User talk:HwætGrimmalkin

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, HwætGrimmalkin!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not shorten SMR identifiers

Hi HwætGrimmalkin, edits like [1] are harmful, all hyphens at the end of an SMR identifier are required. See {{Archaeological Survey of Ireland}} for details. I've reverted these edits as far as I have seen them. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for letting me know. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Cultural property removal

Hi HwætGrimmalkin!

What is the reason for removal of Cultural property of national significance in Switzerland template in my file Chateau Batiaz? Tupungato (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It's an example of unnecessary redundancy, since all of that information is found in the category to which the building pictured belongs, Château de la Bâtiaz (in fact, the information provided is more specific). This causes parent categories to be clogged up and makes it harder to find items which lack more specific subcategories (often because there's only one or two images of it, so an entire category isn't particularly necessary or because such information is presently unknown). Additionally, it's common for this to result in a template being placed at the top of parent category requesting that items with a subcategory have the parent category removed; in fact, Cultural properties of national significance in Switzerland had such a template. Please check Template:Categorise for details. Hope this helps! HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong monument ID

Hi HwætGrimmalkin. As for you reverts of Category:Chapel of Corpus Christi (Kutná Hora), please notice that 27974/2-3304 is the house Pod Hrádkem 27/1, not the chapel. The Chapel of Corpus Christi is registred and protected as a part of the complex of the Church of Saint Barbara, ID 33635/2-1043 and is not registered separately.

Maybe, you was confused by the image File:Kutna Hora Pod Hradkem 27.JPG which displays primarily the house, but it is categorized also into the category of the chapel which is partly visible in the top right corner of the photo. ŠJů (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong message on revert

Hi. I just reverted one of your changes (diff) with an edit message that sounded too strong. My apologies. I don't think that Category:Chestnuts as food should be added here as the chestnut filling is not visible. We wouldn't add a category for flour or butter, even if they're also ingredients.

On a separate note, what is the reason behind this diff? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

For my question about removing the {{Belarus heritage}} tag, please see the code of the template. It sets categories such as Category:WLM/112Г000057 when the tag is added to a file. Removing the tag caused these categories to be depopulated. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Depopulated? That's the opposite issue, since many such categories are too crowded. It's an example of an unnecessary redundancy, since all of that information is found in the category to which the building pictured belongs. This causes parent categories to be clogged up and makes it harder to find items which lack more specific subcategories (often because there's only one or two images of it, so an entire category isn't particularly necessary or because such information is presently unknown). It's quite common for what you are suggesting to result in the use of Template:Categorise (please check that page for details). HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

By removing the template, you are removing files from categories in Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Belarus. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case, simply manually add the category to the images, rather than overcrowding otherwise useful categories. Gallery pages aren't even used that often, so I fail to see how they could be more important than the categories. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not discussing about the value of the categories. As can be seen from a message from another user above, your deletion of these templates can be controversial, especially since you do not write edit messages to explain why you are removing them. I would recommend that you do so in the future, and take a better look at the consequences of removing them. Now what are you planning to do to re-add the pictures to the categories in Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Belarus? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Reredoses in England (plural)

Please would you kindly explain why you replaced the above category with Category:Reredos in England (singular), when categories of objects or types are usually in the plural? The singular is reredos, and the plural is reredoses. See Wiktionary, or just Google it. Storye book (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked the OED: the plural is the same as the singular, which is also why reredos in other countries are labeled "Reredos in _"

Please use reliable sources! Google is assuredly not one and Wiktionary fails to site sources for this particular word in English. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the OED does give "reredos" as the plural. But it is interesting that it seems to be the only source mentioned online which says the singular is the same as the plural. I have been working with church artefacts such as reredoses for years, and that plural is always used in the UK, as far as I know. I think there must be two usages of the plural in existence worldwide, and that is why you and I have found different search results. The University of Creative Arts in the UK uses "reredoses" as the plural, e.g. here. But as we have between us found two alternative plurals, we must accept one (without saying that the other is "wrong"), so I am happy to accept whichever. Storye book (talk)

Interesting, since I'm also using sources with British spelling… Not sure why that's happening. Either way, given that the pages for other countries use "reredos" as the plural, I think it'd be better to be consistent. HwætGrimmalkin (talk)

