Talk:Salisbury Cathedral

Check the facts about Monastic Origins

Just returned from a tour of Salisbury Cathedral, where the guide said that although they had cloisters, there were never any monks living there.

I yanked the reference. Salisbury was not monastic. Good catch and thank you. Robshill 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up the original picture

I accidentally overwrote the original picture. I reverted back to tfa it, but now it doesn't show up somehow.

If you mean Image:Salisbury Cathedral.jpg on the Commons, don't worry, it looks like you did the right thing. You are most likely being caught out by one of the image caches. One of the headaches of working with images as that either your browser or the wiki servers can cache an earlier version of an image, so you don't always see your revisions immediately. If you are using Firefox or InternetExplorer, it can sometimes help to press <CTRL>-F5 to force a reload. To force the Wiki serves to purge the cache for an image, you have to write a tricky little URL like this purge link, but that is a bit of a black art. Waiting a little while will also do the trick, but that is very convenient.

By the way, the Image:Salisbury Cathedral Detail Arches.jpg looks rather good too. Nice one. -- Solipsist 16:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Added a photo of mine of the picture taken in 2006 Megatonman (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

is this true?

Is it true (as claimed by ripley's) that salisbury cathedral has:

12 doors for each month of the year; 365 windows for each day of the year; 24 pillars for each hour in a day; 60 sculptures for each minute in an hour; and 60 crosses for each second in a minute?

Can someone verify this?

If it's true, then this is certainly an awesome building.

No it isn't... the floor plan shows quite clearly there are 50 small and four large pillars, and abotu half a dozen doors.

Not true, but the traditional rhyme

As many days as in one year there be,

So many windows in this church you see,

As many marble pillars here appear

As there are hours throughout the fleeting year,

As many gates as moons one here does view,

Strange tale to tell, yet not more strange than true.

is found here William Avery 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source discussing that legend (in the footnote on p. 143), which is apparently older than the words in Wm. Avery's rhyme above. It's apparently been said of other cathedrals as well but more often of Salisbury's: he credits the nearness of Stonehenge and folk memories of druid sites. (In Salisbury's case, though, that would have been at the site of the old cathedral.)

This seems to be old and widely-reported enough that it merits (sourced and debunking) inclusion in the article, possibly under a legend section that would also include the foundation by belomancy. — LlywelynII 23:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It may not be true about Salisbury Cathedral, but it is absolutely true about Eggenberg Castle, Austria:

"There are 365 outside windows, which correspond to the days of the year. Each floor consists of 31 rooms, which correspond to the days of the longest months. Three of them, which lie exactly on the middle axis - the Planetary Room, chapel and theatre (which has now been converted into the palace church) - are rooms with a special significance. If they are subtracted from the complete set of 31 rooms, you get 30, 29 and 28, i.e. all possible variants of the number of days in the months of the year. The 24 hours of the day correspond to the circle of 24 state rooms, 12 on each side of the symmetrical axis, which separates the palace into two corresponding halves, 12 hours for the day and 12 hours for the night. The 24 rooms have a total of 52 windows for the weeks or the amount of Sundays in the year. Adding the 8 windows in the Planetary Room, you get the number 60 which stands for the number of seconds or minutes. There are even 52 doors in the Bel Étage. In the Planetary Room itself, you can also find the 7 days of the week and the 12 months of the year. And even the park wall has 12 doors opening towards the outside, seven of which face towards the city."

https://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/palace-and-gardens-schloss-eggenberg/princely-residence/programme/eggenberg-calendar

--Edelseider (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How fascinating. One wonders if Eggenberg Castle will be flooded with Russian tourists this year as a result. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL. It's actually close to Slovenia, where Melania the FLOTUS is from. So... maybe. --Edelseider (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have attempted to expand and add references to the article. I will continue to reference and expand in coming weeks. LordHarris 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bell Tower

I saw a documentary today, that mentioned that there was a medieval bell tower, and two later chapels that were demolished by James Wyatt Jason404 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Font

The font as depicted in the gallery at the bottom of the article has been removed, and there are currently plans for a permanent font to be build in it's place. Should the image be kept until the new font is installed or removed now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPoodle (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone think the main picture should be changed?

It's really old and the resolution is awful! Raggatt2000 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:SalisburyCathedral01.jpg. This is one of mine, not sure it's much better, but at least there is no scaffolding! – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current picture looks OK; and it’s a fairly common perspective, if this is anything to go by. What would you prefer?

