Talk:List of monastic houses in Leicestershire

Discussion about the use of abbreviations in these lists

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of abbeys and priories in England#Use of abbreviations which applies to all of the "List of monastic houses in X" (where X = counties of England) articles. The contributions of any interested editor would be welcome.— Rod ^talk 12:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Greyfriars picture

I have put a picture of the now-finished archaeological dig at Greyfriars, Leicester, on the commons at File:Greyfriars Excavations of 2013.JPG . I wasn't sure if it was helpful for this page or not, so am happy for someone else to consider it. Maybe once the visitor centre is finished, that would make a good photo as it will be over the site of the friary, and will include a viewing platform. Would other 'site of...' pictures be useful, where there are no standing remains? RobinLeicester (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends, but that picture of the excavations is great and I think it would be useful here. If the site is just a field, or completely built over as to be unrecognisable, then I think it could be left out of this list (though that kind of photo would still be useful for individual articles). I'd be interested to know what JohnArmagh thinks. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the photograph and I agree that it would be a useful addition to the page, even for the interim. And depending on the aspect available once the work on the is finished it could remain a definitive view of the site of the remains - and would certainly be useful for the individual article as a presentation of the archaeological work in progress. I have myself also linked commons photographs I have found of field sites where establishments existed, and, though I don't go out of my way for the exercise, I have on a couple of occasions uploaded photographs where no visible remains exist - for instance the friary in Guildford and the site of Docking Priory in Norfolk - if only as an indication of what the site looks like for anyone anticipating a visit. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added the Greyfriars picture (and one at Launde for good measure. I will keep an eye out for others to add. RobinLeicester (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with the engraving is it has a very uncertain provenance. Nichols puts it in his Leicester book, but does not say either that it is contemporary or of Leicester. I put it in the Greyfriars, Leicester article, as an interesting possibility (which the University of Leicester appeared to be basing some of their conjectures on.) But is anyone claiming it to be a picture of the Leicester Friary? The only thing known at this stage seems to be the archaeology. I agree it doesn't look pretty, but it is a much more reliable guide to the state of knowledge. Longer term, I would think a picture of the visitor centre will be the defining image. RobinLeicester (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to look at it from the view point of a reader rather than editor. The pictures were always of the monastic buildings or the ruins- For the casual browser looking at a list of monasteries it gives them a quick idea of what those monasteries look like and is probably what really grabs them to look at that article (unless you open them all in separate tabs as I used to do). In that respect a picture of a hole and some construction fencing adds nothing. Especially when you think of how readers get here -They are interested in Monasticism or casually looking at a list monasteries existed in the county; not the excavation of Richard III; nor does a tiny thumbnail explain such.

The image of the visitor centre wouldn't be any better because it wouldn't be relevant: It wouldn't be a picture of the friary and the centre itself will be about Richard not the friary. There's plenty of other monasteries that have been built on top of and we don't use photographs of the modern buildings there because its not what readers are looking for in that list- they are looking at a list of monasteries and expect to see an image of that monastery.

The ideal would be a drawing or reconstruction of what the friary looked like. De Montfort University have a fantastic 3D one of the friary church here, but it obviously copyrighted. I know in certain circumstances copyrighted material can be used under "fair use" but I'm not up on all details of that. --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I am an editor I very much look from the perspective of the reader - being interested in visiting these sites I'd like some visual indication of what to expect when I actually visit the place, and on that basis whether the visit is worth it. I soon discovered that if there was to be such a work I had better get on and do it. My rationale behind the monastic houses project has been to assist not just the historian/reader but the vistor. Thusfar it has been impossible to find an exhaustive list giving details of the provenance, and the location, and an image of what's currently there (the publications concentrate on either the history or the remains - and the images are few and far between - as is information on the actual location of the establishment - and the works which give the provenance are often in monastic order order rather than county order - which does not really help the visitor, which is why I have presented it in county order) - and whilst details can be expanded in the individual article, if one is visiting 20 or more sites in a trip it is far easier to get the information from a single list than having to go to a significant number of different pages to glean basic information. It is for this reason also that I have included the erroneous references - the reader might say "well, I've heard of a monastery at such-and-such a place - but there's no mention of it here" - my aim is to be able to answer that question with "someone once thought there was a monastery here - but they were wrong." JohnArmagh (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110013305/http://english.op.org/Leicester.html to http://english.op.org/Leicester.html

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) 14:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)