Yes I agree with you, as I said above. I am intrigued by the "Hwaet" in your username, though. When I studied early Anglo-Saxon poetry, my tutor was a former student of Tolkien (who was a really nice man, apparently). "Hwaet" was the call to indicate the start of a poetry recitation in the old Saxon halls. But I have always felt that Anglo Saxon poetry was not just chanted, but actually sung, so that perhaps "hwaet" was a musically decorative (maybe melismatic) intro - the type that we now hear in cante jondo flamenco. But of course we don't really know. So I was wondering how you came to use that word. Storye book (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't that much thought into it, I'm afraid. For one thing, I don't actually know Old English. When I read Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, I really liked the insight he had into that word, and then I just appended it to a Shakespeare reference. So I suppose my username means I'm addressing a cat (although I misspelt it). HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hehe, a great name, anyway, and inspired by Heaney, too. Respect! Storye book (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

St Alban's Church, Highgate - Bunce reredos

You need to stop your unacceptable behaviour at Category:St Alban's Church, Highgate - Bunce reredos, and self-revert your latest edit there.

Multiple sources - including the church itself, Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery, and the author of a PhD thesis on the artist - describe the piece as a reredos. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know how my behaviour is "unacceptable." You should have simply stated that to begin with and saved us both time and trouble (and some web-based road rage on your part). HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You are both right. Both the reredos (which stands on the floor) and the retable (which stands on the back of the altor or on some sort of stand or plinth) are altarpieces. "Reredos" is the more precise term for the object in question, because it stands on the floor, so that would be the most useful category. But the object is still also an altarpiece - and a very beautiful one, if I may say so. Thank you for uploading the pix. Peace and love. Storye book (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing it depends on the context. In the various sources I've read, a reredos is physically part of the wall while an altar piece stands on top of the altar or just behind it. I'm guessing that works focusing on architecture (rather than painting and sculpture) give another definition. (Unlike spelling, such an unusual word is not likely to have different definition depending on which side of the pond you are, so I'm guessing it's a field thing.)

In the case at hand, the images appeared to give the impression that the work was separate from the wall, which is why I thought it was an altar piece. As such, until the actual reason was given (namely that experts refer to it as a reredos), I had no idea why. (Still don't know why they got so incensed.)

Either way, thank you for your sane and calm responses! I really appreciate it! HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

One more. And thanks!

One more, 1998.

For your earlier addition to the other photo. Vysotsky (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

File:West Bowling St Stephen (8).JPG

Thank you for adding the polygonal apse category to the above and to its related images. However, please do not remove the chancel categories. "Apse" does not mean "chancel". Roman baths had apses, and when cathedrals have apses, they are often priest's meeting places behind the chancel. "Apse" is about architectural form. "Chancel" is about usage, even though it may be associated with certain architectural forms. To put it another way, a chancel has (or previously had) an altar in it. An apse does not need to have any special contents or usage to be an apse. Hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason I removed the category from those images is not due to the definition of "apse" but the definition of "chancel." Essentially, the term "chancel" was being used to refer to the East end of any given church, which is not what it means. When speaking of churches, "chancel" can either refer to a squared-off East end (especially common on the British Isles) or the area within the church where the altar is, also known as the "sanctuary," regardless of whether the altar is in the East end or the centre. For the categories on this website, the second definition is overly specific and usually the altar or the structure where the sanctuary is is used instead. Additionally, "apse" was also being used for other curved structures, even if they weren't at the end of a longer structure and therefore not apses. In short, I removed the instances where according to the definitions the category did not rightly apply. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In the church in the picture, the altar is in the chancel. That chancel has a chancel arch, and there is a chancel behind that chancel arch. There is no reason not to call it a chancel. The sanctuary is only a part of the chancel.

Chancel: The eastern arm of a cathedral or church, coming off the crossing altar, sanctuary, and often the choir. The chancel is sometimes raised on a higher level than the rest of the cathedral or church and separated from it by a screen or railing. Sanctuary: The part of a chancel where the high altar is situated, the most sacred part of a cathedral or church. (Hopkins, Owen (2012), Reading Architecture, a Visual Lexicon, Laurence King Publishing, p.156).