And it’s a pretty substantial image (1295 x 1096); how much resolution do you want? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's a good angle. If you expand it to full size though, it's awfully grainy. It's obviously quite an old photo and digital photography has progressed a lot since it was taken! I figured it might be time for an update. Raggatt2000 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a quick search at the Geograph project and see what I can find. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I found several nice ones: one, two, and three (shame about the red van!). They are all available under licenses suitable for Commons and I would be more than happy to try to tweak any or all of them and upload there. Thoughts? – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) would be all right. In (2) the focal point is the two people sitting on the grass, and (3), as you say, is spoilt by the red van. If replaced, I suggest we should keep the present main picture by moving it down into the gallery. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will upload (1) to Commons and add it to the article, keeping the current image there too. If folks don't like it, it's easy to undo. – ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done and moved the previous image to the gallery. – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, looks good! Raggatt2000 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! overtaken by events, again! Still, I suppose it makes more sense to have a picture of the front of the place than the back. But, is it just me or does the spire look like it’s leaning in this one? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just perspective - I will take a crack at fixing it in Photoshop when I have some time to do so. Some day I will buy a tilt/shift lens for my Canon 5DII... – ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger. I came this close to updating the image with , but seem to have missed the boat by a week. I don't mean to quibble, but given that you shot it with a 5D MkII, it would be fab if you could upload a larger file (for future-proofing). I live within ten minutes of the cathedral and own a 5D MkII myself, but it would be morally dubious if I overwrote your image after only a week. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, the ibox image isn't one of mine - I found it on the Geograph project (a great source of images by the way, a large number of which have just been uploaded to Commons). I was just saying that some day I will get a t/s lens for my 5DMkII so I can do perspective correction "in lens" rather than "in Photoshop". When I do, I will have to schedule my trips back to the UK around photographic priorities! So no problem at all if you want to upload a higher res image of your own and replace the current one. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'm on your wavelength now. Surfing on your sine wave. In that case I have replaced the infobox image with a larger file. My only worry is that it includes Emily Young's Lunar Disc I - which is a permanent exhibit in the grounds - as a prominent compositional element. It's not the main subject and the file is not for commercial purposes. Also it is a wonderful sculpture and Emily Young is fabulous. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with that one is that the ugly scaffolding is visible, whereas it isn't in the previous image. Is the scaffolding still there? If not maybe once the weather improves someone could take a "scaffolding-free" image? – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For my money I think the replacement was better. There's a much clearer view of the cathedral with barely any visible scaffolding. The exhibit in the foreground is interesting but it should be subordinate to the cathedral which is after all the main subject of the article. As mentioned by someone above, the west wall shown in the previous photo is a common view of the church and so, despite its shortcomings in resolution, I'd say it's a more suitable choice. I vote let's keep it until one of you 5D Mk II boys gets around to taking a new one! Raggatt2000 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The scaffolding is unfortunately scheduled to remain in place until 2015.[1] I was never happy with including the Emily Young sculpture - she's still alive - and so I have replaced the image with one taken a few minutes before, of the western face of the building, that includes no public art whatsoever. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! Amazing colour sky, were you using a polarising filter? – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. It was shot with a Canon 5D MkII, using an Olympus 21mm f/3.5; on the front of the lens I had one of those Cokin filter system things with a polarising filter and a graduated ND. I corrected the perspective with Photoshop, and sized it down to six megapixels (which helps to hide the loss of quality from software perspective correction). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I am intrigued. Can you e-mail me (via Wikipedia e-mail) details of the lens mount adapter? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there again! I think I have a better picture of the cathedral now - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salisbury_Cathedral_WestFront.jpg . It's the view of the west facade on a nice sunny day. The detail of the statues and spire is crystal clear and there are no people/obstructions in it. Ideal, no? It's also the most commonly displayed view of the cathedral so probably quite suitable for the main picture in the article. Let me know and I'll switch it. Raggatt2000 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the image discussion again!

That’s a cracking picture of the west front, but... wouldn’t a view that shows off the spire be better?

I’m surprised at you saying the west facade is "the most commonly displayed view of the cathedral": I’d have thought something approximating to the Gainsborough view would be most common (I gather the view from the south is unavailable now)

I think on balance the current view (from the southwest, without a lot of foliage: like the one that ukexpat found in January, but without the van) fits the bill better. Moonraker12 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it might be worth a go! The cathedral website has the west wall view on its front page, and I think that they release a publication - the official guide? - which does too.

