Talk:List of Anglo-Catholic churches

message: I think this says it all.  clariosophic (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  District of Columbia or Washington, D.C.? 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it is  separate from St. Andrew's which is at 400 Pendleton Street. It is at 10 North Church Street in Greenville, SC and is part of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina. clariosophic (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeneville SC church 

message: 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)
replies: text: By individually notable, what i basically mean is whether it is notable enough to have its own article in wikipedia.  My question is: what are the current wikipedia standards to allow an individual church article to exist?  I have created many church articles, but only for churches that are notable by reason of being listed on the NRHP.  P.S. I do expect that some of the churches now included in the list are NOT individually notable, and should be deleted from this list-article. doncram (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it red links and is unlikely to be created anytime soon it should not be on the list. All blue links should stay. -- Secisek (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first part of what you say.  But some blue links which go to external sites are like red links, and some of these probably should be removed.  For either red-links or these, I can't determine from information in this article which are notable / deserving of having an article / likely to have an article soon, and which are not.  I did already create articles for all of these that relate to a U.S. NRHP site.  Eventually, if there is not other information and criteria forthcoming, I would think it would be reasonable to delete all the other U.S. church links.  But I'd rather hear from editors who contributed to this list, first. doncram (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: External links show up as green on my browser. Yes, treat them as per red above. -- Secisek (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining that. doncram (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which churches are individually notable, for inclusion in this list? 

message: 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)
thread_title: External links to U.S. churches removed from article

message: 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)
replies: text: Or maybe should make the list into a table, with a column for name, a column for an image if available, and a description column that explains notability.  If notability of churches on the list is not evident, how is the typical wikipedia article who knows of one particular church to know that it is not of the same type.  If they'd have to add a table row, with a notability column to fill out, that could slow 'em down.  I don't know if i want to fill out the table, either, though. doncram (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for responding.  For you and me, "notable" is meaningful in a wikipedia way, but what I meant to say was that it does not have that meaning to the average reader, for whom something may be notable if in fact it is noted.  Few want to say their own church is not notable.  Per WP:SELF, refering to a wikipedia-specific definition of notable is probably not appropriate to mention in an article at all, much less in an article title.  (The mention of wikipedia definition of notable in the footnote, which i had added, should probably be eliminated, too.)  "List of important churches"?  Important is vague.  I think we have a problem that there is no one (unless you are the one?) who is that interested in actually developing this into a proper list-article.  I wouldn't mind doing some work on it if it was "List of Historic Anglican Churches" though.  But I am not even clear on what would be the difference between Anglo-Catholic vs. Anglican. doncram (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen WP:SELF before, but I don't think it applies. In any case, we have List of notable asteroids - but doing a quick search doesn't produce a lot of occurrences of "notable" in a title. Instead, it's usually in the lead paragraph - e.g. List of Melburnians. Notice that the article doesn't define notable, but if anyone adds their own item, it can be easily removed. StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, glad you looked at WP:SELF then.  I think it does apply, why wouldn't it apply?  Your pointer to List of notable asteroids is helpful.  In that article, the notability is effectively defined in tables explaining each of 10 types of notability: 1 Largest known, 2 Brightest, 3 Retrograde and high-inclination,... 9 Record-setting close approaches to Earth, 10 Exceptionally slow-rotating objects.  For this article on churches, I would be fine for notable to be in the title, if we tabulated all the entries in similar ways, e.g. one table being "Churches that are Registered Historic Places in the U.S.".  I don't know what other tables would serve to define the other churches' notability. doncram (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, List of Melburnians made me think we don't need a name change - we just go ahead and delete all the red-links. Thinking it over, maybe WP:SELF does apply - it means we don't define notability in the article itself. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a definition of notability is not explicit and not strongly implicit (like in the List of notable asteroids), then people will keep adding their local church.  I don't like the setup, in which we would keep implicitly inviting but then "biting" the newbies, by our deleting their well-meant contributions.  List of Melburnians is not a great model, i wouldn't want to have an article like that, and its Talk page describes a litany of adds and deletes and disagreements, too, due to its poor definition.  It's like lists of notable alumni at various university webpages, too, which are very unsatisfying.  Let's try tabulating the list and including descriptions that get at each site's notability? doncram (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename of article, regarding "most highly notable" qualification to be included or not 

message: 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)
replies: text: Within the context of the Anglican church, Mass daily, Sunday Solemn Mass and Solemn Vespers & Benediction weekly, Confessions, Society of Mary Worksop Ward (Most Holy Rosary) all tell me it is Anglo-Catholic and none of them would be found in other sorts of Anglican Church. Just using the term "Mass" in the context of the Anglican church indicates Anglo-Catholicity. What kind of evidence would you think would be appropriate? --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Anglo-Catholicity 