Chancel: Latin cancellus = a screen. The space for clergy and choir, separated by a screen from the body of the church.(Banister-Fletcher (1938), A History of Architecture, on the Comparative Method, 10th edition, London, B.T. Batsford Ltd, p.967)

That chancel has an altar rail. It fits the above descriptions. It is a chancel. The chancel arch contains the remains of a rood screen. Everything seen through the chancel arch is the chancel, or part of the chancel. Storye book (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I wasn't being clear before. Sorry. What I meant is that it comes down to being consistent and avoiding being overly specific.

The definitions you are using are technically correct, yes. The terminology as you are using it may be also referred to as their liturgical definitions (or perhaps "functional" would be a better way to phrase it).

However, as far as I can tell, that is not how any of those terms are being used for the categories on this website. Instead, the term "chancel" is used to refer to East ends of churches which are not apses (or less frequently, also what remains of an apse once you exclude the ambulatory and chevets, but only in those apses which have them), which is how these terms are typically used architecturally. For the British Isles (and only the British Isles), there seems to be some confusion, probably due to so few churches having apses (such that "chancel" is sometimes being treated as a synonym for the East end of a church). This means that the categories are being used differently for buildings on the British Isles alone.

Basically, it comes down to the sense of the terms; unfortunately, English doesn't have a signal term for the East end of churches, rather, "East end" is as close as you get. And in the Wikimedia commons, as far as I can tell, the architectural senses of "chancel" and "apse" are what are being used for these structures. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe that you are confused about English churches, and you need to check with an English churches expert such as Hassocks5489. Some of our older churches are up to 1000 years old, and are built on the site of previous wooden churches over 1100 years old. Those wooden churches were tiny because the priest worshipped inside, and the great unwashed worshipped around a high cross standing outside at one end. That wooden church would be replaced by a little stone church, and later a large nave was added to the little building, to accommodate large numbers after populations increased. So a typical old English church has a big shed of a nave, with the much older little church at one end. The little-church section retained the altar and was called the chancel, because during Roman Catholic times it was screened from the nave by a rood screen.

In the 19th century there was a huge movement to build thousands of extra churches to accommodate an increasing population, and most of those 19th-century churches were built to copy the old ones, i.e. a large shed nave with a little building on the (usually east) end, called the chancel. (Very modern, late 20th to early 21st-century English churches may have any shape, some with a central altar, and many of those would not fit into this discussion).

So if you find that the categories that you are using do not fit English churches at all, then somebody needs to change the categories urgently. Meanwhile, I suggest that you respect the names and terminology of English churches, because English churches are not going to change their 1000-year-old terminology just because Commons has an inadequate set of categories which were created less than 20 years ago. Storye book (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I was trying to say at all (clearly, I left too much to be inferred, mea culpa).

What I meant is that there was confusion on the Wikimedia Commons, not English generally. It short, it's inconsistent — all I was doing is using "apse" for the apsidal structures and "chancel" for squared-off Eastern ends of churches, as is always the case when referring to architecture. Part of the reason I'm insisting on this is due to English never using the term "chancel" to mean the East end of churches generally when referring to churches outside of the British Isles (for example, discussions of East ends of churches in France or Germany only use the term "chancel" when the Eastern end is either squared-off or for the interior part of the apse, the part with the sanctuary).

Since apses aren't restricted to any single type of architecture and "chancel" has multiple definitions and uses, I think the only way to resolve this while keeping categories consistent across the board is to have an unambiguous category. So, as you suggested, I just added a category "Eastern ends of churches" to help resolve this issue. Thank you for suggesting it. Extending this to the subcategories and the apses in different locales — since they are not exclusive to churches — will take a while, but I'm getting the process started at least.

(Also, — while I have no idea about the difference between the way the clergy and laity worshiped on the British Isles early in the Middle Ages — that story doesn't match up with the architecture, archæology, or history, at least as I know it. From what I know, during the Perpendicular Gothic period, most churches which had an apsidal East end were modified. That's why most British churches whose Eastern end hasn't been modified since the Decorated Gothic period are apsidal: Westminster might be a poor example, but most of the others I can think of are small country churches, to wit the Church of St Mary in Lastingham in the North Ridding of Yorkshire and St Gregory's Church in Heckingham, Norfolk. That story of the laity all worshiping outside sounds very suspect to me; English ecclesiastic architecture would be very different if the laity worshiped from the exterior, and the churchyards would be much larger — I do know that people rarely received communion, but that's different. I'm wondering why there is such a discrepancy between what we know.) HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mill Hill chapel, built with the altar and chancel at the north end

