Jump to content

Talk:List of Strict Baptist churches

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

May 2012

[edit]

With this edit, Ouddorp has reinserted a table/iamge gallery and made various other fundamentla changes to this stand alone list. I previosuly reverted it noting in my edit summaries that this was somewhat, at least, WP:OR (because it moves several listed churches into a separate section titled "Former Strict Baptist churches" with no support for the categorization, and makes other assertions that seem to be based on Ouddorp's personal knowledge or opinion). The inserted table at the top also apparently uses a "Gospel Standard" definition of what a Strict Baptist church is, also without a source or any reason it should matter (WP:POV). At least one image added does not even appear to be of a Baptist Church. In addition, many of the entries do not have Wikipedia articles (and many point to disamb pages). Since there is no way for this list to approach comprehensiveness, this list should be limited to churches with WP articles (Wikipedia:SAL#Common_selection_criteria). The churches added also list other unsourced information about who the pastor is for each church. Thus, becuase the recent reinsertion--without any explanation or jusitification in an edit summary or elsehwere--fails various aspects of WP:SAL, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP, Wp:POV, and WP:IG, I am going to revert. Novaseminary (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article expanded with references. File:Oakington_Methodist_Church_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1608717.jpg is deleted. Ouddorp (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just entirely repurposed and moved this list without explanation. If you want to create a new list, by all means, do so if it meets WP:N and WP:SAL, but do not continue repurposing this list without even an attempt at consensus. I have moved the article back and will revert the repurposing. Novaseminary (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note on Ouddorp's talk page just now. I think there needs to be clarification of the scope of this list and also whether any other lists/articles should accompany it. Before any more material is introduced, we need to decide exactly where it should go. Happy to help where I can. I have some relevant sources/research info at home for the purposes of adding references. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening English friends. Yes, we need indeed to define the scope of this list. But why the list can't remain, till consensus? Novaseminary, your contribution is only negative, please help with the article? So we can improve Wikipedia! greetings from Holland, 81.207.45.111 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange, because the list is generally as it was when I split it from the main Strict Baptists article many months ago, and should stay that way until consensus says otherwise. And as two other editors have told you on your talk page (assuming you are Ouddorp), the changes you introduced don't comply with WP guidelines and policies. That is why they cannot stay. Removing material that fails WP guidelines is not destructive; more is not always better (similar to when you pasted copyrighted material in other instances in other articles and that was removed). The one new church you added to the list that does have a WP article, I reinserted into the current version of the list after reverting your broader edits. What you tried to do might be very useful as a webpage or online directory, but doesn't belong at WP. Novaseminary (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But WHY is the list NOTDIR? I don't think so! It is usual to define a baptist chapel as a (Gospel Standard) Strict Baptists Chapel when the chapel is published in the Gospel Standard, that has historically grown. Strict and Particular Baptists who accepted Gadsby’s confession in the magazine came to be known as Gospel Standard Strict Baptists:
So there is a strict definition of which churches belong to the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists. Why so much opposition? Ouddorp (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list needs to consist of more than the chapel name and location: otherwise it acts as a directory listing. Other encyclopaedic content needs to be added: things like date of construction, significant events, architectural style, the involvement of any significant people, links with other chapels (secessions, dismissals etc.)... There is enough source material out there to write at least a sentence for every chapel. I have put together a number of lists of places of worship in my own county of Sussex (e.g. List of places of worship in Rother). I don't want to claim that this is the right way, or the only way, of putting together an encyclopaedic list of churches, but the combination of name + location + coordinates + picture + listed status (if applicable) + a couple of sentences of notes has worked quite well. I am happy to help as far as I can in expanding each chapel's info in this article; I only have source material to hand for Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire, but I know where to find info for most of the rest of Britain. I also need to reiterate the point about the scope of the list: there are quite a lot of Gospel Standard chapels in Britain, possibly too many for a single list. A geographical split might be advantageous. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at the article (I should have done that first!) and seen that this expansion process is already underway. I suggest that continuing in this way would be a good thing, bringing plenty of encyclopaedic value to the list. (And with only about 100 extant chapels in Britain, the size is OK: I thought there were more.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I have again reverted to the status quo pending some resolution here. If Ouddorp or others want to create a new list of Gospel Standard churches, fine; create a new list. We can then discuss whether that list meets WP policies and guidelines at a deletion discussion or elsewhere. This list should include every WP article about a church that considers itself Strict Baptist (or is considered by an RS to be Strict Baptist), whether or not Gosepel Standard recognizes it. Nothing else, nothing mmore. If we can't agree on what churches are "Strict Baptist" or not, that is a different story and we should discuss. Novaseminary (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hassocks5489, for your suggestions. I will create a new list: List of Gospel Standard Strict Baptist chapels (with chapels who belongs to the Gospel Standard movement) with name + location + coordinates + picture + listed status (if applicable) + a couple of sentences of notes. Ouddorp (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

