Paul, I'm a little puzzled as to your choice of title for your article. Almost all, without exception, the text books and works I consult refer to these churches as "Commissioner Churches" or "Commissioners' Churches". I accept that "Waterloo church" may have been a popular early 19th century name but it hardly ever used in the 21st century. What is your reason for choosing this as your main title for the article? Can you justify it and what are your sources for preferring it over the more common "Commissioner Churches"?-- DonBarton 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it not pretty clear from the works of Michael Port and others that memorials to the fallen of Waterloo or tokens of the nation's gratitude these churches were not? Lord Liverpool and others in Parliament made no bones about them being built to combat Non-conformity and the problems of rapid urban growth. Non-conformity in the years following the French Revolution, I have read, was feared as a fertile breeding ground of "proletarianised radicalism". There is evidence to suggest that some of the Yorkshire Luddites of 1813 and Pentrich Rebels of 1817 were Methodists [although whether Wesleyean. New Connexion or Primitive is not clear]. I cannot recall the precise references as I write but it would be no trouble to find them if need be.
The four 1818 Act churches built in Sheffield were, and two still are, substantial structures of stone. One which, St Mary's, resisted the best efforts of the Chartists and Hitler to remove it.
Charles Pooter, Sheffield.
Sorry about the strange format of the above. I have not got the hang of doing it properly.-- Chaspooter 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Don,
Thank you for sorting the formatting out.-- Chaspooter 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1818 Act was a long time in coming. From reading the Parliamentary Debates of the time it is clear that Spencer Perceval was contemplating such a measure in the weeks before his murder [1810]. The National Schools Act was passed in 1811. I wonder if it was all part of a perhaps unconscious desire by Lord Liverpool and his administration to preserve the world and institutions of their youth in the only way they knew how - see various comments in Waterloo to Peterloo [R.J. White, Waterloo to Peterloo, Peregrine, 1968, p24]. In terms of social teaching the urban poor would be exposed to nothing too radical in an Anglican cnhurch - see Hart in Donajgrodzki [ed],Social Control in 19th Century Britain, [Croom Helm, 1977, p108 - 137]. Chaspooter 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The lead said that "Waterloo Churches" were built in England, whilst the main body of the article said United Kingdom. I can't find anything to support either, but it needs clarifying.
I've provisionally changed this to the United Kingdom, it being more inclusive/ambiguous than England, but of course this could be less accurate. I suspect it could be just England owing to the Church of England, but I don't know - it needs an expert's eye on this one. -- Jza84 | Talk 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
WP requires us to use the most commonly-known name in accordance with WP:AT - note: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." WP:ILIKEIT is not adequate. This means that the more common name will normally take precedence. "Waterloo Church" appears to still be a far more commonly-known term for those churches commissioned under the Million Pound Act - noting that there was no official or legal name for churches so created other than referring to the "Church Building Acts of 1818, 1819 and 1822". I have just done a scan of literature that I have to hand - Weinreb's London Encyclopaedia uses "Waterloo Church" exclusively. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has no description under Ecclesiastical Commissioner or Church Commissioner, nor Waterloo church. English Heritage uses both terms in its Survey of London. Curl's Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture indexes it under "Commissioner's church", but then says "also known as Waterloo churches". A carefully-restrictive google.co.uk search for "Waterloo churches" reveals 3160 references - "commissioner's churches" has less than 800. Therefore it has to be Waterloo, and I will reset the redirection accordingly. (This topic hasn't been raised here for years, and I'm surprised the later Commissioner's page has existed for two years without the duplication being noticed, but maybe this underscores the point about Commissioner's Church being a lesser-used term).
More than a dozen people have edited this article and may have contributions to make. I therefore point out that the article's talk page here is the correct place to have a discussion about a specific article - not behind the scenes on personal talk pages. Looking at those personal pages, I see that there is a proposal to merge the text in the two articles, and I welcome this. However, if reconstructing the list of churches, please remember that the geographic grouping was important - 38 churches were built in London as a result of the Acts. The Lambeth four were named in a particular sequence important to their commission. Also the style adopted was typically either Greek or Gothic, and the architect could also be significant. Ephebi ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ephebi I note your comment that:-
"WP requires us to use the most commonly-known name in accordance with WP:AT - note: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." WP:ILIKEIT is not adequate. " I believe that Peter I. Vardy and myself are both using the most commonly-known name and are not putting forward a name used by specialists.
Like Peter I had never heard of Waterloo Church being used before I came across it being used on Wikipedia. The fact that Google has more "Waterloo churches" references than "Commissioners' churches" does not convince me that Waterloo is the better choice, particularly as most of the sites themselves go on the use words like Commissioners' churches or sometimes called Waterloo ... or Commissioners' churches, or erroneously called ... I do not consider myself a specialist despite having done a post-graduate Masters degree course in 19th Century History. There can be many reasons why there are more Google references for Waterloo than Commissioners' and interests of readers may not be one of them. Paul W, Peter I. Vardy and myself are not in any disagreement over the article merger and the preferred title being Commissioners' churches. I made the original suggestion in 2006 but did not have the time to persue it further then and as no one had objected I welcomed Peter taking the task on. With great respect is it not that you like the title Waterloo Churches rather than any indication of support for merger under the title of Waterloo Church? I certainly do not support having an article under both names. As far as I am concerned there was no behind the scenes on personal talk pages about merging the two articles. -- DonBarton ( talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Now that the article entitled Commissioners' church has been expanded, do editors think that the title of this article should be made into a redirect again? The individual churches in the "list" part of this article are contained in the separate lists in the other article under "See also"; and expanded lists to eventually include all the churches are being prepared.-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, I'm a little puzzled as to your choice of title for your article. Almost all, without exception, the text books and works I consult refer to these churches as "Commissioner Churches" or "Commissioners' Churches". I accept that "Waterloo church" may have been a popular early 19th century name but it hardly ever used in the 21st century. What is your reason for choosing this as your main title for the article? Can you justify it and what are your sources for preferring it over the more common "Commissioner Churches"?-- DonBarton 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it not pretty clear from the works of Michael Port and others that memorials to the fallen of Waterloo or tokens of the nation's gratitude these churches were not? Lord Liverpool and others in Parliament made no bones about them being built to combat Non-conformity and the problems of rapid urban growth. Non-conformity in the years following the French Revolution, I have read, was feared as a fertile breeding ground of "proletarianised radicalism". There is evidence to suggest that some of the Yorkshire Luddites of 1813 and Pentrich Rebels of 1817 were Methodists [although whether Wesleyean. New Connexion or Primitive is not clear]. I cannot recall the precise references as I write but it would be no trouble to find them if need be.