This situation is getting worse. You misunderstood me. I said that the chancel is usually put at the east end, but it is certainly not always so. See File:St Stephen West Bowling (119).JPG, which was built in the 19th century. You can't categorise the chancel end of an English church as the east end unless you have clear evidence (and preferably a citation) that the church is aligned east-west. Yorkshire, which is currently my area, has mostly 19th-century or later churches. Churches like that had be built on the small amount of land that was available. You were lucky with St Stephen West Bowling, because that one is aligned east-west. But some of them are north-east to south-west, and some of them, on very small town plots, are north-south. Although the altar is supposed to be at the east end, it often has to fit in with the architecture. Mill Hill Chapel, an inner-city church, had to fit the space allotted, though it had plenty of money spent on it, so it sits north-south.

I believe that you are wrong to try to force a mix of ancient and modern British architecture into a few inaccurate and random categories which were invented in the early 21st century by people who were mostly in America. To be on the safe side I think that you ought to prove that the church concerned is aligned east-west before you categorise its altar-end as the east end. Your story that English churches all started with apses at the east end then had those ends squared off, is nonsense. The earliest ones started off as wooden rectangular buildings which (if lucky) were replaced by stone buildings, which may or may not have had apses at some point. Most churches (and there are thousands of them) in my area are 19th-century, and they were built in all sorts of shapes and sizes and there are plenty which are not aligned exactly east-west. So I repeat - in English churches, the chancel is usually where the altar was originally intended to be, and the altar is usually where the chancel was originally intended to be. A good indication of that location is the chancel arch, which commonly divides the nave from the chancel. If you are not sure, please, please, do not categorise it. That would save us all a lot of trouble. Storye book (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about the cardinal direction East, I'm talking about the Liturgical East and West. When it comes to churches, one typically assumes the liturgical sense for the directions, even if the building is oriented differently (to speak of the cardinal directions relative to a church, one has to specify in some way).

Your claim that I've been using 21st-century American terminology is wrong. If you read older texts (travel literature, art history, biographies of artists, etc.), the liturgical east end is typically referred to as either an apse or a chancel, depending on whether it is apsidal or squared off (with "East end" being as close as it gets to having a term encompassing both). These terms and uses date back to at least the 19th century on both sides of the Atlantic.

Regarding the history of church shapes, I never said that all British churches prior to the Perpendicular Gothic had an apsidal east end. I was merely saying that many British churches did have an apsidal east earlier on (at least many, many more than still have them today). Additionally, as I mentioned, the story you gave regarding worship in Britain prior to the late Middle Ages sounds very suspect (what it sounds like to me is that someone somewhere down the line assumed that only those receiving communion would worship inside the building). HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot categorise with an untruth. There is no such thing as a liturgical east end, except in a generalising ideal sense. In these photographs we are not categorising about generalities. We are categorising about what is in each specific picture. If the chancel is in the north end, then we can categorise it in one (or more) of several ways: the chancel, the altar, north end of the building. But not the east end if it is not the east end of that particular building. If you do not categorise truthfully then you are telling a lie, and I know that you do not want to tell a lie. If there are no categories which fit the truth, then you must invent new categories which do tell the truth, or not categorise on that particular aspect at all. Storye book (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the link? The page on the orientation of churches might also clear things up for you. The cardinal directions are rarely used with regard to churches without qualifying them as such. Thus:

"However, frequently the building cannot be built to match liturgical direction. In parish churches, liturgical directions often do not coincide with geography; even in cathedrals, liturgical and geographic directions can be in almost precise opposition (for example, at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, Seattle, liturgical east is nearly due west)[…] For convenience, churches are always described as though the end with the main altar is at the east, whatever the reality, with the other ends and sides described accordingly."

