrvin's suggestions? Obviously, I would go with Myrvin's suggestion. Arthur Holland (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm content to let sleeping dogs lie. If Cobulator considers that people interested in reading this article won't know that the first Bishop of Lincoln (like all his successors up to the present day) was of the Catholic faith, then so be it. For the reasons stated below, I am opposed to further changes of any substance, unless they relate specifically to the Cathedral rather tthan the Diocesan Bishop—GrahamSmith (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also of course every other early person mentioned in the article should be denoted as such - unless they were Jewish. And every other old religious building. :-) Myrvin (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) I notice the phrase "now Anglican" has been deleted from the introduction (with which I wholly concur); as the sentence already said (about a dozen words later) it is in the Church of England neither word seems necessary. Also the contentious “now” was added through an edit war by an editor who is currently doing the same elsewhere, and (despite the discussion above) I don’t think we should be rewarding bad behaviour.
On the compromise proposed above, I would suggest (though it's up to you) that it is hardly necessary, and may well add more heat than light. The implications of the Reformation in England are already discussed at the linked articles, and it doesn’t need repeating in an article about a building as well. In any event, Lincoln cathedral (and all the other pre-Reformation church buildings) belonged to the Church in England, regardless of whether that body owed its allegiance to the Pope or not, while linking them, or suggesting a link, to what the rest of the world calls the Roman Catholic church would be more, not less, confusing. And describing Remigius as a catholic might be fair enough (though still debateable) saying he was Catholic rather less so. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw my support behind what you're saying Moonraker12. I've said as much before (see above and below) but I think people got tired of arguing with Cobulator so he/she "won" by default, but I strongly feel (I know it's a small thing, only a couple of words, but God's in the details) that the "now-Anglican" thing is totally inappropriate. To be honest, I don't see much need for the proposed compromise either (although wouldn't object at all) but mostly just wanted to get "now-Anglican" out of the lead. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my additions

Yesterday I edited the article twice. With the first I noted that the first bishop was a Catholic bishop. This is correct and accurate. With the second I qualified the fact that the cathedral is Anglican by inserting the word "now". Later someone rudely blew away both of my edits in one go. Later I put it back, only to have someone else get rid rid of it again. What's the problem? I came on to fix it again today, but the article has now been locked. Why? Cobulator (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cobulator – it's all discussed in the section above – you'll see a compromise has been suggested and largely supported. We'd welcome your input though.

Regarding the reversion of your edits – they were broadly the same in tone/meaning as those of editor Woodseats44 who had been blocked the previous day for repeatedly reverting to his edits and refusing to engage with other editors' concerns on the talk page, i.e. edit-warring. I think the suspicion was that you were a sock puppet of his, hence the immediate reversion. As that does not seem to be the case, I apologise for that. We did also ask that you take your concerns to the talk page discussion, which you declined to do.

Speaking for myself, the concern with your edits was that they came across as pushing a Catholic agenda onto the page. The fact of the cathedral's and first bishop's Catholic status is implicit – it applies to every mediaeval church in the country – and to mention it explicitly in this manner seems to yank the reader's attention onto another issue. I don't dispute the facts at all – everything you've said is totally correct – but I do think the tone and positioning comes off as a little "chippy". I'm not saying this was your intent, but that's how the edits came across to me, hence my concerns.

As we've suggested above, a compromise wording could go in the main history section of the article, not the lead. Arthur Holland (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, thanks for the explanation, at least. It looks to me as though the work of "Woodseats44" was attacked in the same way that mine was. I didn't realise, and they possibly didn't either, that you need permission or a stamp of approval for your contributions. I certainly wasn't pushing any agenda, just making the facts clearer. To say it is Anglican doesn't tell the whole story. That it was Catholic for hundreds of years (almost exactly as long as it has been Anglican) before it became Anglican needs to be apparent to any reader, particulary potential tourists and those with no knowledge of English church history. Cobulator (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As the first editor to undo the change that added "Like all medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England, Lincoln Cathedral is Roman Catholic in origin as it predates the Reformation." to the end of the page's lead section, my edit summary was clear: "Undid revision 479158186 by User:Woodseats44 (talk) - statement of a very general nature, made in good faith, but applicable to all Church of England churches of the same era." and it seems to me that words liked "attacked" are unnecessarily aggressive when used in this context. However, Cobulator (talk) is a relatively new single purpose account and deserves to be cut some slack.

