Jump to content

Talk:List of Anglo-Catholic churches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

District of Columbia or Washington, D.C.?

[edit]

File:DC 2000 SAMPLE.jpg I think this says it all. clariosophic (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greeneville SC church

[edit]

The church in Greeneville, SC, is it the "Christ Episcopal Church, North Church Street, Greenville, Greenville County, SC" which is covered in HABS? If so, it is individually notable. There are pictures and data pages available for it. doncram (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is separate from St. Andrew's which is at 400 Pendleton Street. It is at 10 North Church Street in Greenville, SC and is part of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina. clariosophic (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which churches are individually notable, for inclusion in this list?

[edit]

Individually notable churches include, in the United States, those whose building is separately listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In the UK, the equivalent is listed building.

Otherwise, what makes some churches notable and others not? doncram (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By individually notable, what i basically mean is whether it is notable enough to have its own article in wikipedia. My question is: what are the current wikipedia standards to allow an individual church article to exist? I have created many church articles, but only for churches that are notable by reason of being listed on the NRHP. P.S. I do expect that some of the churches now included in the list are NOT individually notable, and should be deleted from this list-article. doncram (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it red links and is unlikely to be created anytime soon it should not be on the list. All blue links should stay. -- Secisek (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part of what you say. But some blue links which go to external sites are like red links, and some of these probably should be removed. For either red-links or these, I can't determine from information in this article which are notable / deserving of having an article / likely to have an article soon, and which are not. I did already create articles for all of these that relate to a U.S. NRHP site. Eventually, if there is not other information and criteria forthcoming, I would think it would be reasonable to delete all the other U.S. church links. But I'd rather hear from editors who contributed to this list, first. doncram (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links show up as green on my browser. Yes, treat them as per red above. -- Secisek (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that. doncram (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I browsed in WP:NOTABLE and the most relevant guidance about notability of any kind of places is, oddly enough Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). That essay suggests that stub articles ought not to be encouraged, but rather editors should be encouraged to write "full articles". And articles with overviews about regions should be encouraged, with articles about specific places only being separated out of those regional overviews as enough specific information and sources and size of section justifies it. I interpret that it would be appropriate to link to, and encourage, articles on Anglicanism in Canada, in the U.S., in other big areas, rather than work on creating stub articles for individual churches. I make an exception for stubs about churches that are NRHPs, because I know that there really are extensive, objective, appropriate sources available for NRHPs, including their NRHP nomination documents written by historians and edited by many. Thoughts about breweries and churches, anyone? :) doncram (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links to U.S. churches removed from article

[edit]

The following links were removed from the article, and are probably a mix of notable and non-notable churches in the U.S. The article is not intended to be a directory though, so it is probably best to remove any external links like these immediately. In the future, I may just delete them, or revert their addition, without keeping track of them. doncram (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links to Canada churches removed from article

[edit]

Name change

[edit]