There's neither lie nor "untruth" involved here. This is just the reality of how the terms are used. It's been that way for centuries. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the pre-conquest churches, built before the Normans arrived 1066AD, they were pioneering churches built by evangelical monks, mostly between around 600 and 850 AD. They tended to be tiny, wooden, quick fixes at first - just big enough for a few monks. See this article. A stone Celtic cross, called a high cross, was often set up outside the building, and the priest could hold services for local people there (including mass), because public meetings in those days were mainly outdoor affairs. Most of our ancient churches were built in stone on top of those pre-conquest sites, often starting with a small stone building on top of the old little wooden one. That small stone building would often be extended with a larger, taller nave, and the little stone building would become the chancel, divided from the new nave by a chancel arch. Every church in the UK is different architecturally from every other church in the UK. That is why it is almost impossible to apply generalisations in the form of categories, and each must be carefully assessed according to its own details. Storye book (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of what you are talking about on the page you so kindly linked me to (maybe I somehow missed the section mentioning that; if so, which section of that long page is it?). However, I'm guessing that if that pattern ever were the case, it was limited in extent (for one thing, Celtic high crosses are not found everywhere in Great Britain). That story would be reasonable for liturgical practice — especially for small communities — up to around 850 AD, but no later. We have excavated the remains of some Pre-Conquest churches, and while some of them are indeed small enough to suggest a preference for laic worship outdoors, others are decidedly larger. Furthermore, we know that Alfred the Great's Westminster was, while not quite as large are the present building, rather sizeable. So I'd double check your sources. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Re File:St Stephen West Bowling (101).JPG. Please do not remove categories which say "chancel", unless you can prove that it is not a chancel. In this case, you can see the chancel arch, and you can see the altar, and yes, in this case, we are looking at the east end. That makes it a chancel. "East end" by itself does not mean "chancel". If you continue to remove "chancel" categories without good reason, those edits will be reverted. Storye book (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I already mentioned a plenty sufficient reason (namely consistency of usage). Are we somehow talking past each other?— this oughtn't be at all contentious.

You appear to be trying to have the categories of this website use the term "chancel" for three separate things: the architectural sense of a squared-off East end, the liturgical sense of where the altar is (approximately synonymous with the sanctuary or presbytery in the architectural sense), and the broad sense of the East end of a church (a sense only used in the British Isles, along side the other senses of the term; in contexts where the East end is usually apsidal, the term "apse" is used in English the exact same way). While that works when there is context available, this is not how cataloguing and databases work — your usage needs to be consistent, uniform in fact.

As it is the categories of this website essentially use the architectural sense of the term "chancel" (I only removed instances where "chancel" was being used to mean the East end of a church, nothing more). So if you want to provide the distinction for the liturgical sense of the term "chancel," please add an unambiguous category (probably "Chancels (liturgical)").

And for the nth time: in church architecture, "East" is the direction of the altar, irrespective of what cardinal direction it faces. Even if the altar faces due West cardinally, in church architecture, that is still referred to as the East (this most likely goes way back to the early Middle Ages, as it is consistent in every major language of Western and Central Europe, English included).

If you're still having trouble getting what I've been saying or if I'm misunderstanding you, you might want to try rereading our entire exchange to refresh your memory and then ask me questions so that we can have a proper exchange and not merely talk past each other. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, and I believe that you are wrong. Your definition of the chancel, east end and apse all being mixed up together is confusing and does not cover all eventualities. Webster's dictionary (American) defines the chancel in the same way as I do: the part of a church containing the altar and seats for the clergy and choir. If you can see the chancel arch and the altar inside, then that is the chancel. If you have a problem with that, please open a formal discussion about it, because so far, as far as I am aware, you are the only person with the view that "chancel" categories should be deleted and replaced with "east end" categories. Storye book (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I also mentioned that you were repeating yourself: we both are. That is what happens when people trying to talk to each other end up repeatedly talking past each other. So please spare me the implied disapproval on that account. (If I am simply reading too much into what were intended to be innocuous statements, please correct me. However, that does appear to be the tone in your last few exchanges, which have been increasingly… incensed.)

Furthermore, where did I, as you claim me to, posit that, "chancel" categories should be deleted and replaced with "east end" categories? Because I never said that. Not once. Please enlighten me as to how such a strange miscommunication occurred. I'm not sure where I have been at all confusing, especially to result in such an interpretation. Unless my phrasing was somehow circuitous. If you could point out where specifically, for my future reference, so I don't confuse you or anyone else in the future, I'd be very grateful. (Of course, if it is the fact that one word can have multiple senses, like "choir" and "capital," then I am up a creek without a paddle. But I doubt that's the cause of the misunderstanding.)