I would, if possible, like to see both these issues addressed:

1. Surely the statement should relate specifically to either (a) ownership of the building; or appointment of its management (that, I think I am correct in saying, became the Dean and Chapter once it was established as a Cathedral Church - which it has not always been); or (c) the source of the liturgy used? And it would probably be better located in the history section
2. As the original statement appeared to be applicable to all Church of England churches of the same era, the point made above by Arthur Holland (talk) about incorporating this consistently across all applicable pages should be discused - and I'm not certain this is the right topic for such a wide-ranging discussion about a well-known historical fact that is certainly covered by the main Church of England page.—GrahamSmith (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure if you mean User:Cobulator deserves some slack because he/she is a SPA or because they are new; but while we are giving them the benefit of the doubt, it might be worth considering that the IP which made this edit, also made this one, which repeated this. Make of it what you will, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, IMHO new editors that are mildly disruptive (because they haven't yet got to grips with Wikipedia's culture) should be encouraged to seek consensus before making potentially contentious changes. And, Moonraker12, you also make a very interesting observation on IP addresses.—GrahamSmith (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Cobulator and cannot see why a, dare I say it. fundamental fact (ie that the Cathedral's origins are pre-Reformation and that the Cathedral was built at a time when the church in England had its allegiance to Rome) should be completely ignored. I am not pushing an agenda here but I think there is something arrogant and dismissive about the use of the words "crowbarring of a not very pivotal fact" as used by one of the 'editors' in the section above this. I think, 'now Anglican' is a good compromise in that it accurately defines the Cathedral's current status but also suggests (without labouring the point) that this was not always the case. Enough information, I would venture to say, for an interested reader to find out more - should they choose or desire to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.222.192 (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mother Church

The assertion that St Mary's was a Mother Church is odd. The wikilink is no help. Needs a citation? Myrvin (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify which this is referring to, as there may be some confusion with so many churches of that time being dedicated to St. Mary. Please let me know if your source(s) show something different—GrahamSmith (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified it a bit more. It is important for the article to say this church is in Stow - I've seen it. Also, the article on Mother Church is in such a mess there is no point in people being directed to it. I've removed the wikilink. The term here can only mean the major church of an area, which is only a passing thought in the linked article. Myrvin (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

I know this may sound so radical as to start an argument, but I perceive it as pointless having a county map filling up space, when one click on the co-ordinates will call up every type of map one could possibly want. The map occupies a lot of space (like the horrible box full of info that is also found within the article) and means that pictures of this, England's sublime work of architecture, are either sandwhiched or pushed down. Right now, the pics are horribly overcrowded. I am not suggesting fewer pictures because , as with all great artworks, a picture is worth a thousand words. The thousand words, however, do help the less-well-informed on the subject to understand what it is they are looking at. Amandajm (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Contentious edit

This:-
"Its origins pre-date the Protestant Reformation by over three hundred years"
was added without explanation or discussion by IP 84.45.222.192 (talk) yesterday: As it reflects the same sentiment which has been added repeatedly to this and other pages, by a single-purposed editor (using a variety of accounts) who has not made any attempt to reach a consensus position, (see above, here and here, for previous discussions) I’ve reverted it.
If there is any value in having this information in the article, or any point other than disruption in adding it, then explanations are invited (again!) here. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Country

Should the country say in England or United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readthisandlearn (talk • contribs) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The country should be England which is more specific. Keith D (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Keith - England is more specific, and fits with the way it is described in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree also. I was surprised to see that it looked (I may, as always, be getting it wrong) as if Readthisandlearn changed it again after asking this question and after at least one reply. Given that he/she has done the same change at Brian Garvey and also been reverted there, I would have thought it was something worth discussing rather than just continuing with. To do the latter is almost bound to cause irritation, I fear. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Keith, I do agree with you now about being more specific. I just changed it to England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readthisandlearn (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

