From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of the "Washington" window

As MDCollins ( talk · contribs) observed on my talkpage, this suggests the window dates to the 1440s. From what I know about heraldry and stained glass, that's just about reasonable (in fact, left to guess I would have said early 16th c.). This claim by a BBC journalist placing it in the 14th century is probably just a journalist not paying attention or not educated enough to translate "1440" into "15th century".

If I am wrong and it's indeed from the 14th century, I will sheepishly retract my remarks about uneducated journalists, but I will also be baffled at this very early example of heraldic stained glass. The 14th century date would make it very notable for its sheer age, never mind "Washington". -- dab (𒁳) 08:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Selby Abbey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{ Cite}} templates
  2. Add notes on grade listed building
  3. Add some detail on notable architectural features of building/furnishing etc.
  4. Expand on history
Keith D 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Last edited at 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Selby Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Organists section

I’m not seeing any reason to maintain a list of organists/directors that have no established notability. I have removed them for now. Hy Brasil ( talk) 17:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank for your comments. I have recently been made aware of a number of concerns about inaccuracies and significant omissions pertaining to various sections of the Wikipedia page about the Abbey. So after a significant amount of research, today I have sought to improve these issues by making the appropriate changes which I hope will a) be in the public interest, and b) ensure individuals are represented fairly and accurately. I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to make unjustified judgements on any individuals’ notability. I am grateful for your interest and hope you will feel able to accept and understand our reasoning, now that this has been fully explained. 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D ( talk) 22:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Do not edit war. Your content did not cite a wp:reliable source. See wp:citing sources. The people on those lists do not meet wp:notability (people). See wp:lists of people. Please follow Wikipedia's wp:policy which has been established by the Wikipedia community. This is not your article. See wp:Ownership of content. You need to establish wp:consensus here before restoring your content. Adakiko ( talk) 23:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It is impossible and impractical to cite a source for every single piece of information on Wikipedia. However, I was hoping to come back to the article and add to the sources for the information I have added, but this takes time, and every time I come back to do more work on the article, you and HyBrasil keep editing or deleting large sections of information with poor justification for doing so. We would appreciate it if you could both, for example help us cite sources for the information which was long-established in the article prior to your editions. To more closely follow Wikipedia’s policies we are trying to make the article more complete, accurate and less subjective. We would really appreciate your help in doing this. Thank you. 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D ( talk) 05:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The information and lists now restored do indeed meet the criteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:311F:4AA2:3E38:2B87 ( talk) 17:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I find this quote “We do not wish, or feel it is necessary or appropriate for us, Wikipedia or anyone else to make judgements on any individuals’ ‘notability’” to be disturbing. So you are saying that you aren’t willing to adhere to one Wikipedia’s core policies? I would hope for a response to this before you attempt to reinsert any content into this article. Hy Brasil ( talk) 01:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
No. We seek to adhere to Wikipedia’s policies by helping to make the lists and information in the article as accurate, complete and up-to-date as possible. 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D ( talk) 05:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Did you read the policies that were linked above? Specifically notability and lists of people? This is a collaborative project. Your insistence on edit warring to restore contested portions of the article is frustrating, and frankly, aggravating. This is not a directory. It is not a running list of who has served there in various capacities, unless they meet notability requirements, which you have repeatedly dismissed. Hy Brasil ( talk) 11:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Why did you do this? They do not need to be notable. They have all served in the post. It is of interest and in the name of history to have the names of these organists. What a prick 82.132.185.50 ( talk) 22:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I can only assume you are someone who missed out on the job as DoM and are taking it out on the Wikipedia page. Get a grip 82.132.185.50 ( talk) 22:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Organ section failed verification

The National Pipe Organ Register sources give information on the organ's specifications and builders, but no information on the organists, recitals, etc. Adakiko ( talk) 01:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Editing by undisclosed paid editor

See talk on this page here Adakiko ( talk) 01:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Article update

Two ‘contributors’ have recently removed large amounts of valuable information which hitherto was long-established in this article, and they repeatedly reject and ‘re-edit’ almost all subsequent editing contributions which aren’t theirs. They attempt to justify this either by suggesting that every single further piece of submitted info or statement must be given a citation, or they argue that any new information (not provided by them) shouldn’t be retained because it isn’t ‘notable’ enough. In order to bring a sense of calm and balance, and to improve this article collaboratively for the benefit of all, it is now being edited and monitored by several other individuals (unpaid). Further contributions from anyone else would therefore be particularly welcome. But please discuss and gain consensus here before REMOVING significant information. Subjective and dogmatic editing behaviour will continue to be challenged. To this end I’ve restored some information today and can confirm the relevant criteria have been met: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)::::: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:311F:4AA2:3E38:2B87 ( talk) 10:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Are the lists of Abbots and Vicars largely made up of notable people? If so it should be possible to write articles about most of them, yet there is only one name on each list which has its own article. I have done web searches for some of the names and these give a number of brief mentions, but they appear to lack the significant coverage needed to meet the basic criteria of the general notability guideline. EdwardUK ( talk) 15:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply
“The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthyenough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) 151.249.70.94 ( talk) 19:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Washington Window update 2023

“Adakiko”, you have removed a paragraph of information which was sourced from the abbey website. Your justification for doing this is copyright violation. I’ve had permission to use the website material so there is no copyright issue. So I am restoring the paragraph. 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:51EB:C652:460C:6A68 ( talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Copying text verbatim in a copyright violation. You need to provide evidence to wp:Volunteer Response Team that you have permission. Simply saying so is not sufficient for Wikipedia's copyright policy. See wp:Copyright_violations. That text It is thought to form the basis of the modern day Flag of the United States, otherwise known as the Stars and Stripes or The Star-bangled Banner. is not supported by the source and is wp:synthesis.
https://www.selbyabbey.org.uk/washington-window/ is a wp:primary source. Please use secondary or tertiary sources. The article has 15 citations to selbyabey.org.uk. That is too many. Adakiko ( talk) 19:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI: your recent edits to Selby Abbey were were wp:revision deleted as being a copyright violation. Note the Selby Abbey page history and Selby Abbey log (entry at the bottom) and RD1 info. You need to have the copyright holder send verifiable permission to release the copyright to the wp:Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Once published on Wikipedia, it will be released irrevocably per the license below the Edit summary bar. e.g. it will essentially be public domain. Please make sure the copyright holder is aware of this. Instructions are likely on the VRT page. Thank you Adakiko ( talk) 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Selby_Abbey&oldid=1195728205"