Regarding the definitions of the term "chancel": To be precise, in my reading of various texts about architecture (art history and the like), I found "chancel" to have three definitions, which I mentioned before (and I won't bother to repeat for the third or fourth time). It has nothing to do with European versus American usage: of that I am certain. While it is true that the Webster's online edition only provides one definition of chancel (same with the Oxford English), the online sources are abbreviated, very much so. As such, I think it better to rely on unabbreviated, unabridged dictionaries (I think we can agree that that is better practice, no?). Using such sources, both the 1971 edition of the Oxford English and Wester's Second (unabridged), yields two definitions: 1. the part of the church behind the railing or rood screen, containing the altar and often the choir, 2. the liturgical East end of a church. I failed to find the other definition I was using (which I have found before in other sources, although I don't remember which—which is far from helpful), namely squared-off East ends, however, general dictionaries might not account for the uses of these terms in art history, and thus the disparity. (But "might" is the operative word. —If I am simply wrong, I'll try to correct any errors I've thus propagated. However, I am likewise not convinced of your position on this matter. Nor, for that matter, the best way to correct my errors assuming I am wrong — "chancel" would in that case only include the interior of the building.)

Throughout this exchange, we have both proven ourselves not to be experts on church architecture (and are not doing any credit to ourselves, I might add). A third party would indeed be preferable here (hopefully someone with expertise in the right fields), in fact, I've been thinking that such a measure is necessary for the present discussion for a while (most likely you have been likewise thinking the same some time before bringing it up), but I wasn't sure how to go about that (I've managed to figure that out since, so that will begin momentarily). HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Although, at this point in our discussion, your aside about the early Christian worship on the British Isles is no longer relevant, since it appears to have negatively coloured our conversation, I want to explain why I found (and find) the story so suspect. (Some of this is repeating what I've said about this particular matter earlier, and at other times stating the obvious. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how else to make the point clear and prevent confusion.)

First: The source you so kindly linked me to, although very informative, did not mention high crosses, preaching, or the laity. Nor, for that matter, did it mention any timeframe for this phase when the church building was confined to the clergy or provide specific examples of such buildings. It only mentions the way monastics worshiped, which does not necessarily say anything about the remainder of the clergy, much less the laity. There is also no implication that the earlier structures were typically re-used as chancels in British and Irish churches; on the contrary, these structures are given no direct connection with structures built for the laity. (As a source, the website's lack of mentioned sources and references makes me look at the entire article with a grain of salt, but only a grain. It all sounds highly probable, and gives the feeling that the writer was paraphrasing another source or, more likely, synthesising the information from multiple sources.)

Second: The function of high crosses is unknown. They are sometimes believed to be a type of preaching cross, at others, grave-markers (usually during later periods), and possibly had multiple uses concurrently; complicating the matter is the fact that many of them were moved, sometimes more than once. I haven't been able to find anything suggesting any one regular use.

Third: The development of Christian worship has tended toward indoor worship from a very early date. During the first few centuries of Christian practice, the birth of the basics of the liturgy, Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire, and outdoor worship was thus not a wining strategy. As the number of Christians increased, they came to make deliberate contrasts between themselves and other religious groups (this can also be seen in the stance many early Christians took regarding Judaism). Thus, in contrast to pagan services, which were held outside the "temple building" (the word "temple" itself comes from Latin "templum," which originally referred to the space immediately outside the building, the building itself being reserved for priests), Christians made a point to worship inside their religious buildings, rather than merely on consecrated ground. While the article you forwarded mentioned that there was some confusion about expectations and use of structures, this was most likely not wide-spread even within the British Isles, considering contemporary fears of heresy, which were often associated with following pagan, or apparently pagan, practices. (Moreover, I couldn't find anything specifying anything beyond the presence of some confusion.)

Fourth: Attending services was an obligation for Christians (and remains so for Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants). Specifically, they were required to attend once on Sundays and once on all important feasts (also known as holy days of obligation; the practice is found in both the Western and Eastern churches and thus predates the Schism of 1054). Leaving aside Sundays, the most important parts of the liturgical calendar, the Advent-Christmas cycles and the Lenten-Pascal cycles, all take place when the weather on the British Isles is rarely balmy. (The Lenten-Pascal cycles being dependant on the date of Easter — its calculation varying between Christian groups into the 8th century, but no later.) For this reason, the laity would attend services most frequently when the weather was at its worst — far from an encouragement to worship outside, for sure.