Does anyone know what facts need citing according to the banner? I reckon we could make this a B and move it on toward GA. But I'd like to sort the banner out as a first step.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few. I'd start by scanning it for particular facts/claims that currently lack citations - e.g. "The cathedral is the 3rd largest in Britain (in floor space) after St Paul's and York Minster, being 484 feet (148 m) by 271 feet (83 m). It is Lincolnshire's largest building...", and the sections which lack any citations at all - e.g. Little Saint Hugh, Rose windows, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Much as I loathe drive-by tagging, I might stick some tags in if I can't come up with any references myself. Next time I'm up there I'll buy the official guide book. I bet half of it comes from there!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Any photos wanted?

Wikimedia UK's annual conference is being held in Lincoln this year. While the charity doesn't control what goes on Wikipedia, if editors have requests for particular parts aspects of the cathedral there will be a group of editors in Lincoln who may be able to help if you can point them in the right direction. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A good idea, although there are already 215 images at Commons. I think it would be wise to try and use more of these before trying to decide what the gaps might be. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The conference is this weekend, so if you notice any gaps before then do let me know and I'll pass it on to volunteers. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a suggestion but it's not the simplest. A noted absence on the article is pictures of what the cathedral looked like before the spire collapsed; and people here and elsewhere "doubt" the spire was possible or would look right. If you go on one of the tours under the cathedral roof (tours are included in your ticket price (and are very interesting)) there is a very big model of the cathedral, complete with spires, in the exhibition space under the front section of the roof. I attempted to photograph it on my last visit, but it didn't come out very well (low light + its in a glass case). -so that would be my suggestion. -- Rushton2010 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The staff will be bringing a tripod from the office, so we should be able to handle poor light, and with a bit of luck we'll be able to do something about any reflections. The model will be covered by freedom of panorama, so I'll see what our volunteers can do. Thanks for the suggestion. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are any of the bells, in any of te towers, accessable to the public? Images might be useful? Some related links: [3], [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find the answer online, so I've emailed the visitor services at the cathedral to find out. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are bells. On the roof tour you get to see the bell ringer's chapel and the bell ringing rooms in the front towers. On the tower tour you get to see the actual bells in the central tower. There is a huge bell that they chime the hours on (they hit it now, but apparently they used to swing it and the tower would swing with it!) and then the smaller bells which do everything else. Our tour was timed so that we were in the bell chamber when the bell chimed the hour -an experience to say the least! You've never heard anything so loud- the tower shakes and then vibrates for ages, and the air buzzes for about a minute. Its not the easiest area to photograph though (I tried)- its a very tall room which you can't get into one frame; and the bells themselves are sat behind a tall metal railing and surrounded by a lot of metal and electronic stuff that chimes them (central tower bells are all digital/electronic - no pully-thingys (for want of a better word) any more). The tower tour also takes you to the very top of the central tower where on a clear day you can see for simply miles- with the help of the tour guides binoculars we spotted Ratcliffe on Soar power station in one direction and the Humber Bridge in the other. Normally I'm very averse to paying to go into cathedrals, but the unusual tours around Lincoln are well worth the money. But neither are for people who aren't good with heights! --Rushton2010 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I was in the bell tower of a very similar place last year and yes it is amazingly loud. In fact the lady who supervises (from inside a little booth) constantly wears ear-defenders! Nobody was taking photos of the bells, only of the outside views. But I would not have enjoyed carrying a tripod all that way up the narrow spiral stone staircase. Bell towers can be rather dimly lit. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We're weren't able to get a peek at the bells in the end, though we did manage a few photos. We were able to get one of the model, but it didn't include spires. It may prove handy though, so I'll see about uploading it. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. How strange is that. I was thinking of what might have happend, for the first time in over two weeks, and then only a few hours later, you reply. Look forward to your upload. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here they are. There were a few more with Wikipedians in, but I somehow don't think that's the kind of thing which might be useful to this article. I wonder if the gatehouse merits a stand-alone article. It's an interesting little building. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NB: I cleaned up one of the models and added a black background; the result was this:

Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's very impressive. The gatehouse interior stonework details are also really very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Very nice photos. I'd support an article for the gatehouse but I imagine it would quite quickly be petitioned to be merged.