The four 1818 Act churches built in Sheffield were, and two still are, substantial structures of stone. One which, St Mary's, resisted the best efforts of the Chartists and Hitler to remove it.
Charles Pooter, Sheffield.
Sorry about the strange format of the above. I have not got the hang of doing it properly.-- Chaspooter 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Don,
Thank you for sorting the formatting out.-- Chaspooter 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1818 Act was a long time in coming. From reading the Parliamentary Debates of the time it is clear that Spencer Perceval was contemplating such a measure in the weeks before his murder [1810]. The National Schools Act was passed in 1811. I wonder if it was all part of a perhaps unconscious desire by Lord Liverpool and his administration to preserve the world and institutions of their youth in the only way they knew how - see various comments in Waterloo to Peterloo [R.J. White, Waterloo to Peterloo, Peregrine, 1968, p24]. In terms of social teaching the urban poor would be exposed to nothing too radical in an Anglican cnhurch - see Hart in Donajgrodzki [ed],Social Control in 19th Century Britain, [Croom Helm, 1977, p108 - 137]. Chaspooter 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The lead said that "Waterloo Churches" were built in England, whilst the main body of the article said United Kingdom. I can't find anything to support either, but it needs clarifying.
I've provisionally changed this to the United Kingdom, it being more inclusive/ambiguous than England, but of course this could be less accurate. I suspect it could be just England owing to the Church of England, but I don't know - it needs an expert's eye on this one. -- Jza84 | Talk 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
WP requires us to use the most commonly-known name in accordance with WP:AT - note: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." WP:ILIKEIT is not adequate. This means that the more common name will normally take precedence. "Waterloo Church" appears to still be a far more commonly-known term for those churches commissioned under the Million Pound Act - noting that there was no official or legal name for churches so created other than referring to the "Church Building Acts of 1818, 1819 and 1822". I have just done a scan of literature that I have to hand - Weinreb's London Encyclopaedia uses "Waterloo Church" exclusively. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has no description under Ecclesiastical Commissioner or Church Commissioner, nor Waterloo church. English Heritage uses both terms in its Survey of London. Curl's Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture indexes it under "Commissioner's church", but then says "also known as Waterloo churches". A carefully-restrictive google.co.uk search for "Waterloo churches" reveals 3160 references - "commissioner's churches" has less than 800. Therefore it has to be Waterloo, and I will reset the redirection accordingly. (This topic hasn't been raised here for years, and I'm surprised the later Commissioner's page has existed for two years without the duplication being noticed, but maybe this underscores the point about Commissioner's Church being a lesser-used term).
More than a dozen people have edited this article and may have contributions to make. I therefore point out that the article's talk page here is the correct place to have a discussion about a specific article - not behind the scenes on personal talk pages. Looking at those personal pages, I see that there is a proposal to merge the text in the two articles, and I welcome this. However, if reconstructing the list of churches, please remember that the geographic grouping was important - 38 churches were built in London as a result of the Acts. The Lambeth four were named in a particular sequence important to their commission. Also the style adopted was typically either Greek or Gothic, and the architect could also be significant. Ephebi ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ephebi I note your comment that:-
"WP requires us to use the most commonly-known name in accordance with WP:AT - note: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." WP:ILIKEIT is not adequate. " I believe that Peter I. Vardy and myself are both using the most commonly-known name and are not putting forward a name used by specialists.
Like Peter I had never heard of Waterloo Church being used before I came across it being used on Wikipedia. The fact that Google has more "Waterloo churches" references than "Commissioners' churches" does not convince me that Waterloo is the better choice, particularly as most of the sites themselves go on the use words like Commissioners' churches or sometimes called Waterloo ... or Commissioners' churches, or erroneously called ... I do not consider myself a specialist despite having done a post-graduate Masters degree course in 19th Century History. There can be many reasons why there are more Google references for Waterloo than Commissioners' and interests of readers may not be one of them. Paul W, Peter I. Vardy and myself are not in any disagreement over the article merger and the preferred title being Commissioners' churches. I made the original suggestion in 2006 but did not have the time to persue it further then and as no one had objected I welcomed Peter taking the task on. With great respect is it not that you like the title Waterloo Churches rather than any indication of support for merger under the title of Waterloo Church? I certainly do not support having an article under both names. As far as I am concerned there was no behind the scenes on personal talk pages about merging the two articles. -- DonBarton ( talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Now that the article entitled Commissioners' church has been expanded, do editors think that the title of this article should be made into a redirect again? The individual churches in the "list" part of this article are contained in the separate lists in the other article under "See also"; and expanded lists to eventually include all the churches are being prepared.-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)