Fifth: For a baptized Christian to be considered to have attended services, at least in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, they must be present in the building or room during the Consecration of the Eucharist (although the narthex is acceptable when caring for infants and young children), and while I've yet to find how far back that custom goes exactly, an early date is suggested by pre-Reformation traditional forms of Christian liturgy, such as the Tridentine mass and many Eastern rites, which divide the service into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. Therefore, practically speaking, the frequent wet weather of the British Isles thus further renders outdoor worship impractical.

Sixth: If worship regularly took place outside for such a large group of people, there would be some indications left in archaeological record in the churchyards immediately outside the earliest Christian structures on the site. These might be some indications of boundaries to mark the use of the land or, more likely, remains of ceramics, fires, and such. Regardless, I've never heard of such a thing for Christian religious sites on the British Isles or anywhere else.

Putting all of these points into consideration, the likelihood that such a practice would develop is therefore highly unlikely. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cumbria

Please don't remove categories related to Cumbria in favour of Westmorland. Westmorland hasn't existed for nearly 50 years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

They haven't been removed: Westmorland is presently a subcategory. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Westmorland isn't even a county any more. This is a considerable break in navigation. We shouldn't expect our readers to navigate using names from before they were born!

For that matter, why is Westmorland a subcategory? What relation does it have to Cumbria? They never even existed at the same time. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It does still exist: it's a historical county (from that angle, it never ceased to exist). Additionally, Cumbria now is purely a ceremonial county and has been divided into Cumberland and Westmorland and Furness. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Please don't remove categories related to Cumbria in favour of Westmorland. Westmorland hasn't existed for nearly 50 years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no county of 'Westmorland'. We could, to do something pointlessly obscure and confusing, refer to Westmorland and Furness, which would be up to date and correct, albeit useless. But Westmorland hasn't been a valid name for 50 years. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

First off, "Cumbria" wasn't removed, just as before. All I did was add to the pre-existing subcategories for the two primary parts of Cumbria. I removed the immediate parent category "Churches in Cumbria" to prevent it from getting even more overcrowded than it already is (which is what you're supposed to do anyway). (I'd look at how the subcategories for Norfolk are arranged if the deletion of parent categories is confusing you.)

As I mentioned before, neither "Westmorland" nor "Cumberland" were ever eliminated (you seem to be unaware of the existence of Historical Counties, which might help), and they have also been the districts of Cumbria during the intervening 50-some years.

While the names were slightly modified, the borders have hardly shifted at all — as a result, the portions which are no longer part of the same county or district may be labeled as having been historically part of a different county/district, but any cataloguing (including Wikimedia categories) is essentially unaffected. (See, for example, Buildings historically in Berkshire, for how such adjustments are being handled at present.)

Your apparent insistence that "Cumberland" and "Westmorland" may not be used to help navigate the huge number of items under the category "Cumbria" on the grounds that they were not political counties for sometime is weak at best, especially given how the other county categories are handled. I see no need to add a near-identical category in the present instance.

If, after reading this, you still are of the opinion that different categories ought to be used, please start a discussion thread for the relevant categories instead. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• First off, "Cumbria" wasn't removed

You removed it. Three times.

• "removed Category:Churches in Cumbria"
• "Please don't add parent categories. Additionally, at present, Cumberland is both a historic county AND a district of Cumbria."
• "Stop adding redundant parent categories."

All I did was add to the pre-existing subcategories for the two primary parts of Cumbria.

But you didn't. You removed Cumbria and replaced it, not just adding something. Also you added a 50 year anachronism, Category:Westmorland. Westmorland doesn't exist. You didn't add Category:Westmorland and Furness, which is a different thing. I wouldn't agree with that (for different reasons), but at least it's not just 50 years out of date.

I removed [...] "Churches in Cumbria" to prevent it from getting even more overcrowded than it already is

It has 25 sub-cats. That's hardly 'overcrowded'.

you seem to be unaware of the existence of Historical Counties, which might help

Drop the ad hominem attacks. Discuss the contents and edits, don't abuse the editor. To quote the linked article, 'Several counties, such as Cumberland, [...] vanished from'. Vanished.