This is the model I was on about btw: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/8478947719/ It's kept under the roof above the nave -its the only thing I've found that shows the spires. I'll email the guy that uploaded that photo on Flickr again... Didn't get a reply last time --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, luck would have it he's changed the permission settings (it was previously all rights reserved) so that it can be uploaded. So here you go: --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's quite incredible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice model. I've given it the same clean up treatment. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the model with the spires, that does look good, especially with the background taken out. We also got some photos of the castle if anyone's interested. I'll try to upload them tomorrow. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Always interested in pictures of castles! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent Rollback

Quite understandable that edits should be made to the article but recent edits rollbacked because it removed numerous facts with footnotes but only offered one main one relating to the bells at. Given this is a developed article, could we stick to single edits with clear NEW footnotes so sources are clear for each change and rollbacks aren't required? AnonNep (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll explain what I did- I removed several of the redundant categories in the infobox such as nonexistent dome details and demolition dates, also the sourced text says that Remigius died 2 days before consecration so I inserted that. The spire collapse is repeated so I removed that and corrected the date where it says the wrong year. Some of the details of its current size don't belong in History so I moved that to the lead section and I shifted the bell details to where the bell installation is covered. I clarified the wording "build quality" and I then removed the unsourced material about being used as a landmark that has been tagged for over 3 years because it is repeated a couple of lines later and also tagged there. Also there are errors flagged in the date format of the reference for Kendrick that the WP software didn't recognise so I removed them because, again, it was duplicating information anyway (actual information and reference itself are unaffected). Developed or not, the article is studded with mistakes and typos amongst other things, many of which you have preserved by reverting me. Can you rather request clarification before a rollback instead of afterwards?--Mevagiss (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And for all of those changes you introduced one source that was quoted once. Why? (NB: To restate above, all sourced edits and corrections are more than welcomed. Do them sourced and singular, don't wrap a bundle of unsourced edits around one (possible) fact.)AnonNep (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No I did not actually add any new material of my own, I only altered the presentation of material that retains its sources or has no sources.--Mevagiss (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So why did only one of your bundled (multiple) edits include a source (refname or otherwise)? AnonNep (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

All of my changes affected the presentation of the sourced material, but no new or different material - so there are no introduced sources, only the info from the sources that are already there. If you think that I added more details to the article then that is wrong. All the editing I did relates to text that was already there. No facts were removed only statements that have been challenged and not sourced, and the text is still there as before just in more order. I hope that makes my position clearer.--Mevagiss (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If you add information to an already existing link you can use a refname. Some of your additions, such as on the Lincoln Imp, come up on Google text searches back to 2012. Without a source how are we to know they're not cut and paste WP:COPYVIO? AnonNep (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln Cathedral. 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/20060820005339/http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Lincoln.htm to http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/Lincoln.htm

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).

• 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) 03:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Cost of maintenance

This source (p.19) says it spends "£1.6m a year" on essential repairs. So I think "850 million a month" is a mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln Cathedral. 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/20061005011720/http://www.lincolncathedralchoir.co.uk/ to http://www.lincolncathedralchoir.co.uk/

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).

• 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) 14:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln Cathedral. 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/20120119151144/http://lincolncathedral.com/2011/11/appointment-of-new-subdean/ to http://lincolncathedral.com/2011/11/appointment-of-new-subdean/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411065757/http://lincolncathedral.com/events/installation-of-subdean-and-canons/ to http://lincolncathedral.com/events/installation-of-subdean-and-canons/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lincoln.anglican.org/pdf_view.php?id=455

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).

• 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) 12:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources on original height

There are some weak sources listed on an important claim within this edition of the article:

With its spire, the tower reputedly reached a height of 525 feet (160 m) (which would have made it the world's tallest structure, surpassing the Great Pyramid of Giza, which held the record for almost 4,000 years). Although there is dissent, this height is agreed by most sources.

