Talk:List of churches in London

message: * D - Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll call that E then, & add above. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Further splits of some big sections (connected by links in main article) reduce the article size to less than 250k bytes without significant changes in the appearance. JohnThorne (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which there certainly is - see Wikipedia:Article size!  This was until the recent changes the 8th biggest article on en:wp by bytes', and still needs to go down by at least 50%.  I can't think the transcluded maps & images are many of these at all.  I think in general people would prefer to keep functionality such as sortability, and references etc, rather than just a stripped-down version. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to note that the technical limitations apply to transcluded content too. Otherwise the split is for nothing, since the page still has to load all the same content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The transclusions are placed to assure the consistency of the content before and after the splits. When the changes are reviewed to be acceptable, the links can be removed. JohnThorne (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I think it's clear that there is general support for splitting sections per boroughs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly! One person has supported A, apart from the original tentative suggestion. Two people have supported completely different approaches, and three the Swiss cheese approach (C). Plus one for D. So no. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pigsonthewing, Jdcooper, JohnThorne and myself all support splitting the sections that have been split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Jdcooper and I would support both A and B. Headhitter (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  B would be a big no-no for me. It would be recentist in the extreme to 'hive off' churches that are now defunct/demolished. I'm not 100% sure what 'hived off' means in this context, but we don't have separate list articles for dead people, for example. There are many prominent churchers that have been destroyed by war, or redevelopment, or have been re-purposed. Once notable always notable. Sionk (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "With regard to Anglican churches, as opposed to Catholic churches, nonconformist chapels or meeting houses, the designs of the Wren office provided a new standard for British church architecture ever since,..." is pretty misleading, as it implies that "British church architecture ever since" has been heavily influenced by Wren, which is certainly not true, nor what the ref says. In fact Wren's influence in terms of architectural style lasted only a century or so, before being swamped by a flood of Gothic Revival churches, like most in the list.  The same broadly goes for the internal arrangements for purposes of worship.  Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text issue 

message: I don't think we need one reference for each church when there must be sources out there that list multiple churches. Are there any such sources that people are aware of? This would reduce the unnecessary size of the article immensely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and external links