Your apparent insistence that "Cumberland" and "Westmorland" may not be used to help navigate the huge number of items under the category "Cumbria"

I have never insisted any such thing. Westmorland is an anachronism, but for a long-lived subject like church buildings, it's reasonable to use it in addition. You might note that the relevant navigation bar includes Cumbria, along with both Cumberland & Westmorland as historic counties. But it does not include Westmorland and Furness, as that's not a county at the same level, thus not a useful navigational point for these purposes.

You seem to be using one justfication 'Westmorland and Furness is new' as a reason to make changes based on the old structure, with Westmorland. The two just aren't comparable like that. Maybe you're doing it because Commons' nav structures don't work for 'Westmorland and Furness', but they are already set up for 'Westmorland', even though you've had to change the meaning of the content to do so. That's my biggest concern here now, even though it wasn't the first I noticed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ceremonial counties of England: Bedfordshire · Berkshire · Buckinghamshire · Cambridgeshire · Cheshire · Cornwall · Cumbria · Derbyshire · Devon · Dorset · Durham · East Riding of Yorkshire · East Sussex · Essex · Gloucestershire · Greater London · Greater Manchester · Hampshire · Herefordshire · Hertfordshire · Isle of Wight · Kent · Lancashire · Leicestershire · Lincolnshire · Merseyside · Norfolk · North Yorkshire · Northamptonshire · Northumberland · Nottinghamshire · Oxfordshire · Rutland · Shropshire · Somerset · South Yorkshire · Staffordshire · Suffolk · Surrey · Tyne and Wear · Warwickshire · West Midlands · West Sussex · West Yorkshire · Wiltshire · Worcestershire
City-counties: Bristol · City of London

---

Former historic counties: Cumberland · Huntingdonshire · Middlesex · Sussex · Westmorland · Yorkshire
Other former counties:

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Edit-warring to remove Cumbria from geographical categorization?. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now you've replied! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The bit you've appended to the end is highly unnecessary: please calm down. Nothing either has said or done thus far is deserving of insults.

(Also, why the "now"? I had replied a good hour before you decided to report (?) me.) HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That would limit the category to Eastern and Roman Catholic buildings;

Indeed it would. That is the very intent. That's why the category is a child of Category:Catholic churches in the United Kingdom. Please revert your move. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said, that would exclude buildings of the Old Catholics (who are schismatic and whose buildings therefore are not owned by the Catholic Church). Unless that is part the intent? (If so, I'll revert it.) HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes - "exclude buildings of the Old Catholics (who are schismatic and whose buildings therefore are not owned by the Catholic Church" is the intent. The parent category captures the Old Catholics. Please self revert. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems you already reverted it for me. Thank you! HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

County Borough case

Hi. It appears that the Welsh counties have a consistent case of "Council Borough" through the use of a template. As it is set, I have reversed that move of county category.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason I had the term "council borough" lower case was because "Wrexham Council Borough" doesn't show up on "Principal areas of Wales" whereas "Wrexham council borough" does.

Please either change it back or (preferably) alter the template to allow both cases. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I was seeing the capitals in multiple places, so you may need to look again. The term is used in a meta template, and not one where I have the time nor incentive to change. Go and use its talk page and have that conversation there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Metacats

Hi, HwætGrimmalkin. When you use the metacat template, please include the required parameter that indicates the sort criterion. I've added the parameter to several categories you created. You can see one of the changes I made here. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Category redirect

Hi. For long-existing categories, please utilise {{Category redirect}} rather than nominate them for deletion. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if the one present in grammatically incorrect? HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Aquamanila

Hi! The plural of Aquamanile is AquamaniLIA, or AquamaniLES, what is AquamaniLA?? Please see en.wiki for reference. The categories you are making are all wrong. Can you move the category names? Do you need help to fix them? Sailko (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Whops! That's quite the repeated typo I made: I'll get on fixing that, ASAP! Thank you for letting me know. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Aquamaniles is the easier and preferred form, it used to be the standard so far. Thank you :) --Sailko (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Although more common, it's incorrect. (Much like speaking of Roman "forums" — the correct term is "fora" — it's the same phenomenon.) HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)