# Talk:St Edwen's Church, Llanedwen

I have said this before and I am going to keep saying it.  Publishing on Wikipedia the details of the church plate that may or may not still be located within a fairly remote church is sheer stupidity.  Writing about the architecture and all that is fine and interesting, but giving a list of possible pickings is  all superfluous information.  Does their alarm system run on candle power?   Please stop doing this!  THINK before you publish!   Be aware also that having made DYK, your article is now being read by a lot of people who don't usually have a specific interest in churches.
Amandajm (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And I have said this before and will keep saying it.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Remote churches are vulnerable whether or not they get mentioned for anything on Wikipedia.  In fact, Llanedwen church was burgled in 1840 and some church plate stolen, decades before the diocesan survey was published!  Churches get stripped of lead from their roofs all over the country whether or not they have articles about them online.  In fact, I know of one Anglesey church that had a sundial stolen from its graveyard (and before you ask, no, that wasn't something I had written about in an Wikipedia article).  That church has now cemented its medieval font to the floor to stop that being stolen - perhaps you would like me to stop mentioning fonts? Churches take precautions already: not all of them in fact keep the valuable stuff in the church (I know of at least one that keeps its plate in a museum). BencherliteTalk 07:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And perhaps these links below from the Bangor Diocese itself will persuade you that there's no problem in mentioning church plate in Wikipedia articles.  After all, if the Church in Wales is happy to mention them, why should we omit such information?
"The bowl of the silver chalice, dated 1500, is supported on a shaft which bears the figure of Christ." (St Tudwen, Llanduwen)
"The chalice and paten are dated 1707." (St Gwynnog, Llanwnnog)
(for a bit of variety, another type of portable valuable object) "The church possesses a Bishop Parry Welsh Bible of 1620. This was taken away from the church in 1795 when it passed into private ownership, however it was returned to the church in 1965." (St Peter, Llanbedrycennin)
"The chalice is dated 1614 and is of an ornate design." (St Rhychwyn, Llanrhychwyn)
"The church possesses a 'Breeches Bible' dating from 1589 and a silver chalice inscribed 'The Cuppe of Trefriw, 1701.'" (St Mary, Trefriw)
"(gifts) included a silver chalice in 1693 which is still being used today." (St Pedrog, Llanbedrog)
"Items of Interest: ... Chalice & paten dated 1574." (St Gwynhoedl, Llangwnnadl)
"Items of Interest: ...  Chalice dated 1574" (St Figel, Llanfigel)
Convinced yet? BencherliteTalk 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are right.  Wikipedia isn't censored but you personally have an ethical responsibility.   Knowing what you know about the stripping of lead, and so on, ought to make you more conscious of the risk, rather than all the more determined to publicise such things.  I find your attitude, having been warned of the risk, to be totally irresponsible.   Sure, individual churches might naively advertise their goods, all in trust and good faith perhaps, but that is not the case where you are concerned.  You have been alerted.  
You are advertising this stuff on the world's most public billboard.   Any interested party who reads your last  DYK and gets onto you will simply trawl your articles.  But, well, as you keep saying,  Wikipedia isn't censored so you have a perfect right to go on doing exactly what you are doing.   Does it give you satisfaction, to run this sort of risk with other people's property?   I would have though that alerting you, just once, to the problem that this sort of advertising is likely to cause would have been sufficient!    Are your "rights" in the name of Wikipedia more important than common sense, and natural caution?  Ask yourself why, in the name of God, are you so determined to keep doing it? Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the Church in Wales is best placed to decide whether it's appropriate to mention chalices and other portable valuables, not you.  (Those aren't entries written by individual churches, incidentally, but the online version of a Diocesan handbook to Anglesey churches that has been handed away free at the Anglesey County Show and other places in the past.) By your logic, no article about any church, museum, art gallery or historic house (or similar) ought to mention any of the contents, lest impure thoughts be generated in the minds of our readers. And the thought that burglars read DYK in the middle of the night (UK time) to find potential targets, or that burglars would never have thought that a church might be worth looking at but for me... well, I have my doubts. BencherliteTalk 07:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Use your brains.  The difference between a country church and a museum, or art gallery is that the museum  generally has an alarm system and security guards.  Small country churches usually don't.
I just took a look at several of the pages you listed about a,d consider that it is extraordinarily naive of the Church of Wales to advertise its small portable goods.
Can I suggest that since you have a particular interest in these churches in Wales, that, instead of arguing, you alert them to the fact that someone keeps pointing out the folly of giving the details of 17th century silver.?
Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in discussing the matter further with you given your attitude ("Use your brains", indeed). BencherliteTalk 11:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Edwen's Church, Llanedwen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Prose is of good quality throughout.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The article maintains a good layout.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
References are reliable, well-placed and accurate.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
The article covers the main aspects while remaining focused.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
There seems to have been some discussion over what content to include and what to omit. Has an agreement been reached on what to include?
No further discussion after 28th Nov, article has been stable since 23rd Nov, and plenty of other GAs in user:Bencherlite/Operation Anglesey contain similar information without difficulty. BencherliteTalk 08:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wanted to check that had all been sorted out.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Images are freely licensed and include clear, succinct, captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
A really interesting read, with some good photographs too. Well done. Harrison49 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

During part of the period that HMS Conway was a tenant at Plas Newydd, Llanedwen was used as overspill capacity by the school. 
This was because the school gym could not accommodate all the cadets and staff. On Sundays a column of about 50 cadets would march to Llanedwen to attend church. The practice stopped in 1963 when the school moved into purpose-built premises at Plas Newydd and the camp was demolished. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No disrespect to those who have made this a Good Article, but, with the churchyard (about which I have added mention of its one Commonwealth war grave) being mentioned in more than one section (three if you count the introduction), might it look tidier if the references are consolidated in one section?Cloptonson (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Firstly, you don't count the introduction. Secondly, there's nothing much to say, and certainly not enough to justify a whole section. BencherliteTalk 20:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)