message: 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? --doncram 23:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of U.S. entries 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706130006/http://www.stjamescommunity.org.au/ to http://www.stjamescommunity.org.au/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520234139/http://www.stmarksfitzroy.com/church/ to http://www.stmarksfitzroy.com/church/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510091921/http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/worship.htm to http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/worship.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303225200/http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/life.htm to http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/life.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224154238/http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/history1.htm to http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/history1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510095313/http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/music.htm to http://www.allsaintsmargaretstreet.org.uk/music.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109154600/http://allsaints.net/tour.htm to http://www.allsaints.net/tour.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726153328/http://www.holyfaithchurchsf.org/pages/worship.html to http://www.holyfaithchurchsf.org/pages/worship.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this issue. I have long been concerned about how items end up in this list. I personally don't have a problem if the church doesn't have a Wikipedia article. A big problem has been, "How is Anglo-Catholic defined?" Some editors take it upon themselves to make that determination, making comments about vestments, incense, bells, etc. Others do go to the trouble to link a source. Sometimes the source specifically identifies the church as Anglo-Catholic. Sometimes the source (often the church's website) uses the term "Catholic tradition" or something similar. To me that really doesn't make the distinction. If you examine Anglican history and current practices, every Anglican church has some degree of Catholic tradition. In its inception as the Church of England, the Anglican churches followed the same customs in liturgy and many other customs that are seen in the Roman Catholic Church. Through the centuries many of those have been retained. So the term "Catholic tradition" doesn't really make any distinction among "Anglo-Catholic" and any other Anglican  church. As I see it, the only way the term can apply is if a reliable source clearly states that the church self-identifies as "Anglo-Catholic" (or something very close to that, such as "Anglican Catholic"). Anything short of that is a gray area that can include any Anglican church. I think the article needs to be trimmed down with that criterion. Unsourced entries obviously should be removed, as well as those entries whose source does not clearly state that the church self-identifies as "Anglo-Catholic". That would go a long way toward making this article actually have some meaning. I've done this a little at a time, but this is a very long list that will require a lot of work to clean up. I also think the description at the top of the article should have the statement, "... churches that self-identify as Anglo-Catholic". Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia notability doesn't have to be primary inclusion criterion, but it often is chosen to be because it's fairly well-defined (i.e. either an entry has a Wikipedia article written about it or it doesn't). Of course, it can be hard to explain Wikipedia notability to persons not very familiar with Wikipedia, but among experienced editors it's fairly easy to base inclusion upon that. There are always borderline cases where an entry seems for the most part to be Wikipedia notable, but its just that nobody has gotten around to writing an article about it yet; so, you may find red links in some articles supoorted by citations. Ideally, there should be some way to verify that an entry belongs in the list; whether this is done by adding citations to the list article or by adding them to a stand-alone article (if one exists) can be determined by local consensus. One advantage of setting Wikipedia notability as the most basic criterion is that it often drastically reduces the eligible number possible entries; at the same time, though, this can be a disadavantage because it might be too limiting, especially with respect to smaller groups.If you feel "self-identifiability" is a better criterion, then that could work too; however, there should be a consensus estabished as to what that means (e.g. referred to as such by some national governing body of Anglo-Catholic churches, supported by citations to independent/secondary reliable sources, stated as such on an official website) so that it's easy to figure out whether some church meets the criterion. Whatever criteria are established, they should be clear enough to be able to deal with drive-by editing where people just show up and add "their" church to the list because they mistake (in good faith most likely) Wikipedia for some type of free online directory where they get their church's name, etc. added to Wikipedia.I think care also has to be taken when it comes to the lead. The current wording is a bit unclear in that the word "notable" can be interpreted in different ways. I read it as Wikipedia notability, but someone else might read it a much broader subjective context. For example, if the lead said something like  "This is a list of Anglo-Catholic parishes and missions within the Anglican Communion that are recognized as such by the International Association of Anglo-Catholic Churches", it it would be quite clear as to which churches can be added. That's a pretty extreme example, but is fairly easy to understand. Sometimes the inclusion criteria is self-evident (e.g. "List of Academy Award winners for best picture", "List of Presidents of Country XYZ), but it's not always necessary to include detailed information about the inclusion criterion in the lead even when it's not so obvious; it should, however, be clarified somewhere for reference purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria unclear 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Notes" column