I am partly regretting getting involved with this list-article, having joined in opposing its elimination in an AfD. Its name simply attracts people adding a church they know, which probably isn't notable by wikipedia's current notability standards. I don't want to invite people effectively to contribute, then delete their contributions. How about a name change: "Historic Anglo-Catholic Churches"? "Very historic Anglo-Catholic Churches"? Naming it "List of Notable Anglo-Catholic Churches" is inadequate as "notable" does not convey anything strong enough. Anything is notable if you feel like noting it. Maybe people would pause about whether a place is "very historic" or not though. Or maybe this list-article should be deleted after all. doncram (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe should make the list into a table, with a column for name, a column for an image if available, and a description column that explains notability. If notability of churches on the list is not evident, how is the typical wikipedia article who knows of one particular church to know that it is not of the same type. If they'd have to add a table row, with a notability column to fill out, that could slow 'em down. I don't know if i want to fill out the table, either, though. doncram (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, List of notable Anglo-Catholic churches is appropriate, since "notable" has a technical meaning in Wikipedia. And it means we get rid of all the red links - notable means the church has an article in Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. For you and me, "notable" is meaningful in a wikipedia way, but what I meant to say was that it does not have that meaning to the average reader, for whom something may be notable if in fact it is noted. Few want to say their own church is not notable. Per WP:SELF, refering to a wikipedia-specific definition of notable is probably not appropriate to mention in an article at all, much less in an article title. (The mention of wikipedia definition of notable in the footnote, which i had added, should probably be eliminated, too.) "List of important churches"? Important is vague. I think we have a problem that there is no one (unless you are the one?) who is that interested in actually developing this into a proper list-article. I wouldn't mind doing some work on it if it was "List of Historic Anglican Churches" though. But I am not even clear on what would be the difference between Anglo-Catholic vs. Anglican. doncram (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen WP:SELF before, but I don't think it applies. In any case, we have List of notable asteroids - but doing a quick search doesn't produce a lot of occurrences of "notable" in a title. Instead, it's usually in the lead paragraph - e.g. List of Melburnians. Notice that the article doesn't define notable, but if anyone adds their own item, it can be easily removed. StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, glad you looked at WP:SELF then. I think it does apply, why wouldn't it apply? Your pointer to List of notable asteroids is helpful. In that article, the notability is effectively defined in tables explaining each of 10 types of notability: 1 Largest known, 2 Brightest, 3 Retrograde and high-inclination,... 9 Record-setting close approaches to Earth, 10 Exceptionally slow-rotating objects. For this article on churches, I would be fine for notable to be in the title, if we tabulated all the entries in similar ways, e.g. one table being "Churches that are Registered Historic Places in the U.S.". I don't know what other tables would serve to define the other churches' notability. doncram (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, List of Melburnians made me think we don't need a name change - we just go ahead and delete all the red-links. Thinking it over, maybe WP:SELF does apply - it means we don't define notability in the article itself. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a definition of notability is not explicit and not strongly implicit (like in the List of notable asteroids), then people will keep adding their local church. I don't like the setup, in which we would keep implicitly inviting but then "biting" the newbies, by our deleting their well-meant contributions. List of Melburnians is not a great model, i wouldn't want to have an article like that, and its Talk page describes a litany of adds and deletes and disagreements, too, due to its poor definition. It's like lists of notable alumni at various university webpages, too, which are very unsatisfying. Let's try tabulating the list and including descriptions that get at each site's notability? doncram (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to delete this list-article

[edit]

I am further regretting getting involved with this article, and am planning to put this back into Articles-For-Deletion. This notice is to consider any comments before doing so. Please add or respond to these reasons why it should be deleted:

1. The list-article keeps attracting IP-editor additions of their local church. The name of the article and everything about it tends to suggest it is a directory, and to attract directory additions.

2. I and other editors have sought to define notability but struggle with that. There is no satisfactory definition available. Currently, the definition is to accept any churches that get through the wikipedia article creation process and are not deleted by AFDs. This may attract efforts for others to create articles on not-really-notable churches and puts an inappropriate burden on the AfD process. This creates an invalid list, which is only definable in terms that violate WP:SELF. Currently the list-article can only be described as a list of churches that survive the Wikipedia Articles-For-Deletion process.

3. The title of the article is "Anglo-Catholic", which apparently has to do with one strain within Anglicanism and/or Episcopalianism. The distinctions escape me, and the term is vague and is not applied to the inclusion of churches in the list. It is not possible to determine which are acceptable, by any critera. There exists a wikipedia article on Anglo-Catholic, not necessarily an authoritative article, which includes a link to one website http://www.anglocatholic.net/ having a subpage listing some Anglo-Catholic churches. The churches on that list, I guess, are those that someone unofficially approves of, but that does not seem to be an official list and there is no obligation by anyone to determine whether a proposed addition to this list-article is valid or not.

