![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To any editor who reads this: I am confused by the wording of this sentence. Is Grace Church constructed with three types of materials (i.e. wood, plaster, and lathe), or two types (wood; and plaster scored to look like stone and lathe)? And I'm assuming the wooden sections are only framing or interior walls, and that the exterior is plaster and/or lathe. Is that true and is it verifiable? Also, I assume that the writer of the sentence meant to write lath and not lathe; I'd like to see a building constructed out of lathes.
-- 24.246.112.51 ( talk) 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I also found one other good source. Here is the link, it appears to be a book published in 1900. You can do a CTRL-F search to find the passage stating that Grace Church's facade is made of marble.-- 69.119.255.1 ( talk) 22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I merely want to arrange the existing images into a gallery, not add any more images. Your dusk image was not only the most visually appealing composition in the article, but it was the most comprehensive photo of the church within the article. I'd say to add it back; the steeple image does not contribute anything, as the dusk image shows all of the steeple and more.-- 69.119.255.1 ( talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I had worried you were going to say that. Not only does adding the church infobox allow for the possibility of more parameters, ones that the NRHP infobox does not have, but adding the infobox makes the article closer in format to featured articles. If Grace Church is ever going to become a FA, it's going to eventually get a church infobox. In addition, I value the construction material content going in the infobox, as it is a great deal easier to find that detail there than to sort through paragraphs of history and church function looking for it. Finally, the only significant difference is that the NRHP banners won't be sitting on top, which sure, somewhat hides the fact from readers a bit more, but the NRHP designation is not something to be overly proud of, and if you just want it on top as a show-off point, I'd say that's in bad faith. But I'll assume good faith, yet still promote my proposed and constructive edit.-- 69.119.255.1 ( talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally, I don't believe in multiple infoboxes on an article, but I'm perfectly willing to consider the church infobox here so long as it can be embedded, and doesn't usurp the NRHP box. I think you are quite mistaken that the article must have a church infobox - in point of fact, I rather think multiple (unembedded) infoboxes would count more against the article than the lack of the church box. In any case, those are my thoughts: two separate infoboxes is not good, an embedded second infobox is fine, but the historic designation box should be the primary box. If we can't agree on this, we'll need to open the discussion up to hear some other opinions. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not resolve this by creating a new NRHP CHURCHES info box ... something that combines the best of both the NRHP info box and the CHURCH info box. It could be used for all articles on churches that are listed on the NRHP. Blueboar ( talk) 22:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar's idea, but you have to ask yourself...which is more important for you in editing the article and presenting the information...highlighting the NRHP/NYCL designations, or highlighting the information about the church? Once you determine which effort is priority, then that can help determine the appropriate infobox. But if someone acts on Blueboar's idea, run with it.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict) OK, maybe because it's earlier in the day than when this discussion started, but I just took another look at 69.119.255.1's proposed infobox, and I guess I should withdraw my objection to it. I would still prefer the historic box to be at the top, because I think it's more important and it immediately (and colorfully) flags the subject to the reader as historically important, but if that can't be done, so be it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, as a result of the discussion here, I've gone ahead and implemented 69's suggested change to the infobox, with a bit of tinkering of my own (moving "Episcopal Church" from the NRHP "governing body" field to the Church "denomination" field, for instance). It still would be nice if some smart coder could figure out the cause of the embedding problem, though. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grace Church (Manhattan). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To any editor who reads this: I am confused by the wording of this sentence. Is Grace Church constructed with three types of materials (i.e. wood, plaster, and lathe), or two types (wood; and plaster scored to look like stone and lathe)? And I'm assuming the wooden sections are only framing or interior walls, and that the exterior is plaster and/or lathe. Is that true and is it verifiable? Also, I assume that the writer of the sentence meant to write lath and not lathe; I'd like to see a building constructed out of lathes.
-- 24.246.112.51 ( talk) 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I also found one other good source. Here is the link, it appears to be a book published in 1900. You can do a CTRL-F search to find the passage stating that Grace Church's facade is made of marble.-- 69.119.255.1 ( talk) 22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I merely want to arrange the existing images into a gallery, not add any more images. Your dusk image was not only the most visually appealing composition in the article, but it was the most comprehensive photo of the church within the article. I'd say to add it back; the steeple image does not contribute anything, as the dusk image shows all of the steeple and more.-- 69.119.255.1 ( talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I had worried you were going to say that. Not only does adding the church infobox allow for the possibility of more parameters, ones that the NRHP infobox does not have, but adding the infobox makes the article closer in format to featured articles. If Grace Church is ever going to become a FA, it's going to eventually get a church infobox. In addition, I value the construction material content going in the infobox, as it is a great deal easier to find that detail there than to sort through paragraphs of history and church function looking for it. Finally, the only significant difference is that the NRHP banners won't be sitting on top, which sure, somewhat hides the fact from readers a bit more, but the NRHP designation is not something to be overly proud of, and if you just want it on top as a show-off point, I'd say that's in bad faith. But I'll assume good faith, yet still promote my proposed and constructive edit.-- 69.119.255.1 ( talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally, I don't believe in multiple infoboxes on an article, but I'm perfectly willing to consider the church infobox here so long as it can be embedded, and doesn't usurp the NRHP box. I think you are quite mistaken that the article must have a church infobox - in point of fact, I rather think multiple (unembedded) infoboxes would count more against the article than the lack of the church box. In any case, those are my thoughts: two separate infoboxes is not good, an embedded second infobox is fine, but the historic designation box should be the primary box. If we can't agree on this, we'll need to open the discussion up to hear some other opinions. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not resolve this by creating a new NRHP CHURCHES info box ... something that combines the best of both the NRHP info box and the CHURCH info box. It could be used for all articles on churches that are listed on the NRHP. Blueboar ( talk) 22:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar's idea, but you have to ask yourself...which is more important for you in editing the article and presenting the information...highlighting the NRHP/NYCL designations, or highlighting the information about the church? Once you determine which effort is priority, then that can help determine the appropriate infobox. But if someone acts on Blueboar's idea, run with it.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict) OK, maybe because it's earlier in the day than when this discussion started, but I just took another look at 69.119.255.1's proposed infobox, and I guess I should withdraw my objection to it. I would still prefer the historic box to be at the top, because I think it's more important and it immediately (and colorfully) flags the subject to the reader as historically important, but if that can't be done, so be it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, as a result of the discussion here, I've gone ahead and implemented 69's suggested change to the infobox, with a bit of tinkering of my own (moving "Episcopal Church" from the NRHP "governing body" field to the Church "denomination" field, for instance). It still would be nice if some smart coder could figure out the cause of the embedding problem, though. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grace Church (Manhattan). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)