Talk:List of Anglican churches

a deleted Anglican church list-article?

There was a list article about Anglican churches, or High Anglican churches, a few years ago. I can't find it now, wonder if it was deleted? --doncram 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That was List of Anglo-Catholic churches, still extant, and now linked from this list-article. It once was a very busy list-article; I think the general public has been conditioned out of contributing to Wikipedia, so there's nothing happening any longer. --doncram 00:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Way too long

The prod on this page has been removed, with reference to List of Methodist churches. That page though is already at 174Kb, and this page (for Anglican churches) seems likely to be a lot larger if completed. never mind that the same author seems to be planning a List of Catholic churches. I believe that such lists shouldn't be made (in the current form), at most as a disambiguation for smaller lists, and in general that they are better built first in a sandbox, to get a somewhat comprehensive result in mainspace instead of a "list" with no entries. Fram (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i didn't notice this comment, Fram. The list is okay/good as a start, and it is not "too long". It is proper and good to start a big list, and hive off splits as needed. If what is covered in the article becomes too large, i.e. over recommended 100,000k in size, say, then it can be split. Or it can be split sooner, but this main list-article is needed no matter what, even if only as an index to split-out shorter lists. This was done to divide what was once a single page at List of RHPs, eventually divided out to 2,000+ list-articles. And, about userspace vs. mainspace, I think that mainspace is obviously better. This list topic does not belong to me, and different editors would question when it is good enough if you want to set some standard other than the policy of notability of topic. Some cooperative editing would be appreciated; there could be destructive editing too which I would hope not to see here. In fact, it has turned out since 5 december that you, Fram, chose to edit a lot at List of Catholic churches (or otherwise changed it) after I put that into mainspace. And other editors have joined with contributions to other lists of churches articles that I started. I think this List of Anglican churches is moving along fine, for a new list, and will continue to develop (with edits by me and others). --doncram 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I moved your list of churches, and created a manageable, logical list instead. The same should have been done here. I don't get why you would create a single list when you know upfront that it has to be divided anyway (and then renamed to Lists of Anglican churches). If you know how it will end up (which is rather obvious here), why not do it right from the start instead? What you created where empty shells with an "under construction" tag, not articles in any normal sense of the word. Fram (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with lots of that, including that a world-wide list of Anglican churches must be named with plural "Lists" rather than singular "List". --doncram 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

U.K. section

At the AFD (I trust/hope to be closed soon, as this list-article topic is obviously valid) some comments about content and organization of the U.K. sections were made by editor Mathsci, which seem relevant for discussion here. (begin copied comments with ellipses ... indicating omissions)

• As applied to England, there is already a list of CofE cathedrals here as part of a more general list. The current list of Anglican churches in England ... only mentions cathedrals and is incomplete. The correct list breaks up the dependencies into two provinces, dependent on either Canterbury or York....
• I am talking about Anglican churches here, i.e. Church of England. The trouble is that in England there are a huge number of Anglican churches or chapels that are listed. If the list was restricted to Anglican churches in the United States listed on the NRHP that would seem reasonable. But it would seem reasonable to exclude England. The category and sub-categories are already complicated enough, e.g. Category:Church of England churches, which is organized partially by county and partially by period. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(end copied section) (note the quotation was objected to later) I think that developing out the U.K. section here is worthwhile. How should that be done, organized by geography, by county? The point of wp:CLT guideline is that lists can be useful complements to categories. This list does not have to be organized as the categories are currently organized, though. --doncram 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Doncram you did not seek my permission to copy-paste my comments here. I told you at the AfD that they were only intended for the context of the AfD. You have quoted me out of context because I said there that I considered that it was appropriate for this article to become just a hierarchic list of lists. There are plenty of CofE churches in the UK of considerably greater antiquity and historical significance (links with the Early Saints) than many churches in the USA. That is why I think this page should become just a list of lists. The lists already exist for CofE cathedrals, divided between Canterbury and York, and by county in the UK. The US entries could presumably be a list of lists by State. The notability criterion is quite different between the USA and England and Wales. Durham Cathedral for example has no equivalent in the USA (it is the burial place of Cuthbert and first home of the Lindisfarne Gospels, now in the British Library). Then there is the Commonwealth, etc. So my point is that this article is only practical as a list of lists. Incidentally in the UK I have only contributed to a few articles on buildings, two of which no longer exist (Cambridge Whitefriars, Hanover Square Rooms and Handel House Museum). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, I thought your comments at the AfD suggested some good ideas that are relevant here, about how the U.K. section should be organized and expanded. E.g., that the list could be divided by Canterbury vs. York. I don't have a specific view about that point, but it sounds interesting and worth sharing here. Also I absolutely agree that there exist many more significant Anglican churches in the U.K. than in the U.S., and hence that the U.K. section should indeed be developed further. Do you want to go ahead and develop it more?

About whether the main list at List of Anglican churches should become a "list of lists", I hope we can simply not argue about that. Please understand, I am supportive of sections being split out to separate articles if/when size here is a problem, or if/when someone cares to develop a sublist more fully. I think you and I and everyone would agree that probably the U.S. section and the U.K. section will need to be split out. The top-level list, however, remains necessary, to index the split-out ones, and it can continue to hold sections about countries that have not yet been split out. If you want to split out the U.K. section now, I think you should just go ahead and do that. I think it is just semantics whether the top-level list is titled "List of Anglican churches" or "List of lists of Anglican churches", and, while I prefer the former name, I don't really care strongly. I guess I would comment (mildly) within a Requested Move, say, to address renaming this, if you wish to open one. I do suggest using a Requested Move to gather the opinions of other editors, if you do want to have this top-level list renamed.

I did not anticipate that you would object to my copying your comments to here, and I don't really understand why you are objecting to my having done so. I did inform you at the time that I was doing so, and I directed you specifically to here, where you could have objected then or commented further to clarify your views. Now that you have arrived and have objected, well whatever you want now, I would agree to. I'll try striking my quotation of you, above, does that help? If you want any other remedy, just say, okay? I think you have clarified your view now, though. --doncram 16:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography

The heading "London" is ambiguous. Does it refer to the diocese of London, or Greater London, or postal London? This should be made clear. 82.45.251.239 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)