The current picture has an impressive sky, but frustratingly little of the detail of the church walls is actually visible, especially when displayed in reduced form for the thumbnail in the article. What do you think? Raggatt2000 (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery removal

Changes of such magnitude should not be made by a single editor without first establishing whether there is a consensus for the change; and especially not without a proper and reasoned explanation on the Talk page. The abrupt reason given is simply not credible either. Although it is true that all the gallery items are available elsewhere in Commons, visitors to this page would firstly, not be aware of the existence of those photographs; and secondly, not being aware of them makes searching for them on Commons impossible. Numerous Wikipedia pages use the Gallery device in order to direct visitor's searches in an appropriate direction. Indeed, that is no doubt why the facility is incorporated into the Wiki software. Neither do they intrude overly into the main article, confined as they are to a Gallery section close to the end of the main article. 81.156.94.77 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Current policy on galleries can be seen here.--Charles (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Charles. However it does not invalidate my comment about arbitrary changes of some magnitude without first attempting to find consensus. 81.156.94.77 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I did a little rejiggle of the gallery last night. There was no real order or grouping to the images so I introduced some. Now most of the outdoor ones are at the start, interiors follow, the 2 font pics are together, etc. Also, some of the older images seemed a bit dated and were duplicating others so I removed them. I think it's generally a bit more organised now.

Looking at Charles' link to the gallery policy above however, I can't help thinking that most of those images have been "shoehorned" in there. For example, why do we need two shots of the west front? Why do we need to see the shot with scaffolding in 2006? The policy makes the following requirement of galleries: The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I really don't think that the current layout achieves this.

I suggest we whittle down the number of images so we have one for each subject. This would make it more readable and manageable. Any comments? Raggatt2000 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, any thoughts about my last comments? Also, was thinking of updating the current picture of the cloisters this one? It's a little more colourful and more up to date... Raggatt2000 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Depictions in Art, Literature and Film

I have linked the mention of Ken Follett's mini-series to it's entry as well as editing in where the external shots fell in the show.Twobells (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• A Description of that Admirable Structure, the Cathedral Church of Salisbury. With the Chapels, Monuments, Grave-Stones, and their Inscriptions. To which is prefixed, An Account of Old Sarum. R. Baldwin (London), 1774.
• Jones, Wm. Henry Rich. Fasti Ecclesiæ Sarusberiensis: a History of the Cathedral Body at Sarum. (Salisbury), 1879.
• Bibliography [books.google.co.uk/books?id=A6kaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA109 here].

 — LlywelynII 10:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Burials

Moved from Template talk:Expand section

 – off-topic there

The Gorges Monument (1635) in Salisbury Cathedral is the tomb of Helena, Marchioness of Northampton and her husband Sir Thomas Gorges. Each side of the elaborate canopy above the tomb displays two cuboctahedra and an icosahedron. The monument as a whole is crowned by a celestial globe with a dodecahedron on top. It features stone polyhedra in Leonardo's. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gorges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chashum52 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Canon Treasurer

The Rev Canon Dr Robert Titley replaced Sarah Mullally as Canon Treasurer of Salisbury Cathedral late last year. Someone working at the Cathedral made the relevant edit to this article but it was reverted by another user as it was unsourced (the reference to Sarah Mullally being Treasurer is also unsourced as far as I can tell...)

It would be good if the page could reflect this development.

Ferdinand4321 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

[[File:|330px|Lady Chapel, Salisbury Cathedral]]

The lady chapel at Salisbury Cathedral, an Anglican cathedral in Salisbury, England. Pictured below the stained glass is an installation by the artist Nicholas Pope, called "The Apostles Speaking in Tongues Lit By Their Own Lamps".Photograph: David Iliff

Length

I believe the length is 135 m, definitely not 69 m -- Microbizz

Well spotted. On checking the history I found a typo in a good-faith edit on 14 September 2018. Now reinstated as 442ft / 135m. -- Wire723 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

discreet or discrete

The sentence reads:

The present-day instrument was built in 1877 by Henry Willis & Sons. Walter Alcock, who was organist of the cathedral from 1916, oversaw a strictly faithful restoration of the famous Father Willis organ, completed in 1934,] even going to such lengths as to refuse to allow parts of the instrument to leave the cathedral in case any unauthorised tonal alterations were made without his knowledge, while allowing some discrete additions in the original style of the organ (as well as modernisation of the organ's actions) by Henry Willis III, the grandson of Father Willis.[44] The instrument was extensively restored between 2019 and 2020.[Footnotes omitted.]

