This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep, nomination withdrawn. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File:DC 2000 SAMPLE.jpg I think this says it all. clariosophic ( talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? -- do ncr am 23:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep, nomination withdrawn. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File:DC 2000 SAMPLE.jpg I think this says it all. clariosophic ( talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? -- do ncr am 23:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)