With this edit I reverted Ouddorp's reversion to an earlier version of this list. The AfD discussion did not establish that the former List of Gospel Standard Strict Baptist chapels simply should be moved here. It should be merged. The discussion above clearly shows consensus against a Gospel Standard-only list here as did the closer at the AfD. Per WP:SAL and as discussed above, this list should contain only churches with WP articles. And it should not be a directory. Noting which churches are listed in a particular source (Gospel Standard, for example) could probably be done consistent with policy, maybe by breaking them into sections (as one would do geographically if a long list lended itself to such a breakdown). Regardless, Ouddorp's version still has all of the flaws discussed above and there is no consensus for it. What Ouddorp continues to try to do would be perfectly appropriate on a website, but not on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I added the one church with a WP article listed on the former List of Gospel Standard Strict Baptist chapels that was not already listed here. Novaseminary (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is not delete! Just one person voted for delete and that was you. Are a dictator...? You started an edit war, not me. There is no consensus for delete! Ouddorp (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is also not ”replace without consensus.” And two !voted to delete, me and the nom. Regardless, I did merge; I added the one listing that was appropriate. The format, criteria, and other changes you keep making are inappropriate. Please stop inserting the material without consensus. More than the status quo might be appropriate, but not everything, and we are less likely to get there if you continue as you have. I am going to replace to my last version. Please not make wholesale changes to this without explaining and getfing consensus here. It moght be helpful to focjs on one aspect at a time. Novaseminary (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here as an uninvolved party... The AfD concluded as "Merge", not "Delete and redirect". The current bare-bones version of the list that I found is not what the AfD called for. The list needs headings and text that describe the list as a list of churches, not a list of churches that appeared in a particular magazine, but the content from the page that was supposed to be merged should be retained. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that what is appropriate to bring here should be brought in, and i've done so to a minor degree. Should photos for notable churches be in, maybe; towns listed, sure; pastor, probably not;non-notable churches, no way. Let's discuss what elements are appropriate. But a wholesale swap is not a merge, especially since much of it is entirely inappropriate and was already rejected above- which is why Ouddorp created the new list. Novaseminary (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
St.Anselm, you just reverted to a version you know full well was not the consensus above or at theAfD and is not the pre-dispute long-stable version. You youtself came out against this version at User talk:Ouddorp#List of Strict Baptist churches. I'm leaving it for now, but I hope you are an honorable enough editor to at least prune the obvious problems rather than reverting to a disputed version you don't even agree with. Novaseminary (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started by disambiguating. Actually, I'm warming to the idea of having non-notable churches per WP:LSC, but most of all I want to have a page that reflects the consensus at the AfD - which Ouddorp's version did much better than yours. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) More to the point, edit-warring doesn't help. That is to say, we need occasionally to have versions we don't agree with so that they can be worked and pruned and developed. Going back and forth adding and removing 25kb at a time doesn't help the article. So yes - I reverted to a version I didn't agree with, because that's the best we have at this point in time. I support removing the preacher column, so that might be a place to start in pruning the table, if User:Ouddorp agrees. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb is the least of its problems. The implication that only churches on Gospel Standards list are the legitimate Strict Baptist churches is the POV/OR problem. And no way can the list ever be complete, even limited to Gospel Standard churches, it would not be short enoigh for that criteria in LSC. Novaseminary (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we restrict the list to churches with articles, then it is clear that we need more articles. Looking at the "Notes" column, it looks like Hope Chapel, Blackboys, Ebenezer Chapel, Bodle Street and Strict Baptist Chapel, Broughton Gifford are probably all notable. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Strict Baptist 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) 12:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Strict_Baptist_churches&oldid=1208302545"