"discrete individually distinct; separate; discontinuous." "discreet" has a bunch of other meanings. So your revert was wrong. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Discreet in the sense of "unobtrusive" seems more appropriate in the context of Alcock wanting to keep changes to the organ to a minimum.

Unfortunately, none of these details are in the NPOR source therefore the whole sentence should be removed. Wire723 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

External links

The nature of Wikipedia: Things just grow. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Moved links here for possible discussion.

• Sarum Use at OrthodoxWiki
• A history of the choir
• Flickr images
• Salisbury official tourism website

References

Burials

This contains useful information but it is completely uncited and incomplete - and tagged as such - although I'm not sure how completeness would be assessed. It's also a bullet list. I'm thinking of turning it to prose and putting it in History, perhaps as a separate sub-section, Notable burials. Any thoughts/concerns? KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That would certainy work better, your main problem is getting references, at the moment it is original research, someone went round making notes of who was buried there I suspect. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Salisbury Cathedral Nave, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 18, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-07-18. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Salisbury Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in the city of Salisbury in Wiltshire, England. Built in early English Gothic style, it was constructed between 1220 and 1258. This photograph, taken in 2014, shows the interior of the cathedral, looking eastwards towards the high altar through the tall and narrow nave. It has three levels: a tall pointed arcade, an open gallery, and a small clerestory. In the foreground is an unconventional modern baptismal font, installed in September 2008. Designed by the water sculptor William Pye, it is the largest working font in any British cathedral. The font is cruciform in shape, and has a 10-foot-wide (3.0 m) vessel filled to its brim with water, designed so that the water overflows in filaments through each corner into bronze gratings embedded in the cathedral's stone floor.

Photograph credit: David Iliff

Recently featured:

• Bispira volutacornis
• Snake handling in Christianity
• Bronze-winged jacana

"Considered one of the leading examples of Early English Gothic architecture"

I have removed this fact, on the grounds that (a) it is cited to the cathedral's own website, so is in no way an impartial secondary source for a claim of being "leading", and (b) per WP:WEASEL it should be attributed for an opinion of this nature. This fact would probably worth including if it were properly cited, but when I looked a couple of weeks ago I couldn't find an obvious substitute making me wonder if this is widely held view.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1: you talk of "editing civilly", yet you have provided no justification for your reverts at all, bearing in mind you're re-inserting claims about it being a "leading cathedral" taken from the cathedral's own website. Maybe take a look at yourself before you start bandying accusations about, because your behaviour here is downright rude. This is supposed to be a collegiate project, not the KJP1 personal website. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru - I appreciate your consenting to discuss this. The edit summary that accompanied your first removal described the removed content as “fluff” and “meaningless”. You followed this up by edit-warring and describing the material as “poorly cited nonsense”. You then rather quickly reversed this view in part, re-instating some of the material. The material in question stated (a) that Salisbury is among the best EE examples, and (b) has a coherence of design that is rare. Pevsner describes Salisbury as the EE beau idéal and says, “Of all English cathedrals Salisbury is the most unified in appearance”. This is what I meant re. the difference between your assertion and the actuality. As to our respective editing behaviours, others can judge those, should they so wish. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

England or UK?

There is a dispute as to whether the spire is the highest in England or in the UK. The official guide book (Pitkin) claims it is the highest in Britain! (Though the freebee leaflet, given out at the cathedral, says in England). Anderson and Hicks Cathedrals in Britain and Ireland (page 95) claims it is the highest of its period in the world! The Shell Guide to England (page 285) says England. Unfortunately I don't have access to the relevant volumes of Pevsner or Mee. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The current Pevsner volume, painstakingly updated in 2021 by Julian Orbach, has on p.535 "The spire leaves all other English spires behind". No mention of any taller spire in the UK, however. Wire723 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Not helpful! Thanks for looking it up. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried KJP1 re Pevsner? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that 'highest in England' would make most sense. It also de facto the tallest cathedral spire anywhere in the UK, but that's a bit of a 'meh' factoid. When structures like this were built, the various part of the UK were separate countries, and English church architecture has been pretty different from the Scottish and Irish traditions for almost all of the history of British Christianity. Plus the there is no UK-wide religious body that runs them today. Just my tuppenceworth. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The BBC calls it the tallest in the UK, as do we, List of tallest church buildings in the United Kingdom, cited to the cathedral although the link no longer works. Personally, I prefer England. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

p.s. when I have a minute, I'll see whether Pevsner's Cathedrals of England has any more than the Wiltshire guide. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