4. the list-article cannot ever become a useful list meeting the criteria of a Featured List. I see no way to define the list-article to become anything worthwhile. It is non-encyclopedic and destined to stay that way, and would best be deleted, in my view. doncram (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this list is that different from many other lists. Point (1) is not a reason for deletion, any more than continuous vandalism is. Just delete non-notable additions. Point (2) is not a reason either. Lots of lists are for stuff defined by having their own article, as that assures notability. Inclusion should have nothing to do with any supposed imposition of a burden on AfD. Point (3) can be covered if the information the Church puts out says something like "St Peter's Eastern Hill is a community of Anglican Christians who worship in the Anglo-Catholic tradition" which comes from the web site of the only entry for Melbourne, Australia. Point (4) is a matter of opinion and again I do not see it as a reason for deletion. Let me say I have no attachment to Anglo-Catholicism. I just got this on my watch list because of my interest in the role of St Peter's in the history of Melbourne. --Bduke (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think point 3 is important. I guess we need to restrict ourselves to those who are explicitly self-designated as Anglo-Catholic. Remember verifiability. But St Peter's, Eastern Hill is definitely on the list. Presumably there are others which belong as well, so the list needs to stay. StAnselm (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, this response to Bduke) Thanks for responding. I have not allied myself ever with pages subject to continuous vandalism, so perhaps the directory-type additions bother me excessively. But, by the way, I don't see that quote in the website http://www.stpeters.org.au/. I do see a statement that it is an Anglican church, not immediately distinguishing between the various strains that some may assert exist. I don't necessarily believe that there are different strains at all, currently, or if there are substantially different strains, I don't think it is clear enough for definition in wikipedia. It would be like having one list or category for churches that include folk music in their services; wikipedia cannot verify that especially as the it may change that every week, or local church websites may choose to highlight their musical choices to varying degrees, unsatisfactorily for anyone to classify churches based on those self-reports. Specifically, I don't see any good overall source making the distinction of Anglo-Catholic churches vs. other Anglican churches or vs. Episcopal churches. Please clarify, if you can. We may end up continuing this discussion in AFD, but I am happy to hear from you.
The sentence I quoted is the very first sentence in the "About us" link from the home page you give. It is here. --Bduke (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About restricting the list to churches that "self-designate" as Anglo-Catholic: I imagine there is disagreement, that a member of one such church visiting another would not classify it also as Anglo-Catholic. For whatever distinctions each makes important. If it can't be defined clearly, then no organized religious body will classify them reliably, and we can't either. Let's not.
You say above "'Anglo-Catholic', which apparently has to do with one strain.. ". I think that points to you not knowing much about Anglicanism. Churches in the Anglo-Catholic tradition stay that way. It is not a fad. --Bduke (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, if you want to try to make the distinction, could you at least try to edit into the article. I won't promise not to put this up to AFD, even if you do, but it is especially pathetic of us to have this article if we don't even attempt to define terms. I am 100% certain that some of the U.S. listed churches do not meet your criteria now, by the way. doncram (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having an opinion is possible without editing an article. I see that it is actually on my watch list because I closed the last AfD which was actually withdrawn by the nominator. --Bduke (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i was a substantial participant in that AfD, arguing "Keep" strongly, and it was an argument and specific edit of mine that was cited and depended upon by the nominator, in the nominator's withdrawal. I now regret arguing "Keep". This list is lousy. For one thing it does not provide documentation that members of the list deserve to be on the list. I believe now that many of the U.S. entries are Anglican churches but not High Anglican, for example. Frankly the list would be improved by deleting all entries and starting over, or not starting over. What is worse, as a list with no obvious definition of its membership, it keeps attracting more well-meaning people, adding their own favorite church, only for me or others to delete their additions. doncram (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this list is of highly dubious value. If it went AfD, I would support. -- Secisek (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, even though I spent some time editing the article yesterday. There's simply no clear distinction of where Anglo-Catholicity stops. This list should go to AfD. Dgf32 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you all are beating a dead horse. If I remember correctly, previous attempts to delete this article have failed. clariosophic (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Catholic vs. High Church

[edit]

An editor just deleted the High Church mention in the intro, which used to read "Anglo-Catholic, or High Church,...." with edit comment indicating that High Church is not synonomous (sp?) with Anglo-Catholic. Can definitions be provided? And then I don't know how to evaluate whether any one church is either. Is it possible to determine which churches are which? Again, the problems with this have me thinking this list-article should have been deleted, originally, and should perhaps be AfD'd now. If there are solutions, please speak up, anyone. doncram (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble experience, Anglo-Catholic is a subset within High Church, the difference being that Anglo-Catholic parishes are more extreme in their High Church practices, e.g. emphasizing practices that even the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II has abandoned for the most part. In my diocese, Southeast Florida, which is traditionally High Church, only a few parishes would qualify as Anglo-Catholic, although many others retain some vestiges of these practices. clariosophic (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good point. However, there are many Anglo-Catholic parishes, especially in the UK, that celebrate the novus ordo Roman Mass just like at any Roman Catholic parish. In the United States, the vast majority of Anglo-Catholic parishes use the Book of Common Prayer with other bits and pieces of the Roman Rite thrown in. A minority of the Anglo-Catholic parishes in the U.S. use a version of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missal in English, either the Anglican Missal or the English Missal. Dgf32 (talk)
The line between High Church and Anglo-Catholic can be hard to find. High Church can refer to basically any parish that incorporates some Catholic liturgical practices into the Prayer Book Eucharist. A good way to sum it up is that high church is basically "'High' Ceremonial but not Catholic doctrine." On the other hand Anglo-Catholic parishes tend to fully embrace Catholic sacramental theology. These parishes can be easily identified, because their weekly schedules reflect their sacramental theology. The term Mass is used, confessions are heard, the rosary may be recited. A very simple rule is that if a parish has Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, even just once a month, then it is clearly Anglo-Catholic. Dgf32 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. -- Secisek (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Many Anglo-Catholics would use the term 'High Church' as an insult, implying the use of ceremony without doctrine; Anglo-Catholicism is not therefore a subset of High Church.Quincefish (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The two terms can mean significantly different things. Historically "high church" really only meant holding a view that the Christian Church was of divine origin and institution. It had very little to do with other doctrinal or liturgical positions. So an Anglican could be "high church" but also more sympathetic to Protestant doctrines and forms of worship rather than Catholic ones. Anglicanus (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of article, regarding "most highly notable" qualification to be included or not