References

Seeing an archived post from 2005 from a website called Skyscraper News and a Time magazine article make me weary of how the other three sources hold up. Does anyone have these books on-hand to reference? Tkbrett (✉) 20:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Skyscraper News and Time magazine citations and added a disputed inline template to the claim. Upon closer examination of the sources, I am even more skeptical of the claims given; the dissent is coming from a source specifically written about the Cathedral, while support for the height is coming from trade books. A title like Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries does not exactly inspire confidence. Tkbrett (✉) 15:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on the talk page for the Great Pyramid of Giza as well. Tkbrett (✉) 14:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Strassbourg cathedral has a 142 m tall stone spire built in the Middle Ages and is still standing. Therefore the 160 m height of Lincoln spire seems completely realistic to me: lighter wooden construction + average spire to tower ratio of medieval cathedrals + English speciality in building high spires makes the claim highly realistic. Although I do agree some better sourcing could be used.188.112.106.233 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Also the official model showed in this article clearly claims a 160 m high spire (I guess it wasn't made by idiots.) The 160 m hight is also mention in "Record Breakers" book a copy of which I own. Is it enough sources or should more be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.112.106.233 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC) 188.112.106.233 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a matter of having more sources, but rather better sources. Any existing sources seem rather flimsy, typically either coming from news articles (leading me to fears of WP:CITOGENESIS) and trade books. Until proper sourcing can be found, I think any references to the record height on this page should be removed. Tkbrett (✉) 13:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, because it's getting a bit ridiculous I added one more source, from a current University of Lincoln researcher (who happens to have a 100 year scientific progress advantage over Kendrick's "dubious" claim) clearly claiming:

- most historians agree on 160m heirgt

- Lincoln cathedral was the tallest building in the world

- surpassed the Great Pyramid of Giza

Now, please remove all the unnecessary dubious tag until you add a similar or better source claiming it's dubious. And also on the other pages you somewhat "vandalized".

But I'm affraid you Great Pyramid fanboys shall invent some unsupported reasons to protest what goes contrary to your beliefs. Like imagine rewriting all of wikipedia using this standard of evidence providing.188.112.124.172 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A piece on a local news website from a post-graduate student who does not specialize in the area in question is not the strong source we are looking for. Before you reply here again please take a moment to review WP:CIVIL. This area is to discuss content, not to wage personal attacks on other editors. Tkbrett (✉) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So after a year i decided to revisit this page. Found more objections so here is another source claiming 160 m : https://books.google.sk/books?id=9RKiDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Lincoln+Cathedral+height+science&source=bl&ots=j3MwB9Fzb8&sig=ACfU3U1boH-NXZ_fKeMfxhVWaE1U1OCV3w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfr6nwktv4AhX1XvEDHbfYDrEQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false page 75

Giovanni Solari - Professore di Tecnica delle Costruzioni, Università di Genova

I eagerly await your new objections. Is this civil enough? You realise you give no scientific reference to counter these claims except for a 100 year + old Kendrick. 188.112.82.24 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to contest accepted facts, it is to supply the general consensus, which in this case agrees that Lincoln Cathedral was indeed the tallest building in the world. For that reason, any vandalism of dubious tags or other things should be removed. A simple line, such as on the 'History of the world's tallest buildings' page should be enough to suggest that some believe it to be false, but the consensus says otherwise. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct title of Bishop Edward King? (Burials section)

I question the appelation 'The Blessed' prefixing Edward King's name; the title implies beatification, which I understand is only done in the Roman Catholic Church (he being a Church of England bishop who lived post-Reformation), commonly to martyrs and those to whom miracles were attributed after death. Am I right?Cloptonson (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln Mystery Plays

There's an AfD-merge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Mystery Plays), not actioned for many months, with an outcome of merge to the Lincoln Cathedral page. Looking at Lincoln Mystery Plays, though, it seems that the content would be out-of-place and unbalance this page. Rather, I think that a better target for hte merge would be N-Town Plays, with Lincoln Mystery Plays having a distinct section there as a modern adaptation of a traditional collection. That would seem to place the material better in context. Klbrain (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)