So, The Cathedrals of England: The West and Midlands [Folio Society, 2005, p=195] has, "The height of the spire is 404 ft. It leaves all other English spires behind , though not all Continental spires. The tallest of all, that of Ulm ..." If there was a higher spire in the UK, I think Sir Nikolaus would have mentioned it, but that is supposition. What we can say is that he favoured the "England" construction. KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

First, it wasn't really a dispute, just more of a sock editor with a grudge disrupting my edits. More importantly, there is no doubt that it's the tallest spire in the UK. The reason it's better to say UK than England is that by saying England it's easy for the reader to infer that there is a taller spire in one of the other home nations. I don't think it needs a cn tag, as there are multiple sources available, and none that disputes the fact.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I would use the same source as KJP1. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Which doesn't actually resolve the argument. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

My view is that it should say UK, as otherwise the reader could infer that it's not the tallest in the UK, but only in England.

The second part of my argument is that RS support the statement, and there is no dispute as to the fact that it's true. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the view of others, including Pesner. What RS have you got that actually says "in the United Kingdom", so far the collective endeavours have failed to find a definitive statement. And claiming there is "no dispute", as you have - twice, without evidence doesn't wash either. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the only point I'm making is that there is no dispute regarding the fact itself - Salisbury is the tallest spire in the UK and no sources suggest anything different- the only discussion is whether we say that or not. Also please bear in mind that I was getting trolled by a banned sock; I'm not being argumentative and the reverts bear no relation to the content.

Also, to repeat myself (not sure how I've not been clear btw), I would use the same RS as KJP1. There's also this from The Telegraph.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph says Britain (as does Pitkin) not UK. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd have no issue saying Britain - the terms are interchangeable and different ways of saying the same thing: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the usual perversity of British geography, "Britain" and "United Kingdom" don't always mean the same thing, the former can be used to exclude Northern Ireland. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(not forgetting, Great Britain and the British Isles...) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

To add to the fun I have a book on the Islands of Britain which ignores Ireland completely! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to note (whatever the outcome here) that List of tallest church buildings says :"Tallest church in the United Kingdom; tallest in England" (with no supporting sources). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's own website says: "Britain’s Tallest Cathedral Spire". Can you trust them? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(Apologies for the random indent length, I've lost track of which post I'm replying to at this point.) I'm with KJP1 - it should be 'England'. I don't doubt for a second that it's also the tallest in the UK/British Isles/Europe north-west of an abritrary point, but so what? Nobody talks about 'British cathedrals' or 'UK cathedrals' as if they were a thing - the only connecting feature is that they have ended up existing within the borders of a modern political entity. It makes sense to talk about 'English cathedrals', which were built by the same church, following an English tradition, and are still operated by the same church. The only sources I can think of that would discuss 'Great British Cathedrals' as a coherent subject would be printed on glossy paper, with lots of photography and relatively few words, and would probably be advertised on the side bar of the Daily Mail's website. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"Signed copies available now!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

At the York Minster gift shop, they have singed copied of the original 1984 imprint. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Trouble is all the proper authorities (Pevsner) skirt round the problem. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The local buses say "Since 1549, the cathedral has had the tallest church spire in the United Kingdom, at 404 feet (123 m)." But that's hardly Pevsner, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Do they give a source? Haven't seen that on on a bus yet. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, who needs biased buses when the city's got independent Russian spire-spotters Anatoliy and Alexander. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Page 96 of Tatton-Brown (2009) here says: "... by far the tallest medieval masonry building in Britain." But perhaps that ignores all the higher cathedral spires made of steel or concrete? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

There aren't any taller spires of any type in the Uk.

I respect all opinions, and if consensus is to go back to England so be it as per Gurth Summit's contribution.

My only hesitation is that writing England does imply its not being true in one or more other home nations. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We are expending quite a lot of time/virtual ink over what is a stylistic, rather than a factual, disagreement. We currently have one lonely footnote in this article, rather concerningly about a supposed ley line. Would the addition of another address the concern here, e.g.

"Salisbury is also the United Kingdom's tallest cathedral. St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh is the tallest church building in Scotland at 295ft, St Eugene's Cathedral in Derry the tallest in Northern Ireland at 256ft, and Llandaff Cathedral is the tallest cathedral in Wales at 195ft, although it is exceeded in height by St Margaret's Church, Bodelwyddan at 202ft."

KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be a mighty fine way to settle it. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Good, I’ll just locate some sources (!), and drop something in. KJP1 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to say I changed back to England as per what appears to the consensus in this discussion. The note does the trick, but it seems you didn't actually revert to England. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting/correcting that! KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)