[edit]

Someone just renamed/moved the article from "List of most highly notable Anglo-Catholic Churches" back to "List of Anglo-Catholic Churches". I predict that this, if not reversed, will increase the rate at which new persons arrive and add their local church to the article. Causing more conflict and need to delete those new entries because wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory. The "most highly notable" phrase was added to inhibit the directory-type additions, and has been helpful in doing that. I'm going to try to move the article back now. To today's mover: please discuss here and/or raise this at wikipedia's Requested Move area (i think it is wp:RM) before removing it to your preferred name for the article. doncram (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Anglo-Catholicity

[edit]

I just deleted some new material added to the Worksop one, as I believed it indicated that the church is active, not that it is Anglo-Catholic. Another one carries, as evidence of Anglo-Catholicity, a similar blurb: "Maintains schedule of daily offices (Matins, Noonday Prayer, Evensong and Compline) Monday - Friday throughout university term. Midweek masses celebrated Monday - Friday throughout university term. Solemn Eucharist (Western Rite) celebrated weekly". Could someone clarify if that somehow means the church is Anglo-Catholic? My understanding is that having services, masses, and/or eucharists is part of other denominations as well. I am thinking that all the mention of services in some of these listings is self-promotional, and does not add to understanding whether the church is a wikipedia-notable Anglo-Catholic church or not. Again my concern is that this is not supposed to devolve into a directory, see wp:NOTDIRECTORY. doncram (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within the context of the Anglican church, Mass daily, Sunday Solemn Mass and Solemn Vespers & Benediction weekly, Confessions, Society of Mary Worksop Ward (Most Holy Rosary) all tell me it is Anglo-Catholic and none of them would be found in other sorts of Anglican Church. Just using the term "Mass" in the context of the Anglican church indicates Anglo-Catholicity. What kind of evidence would you think would be appropriate? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree that the use of unleavened bread indicates Anglo-Catholicity. It indicates non-Evangelical. Likewise Eastwards facing is a practice used in many middle-of-the-road BCP churches. Quincefish (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Order of U.S. entries

[edit]

I'm not sure whether it might be non-Americans editing here, but I am American and I am pretty sure most Americans would expect/prefer for U.S. entries to be ordered by state then city, rather than by city. So that St. Laurence Church in Southlake, Texas, shows up with Dallas and with Fort Worth, rather than with entries from far away states. No one knows where "Southlake" is. So for step 1 i have revised the list to show the U.S. state. In Step 2, I expect to reorder by state then city, within the U.S. section. Comments? --doncram 23:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Anglo-Catholic churches. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria unclear

[edit]

I came across this article via WP:THQ#need help completing edit made to List of Anglo-Catholic churches in U.S.. It seems to have lots of issues that need to be sorted. Somethings such as whether to use "St" or "St." and image syntax are fairly minor that can most likely be quickly sorted. The main issue, however, it's not clear what the criteria for inclusion are, i.e. the WP:CSC.

The lead for the article states "This is a list of Anglo-Catholic parishes and missions within the Anglican Communion that are considered notable." which is quite broad and opened ended. Lots of people unfamiliar with WP:N probably think that their church is "notable" so to speak, even though it might not be considered "Wikipedia notable". Generally, the most basic criterion for being included in a list like this is that the article be Wikipedia notable, i.e. that it already has a stand-alone article written about it or that it's a good candidate for one to be written per WP:REDYES. I'm not sure what the notability criteria for churches are in general, and whether there's a WP:SNG specifically for churches, but there should be at least a primary criterion for inclusion established for the article to distinguish what to leave in and what to leave out.

