Talk:Derby Cathedral/Archive 1

Archive 1

English Anglican Cathedral Towers

Greetings. Going from memory, for one has not the means to do otherwise, the 'rankings' for the said structures be thus... 01. Liverpool (Vestey / central crossing tower/cct) 331'; 02. Lincoln (cct) 271'; 03. Canterbury (Bell Harry /cct) 235' (though 215' once noted); 04. Gloucester (cct) 225'; 05. Durham (cct) 218'; 06. Ely (western tower/wt) 215'; 07. Derby (wt) 212'. The measurements be in imperial (feet) - ones language ! Remember, we are talking towers only, not domes or spires.ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid memory is not enough. Wikipedia's policy is that we should go with the sources over "truth". The situation is quite simple though; if you are correct it should be easy to find a source describing Derby as having the 9th tallest tower amongst Anglican cathedral. Nev1 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, no such source - on the web or in print exists to the extent of ninth place ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then in the absence of alternative sources we must stick with the existing source which describes the tower as third tallest. Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake! How many are likely to care whether it is the 3rd, 9th, 13th or whatever highest? If there are no reliable surveyors' reports available it should just be omitted.--Charles (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Charles and I am going to remove any reference to the ranking of heights. It is clear that we do not have reliable sources. First, looking at our own articles on cathedrals gives at least two. Liverpool and Lincoln, that are higher at 100.8m and 83m. Second, the Lincoln Cathedral's own site claims it is the highest Cathedral Tower in Europe, yet the Liverpool height is sourced in our article. The Mountain Research Team is a reliable source for heights, but there no reason to suppose it knows the heights of all other Cathedral Towers in the UK to rank them. The ranking is clearly not known reliably. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree also, but, have done likewise on the Derby city page. This page was claiming it be both the second and the third tallest ! It be nonsense like this which brings 'wiki' into disrepute. That said, seventh place would appear to be correct... but who is counting ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.33 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So we agree then ? ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To what? I only agree that we should not mention ranking of heights. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree to disagree !... at least regarding the rankings ? Agree to leave out the rankings on the main page ? ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The height is settled then ? Methinks 212' also. But, did you know... the guidebook (and one or two other books) speculate as to the original intentions... the plan was to cap it with either a lantern (as per Boston Stump) or even a spire ! Regarding spires... there be an unwritten convention... 50/50. That is to say... a spire should be as tall as the tower which it atops. There are of-course many exceptions. But, if put into practice in this case, that would give us Englands / Britains tallest such structure... 424'... if only ! The Syth ! (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)