FWIW, entries don't have to be limited to only those which are Wikipedia notable, however, and if the group is small enough in number it might actually make sense to include all members of the group. I don't know how many Anglo-Catholic churches there are world-wide, but unless existence itself is all that's needed for inclusion, there should be some kind of crtierion established. Without any criterion established, you're just going to have people adding content about their particular church to the article because they're mistaking it for some type of online directlry for Anglo-Catholic churches. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Thanks for raising this issue. I have long been concerned about how items end up in this list. I personally don't have a problem if the church doesn't have a Wikipedia article. A big problem has been, "How is Anglo-Catholic defined?" Some editors take it upon themselves to make that determination, making comments about vestments, incense, bells, etc. Others do go to the trouble to link a source. Sometimes the source specifically identifies the church as Anglo-Catholic. Sometimes the source (often the church's website) uses the term "Catholic tradition" or something similar. To me that really doesn't make the distinction. If you examine Anglican history and current practices, every Anglican church has some degree of Catholic tradition. In its inception as the Church of England, the Anglican churches followed the same customs in liturgy and many other customs that are seen in the Roman Catholic Church. Through the centuries many of those have been retained. So the term "Catholic tradition" doesn't really make any distinction among "Anglo-Catholic" and any other Anglican church. As I see it, the only way the term can apply is if a reliable source clearly states that the church self-identifies as "Anglo-Catholic" (or something very close to that, such as "Anglican Catholic"). Anything short of that is a gray area that can include any Anglican church. I think the article needs to be trimmed down with that criterion. Unsourced entries obviously should be removed, as well as those entries whose source does not clearly state that the church self-identifies as "Anglo-Catholic". That would go a long way toward making this article actually have some meaning. I've done this a little at a time, but this is a very long list that will require a lot of work to clean up. I also think the description at the top of the article should have the statement, "... churches that self-identify as Anglo-Catholic". Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia notability doesn't have to be primary inclusion criterion, but it often is chosen to be because it's fairly well-defined (i.e. either an entry has a Wikipedia article written about it or it doesn't). Of course, it can be hard to explain Wikipedia notability to persons not very familiar with Wikipedia, but among experienced editors it's fairly easy to base inclusion upon that. There are always borderline cases where an entry seems for the most part to be Wikipedia notable, but its just that nobody has gotten around to writing an article about it yet; so, you may find red links in some articles supoorted by citations. Ideally, there should be some way to verify that an entry belongs in the list; whether this is done by adding citations to the list article or by adding them to a stand-alone article (if one exists) can be determined by local consensus. One advantage of setting Wikipedia notability as the most basic criterion is that it often drastically reduces the eligible number possible entries; at the same time, though, this can be a disadavantage because it might be too limiting, especially with respect to smaller groups.
If you feel "self-identifiability" is a better criterion, then that could work too; however, there should be a consensus estabished as to what that means (e.g. referred to as such by some national governing body of Anglo-Catholic churches, supported by citations to independent/secondary reliable sources, stated as such on an official website) so that it's easy to figure out whether some church meets the criterion. Whatever criteria are established, they should be clear enough to be able to deal with drive-by editing where people just show up and add "their" church to the list because they mistake (in good faith most likely) Wikipedia for some type of free online directory where they get their church's name, etc. added to Wikipedia.
I think care also has to be taken when it comes to the lead. The current wording is a bit unclear in that the word "notable" can be interpreted in different ways. I read it as Wikipedia notability, but someone else might read it a much broader subjective context. For example, if the lead said something like "This is a list of Anglo-Catholic parishes and missions within the Anglican Communion that are recognized as such by the International Association of Anglo-Catholic Churches", it it would be quite clear as to which churches can be added. That's a pretty extreme example, but is fairly easy to understand. Sometimes the inclusion criteria is self-evident (e.g. "List of Academy Award winners for best picture", "List of Presidents of Country XYZ), but it's not always necessary to include detailed information about the inclusion criterion in the lead even when it's not so obvious; it should, however, be clarified somewhere for reference purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes" column

[edit]

The contents of the "Notes" columns of the various tables probably needs to be reviewed. Lots of it is unsourced and maybe WP:OR, but even if true it's still an issue per WP:VNT. Moreover, some of it is "trivial" type of information like the times and dates of services, whether confessions are heard, etc. which is not really encyclopedically relevant per se as explained in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Perhaps once the inclusion criteria gets sorted out it will be easier to sort out the "Notes", but really the content should be assessed and determined whether it's something actually worth mentioning and then whether it can be properly supported by citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Anglo-Catholic_churches&oldid=1208204258"