Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Historic Chapels Trust/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [1].

---

Historic Chapels Trust

Historic Chapels Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Historic Chapels Trust/archive1

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the chapels and other places of worship currently preserved by the Historic Chapels Trust. The text has been copyedited and the format is identical to that of other FLs, for example List of new churches by John Douglas. Every chapel in the list has an associated article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A few comments / queries from me before I support (as I'm bound to do, given the excellence of this list)

• No dab links, but Historic Chapels Trust is a circular redirect to this page - delink it, perhaps, or (better yet) why not move this list back to that name? Realistically there's nothing more to be said about the Trust than you already have done in the lead.

• In my previous nominations for FL, it has been insisted that the title should be "List of ...". After a long discussion it was agreed that lists starting "List of listed buildings in ..." was a nonsense, and it was decided that these lists (only) should be an exception. Hence this title, which I have decided to keep. I have deleted all the circular redirects, and left "Historic Chapels Trust" as a redirect to this page. This means that people searching for "Historic Chapels Trust" will be sent directly to this list.

• ELs all fine
• You use British Listed Buildings as a reference on a few occasions; can you use the English Heritage pages (which are the source of the BLB site) instead for those? E.g. this for the Westgate Primitive Methodists. It seems a shame to use a site with advertising copying from the official site's records.

• I've been used to working with Images of England. The trouble is that this site is now out of date and is not being updated. EH now have a link to Listed Buildings Online, which should be up to date, but I have found very difficult to search and negotiate. So I tried British Listed Buildings which I found to be more friendly, and gave more information, including GRs and coordinates. There were two instances in this list where I had used BLB; both gave more detail than IoE and in each case the building had been upgraded from II to II*. Anyway I've now found them on LBO and changed the references to these. Must practice more with LBO!

• I've removed a second {{reflist}} from the article, which I assume had crept in by accident...

• Thanks, it was as you say an error.

• On my display (IE8), some of the photos (St George's German Lutheran Church, Todmorden Unitarian Church, Umberslade Baptist Church) have an extra line alongside them. I can't see anything in the code that's causing this, but it seems to be the upright ones at 70px

• I think this is a browser problem; similar things have happened with the formatting of other lists. I use Firefox and there is no problem.

• Is "The Buildings of England: Lancashire: Liverpool and the South-West" (2006) still attributed to Pevsner even though he died in 1983? Or should there be a prior year/edition indicated, as with the other Pevsners?

• The current version gives credit to both authors (Pollard and Pevsner). It seems that all the Buildings of England series are being updated and expanded; this volume is one that has been updated. It is a big expansion, still containing some Pevsner text, but more is now Pollard. Cheshire has not been updated yet. So IMO it is appropriate to include the "origyear" field in the Cheshire ref, but not in the Liverpool+ one. (And I think the previous South Lancashire book has been split into Liverpool+ and Manchester+, so there's really no continuity.)

• Your Parliamentary ref (ref 2) says "(published 2006)" whereas your other refs just say "(2006)". I assume this is a product of {{citation}} but don't know which parameter should be tweaked to avoid the inconsistency.

• Fixed.

That's all I can think of for now; well done. Bencherlite^Talk 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful comments. I've replied to all that need a reply. Are you happy with this?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support yes I am. I knew that Images of England was an archived project, but hadn't had to look for a modern replacement (I'm sticking to Welsh churches at the moment!) so I'll remember the LBO if I need it. Once again, a fantastic piece of work by one of Wikipedia's most dedicated creators of high-quality articles and lists on English architecture. Bencherlite^Talk 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to go "the whole hog" and have changed all the refs from Images of England to Listed Buildings Online; there is a greater chance that this will be kept up to date in the future.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I think the name Historic Chapels Trust would be fine for this list, and would even prefer it be there. Not every FLC must begin with "List of...", see the recently promoted Major League Baseball Triple Crown, 1966 NBA Expansion Draft and Freedom Award for examples where everything there is to say about the topic are in an FL. Not every FL has to have a 'parent article' as it is. Thanks for the comment. Every time I have nominated a list, there has been a dispute about the title. The last time I "had to" start it with "List of ...". I don't really mind (or care). Is there a policy? If so, I should like to know what it is (and hope it will not change frequently). If not, maybe there should be. "The money raised is used for acquiring properties and for their repair and maintenance, for insurance, security costs and office expenses." List of four, comma after security costs. Done. "As of summer 2010" I'm used to capitalising seasons, but it may well be a phenomenon of too many Olympics articles. I'm not used to doing that, but what is the general feeling? Should I? I'm not sure, but doesn't a 'the' normally proceed "Rt Hon"? Yes, added. Would a 'date acquired' column be useful in the list? Why? What use is it? The charity was only founded in 1993; and the sources do not always say when the chapels were acquired anyway. Does it really matter? I do not see any value in yet another column to clutter up the list (on my narrow screen). Comments from others, please. That's all I've got for you. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review. I've acted on some of your comments, but not all. I welcome advice/feedback from others.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On the list name, I agree that it's a little bit odd. I think the rule of thumb is that if the list is effectively a split from a parent article, then it starts "List of...", but if it effectively doubles as parent article and list, then it doesn't. So (e.g.) List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford is a split from Jesus College, Oxford, List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas is a split from John Douglas and List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque is a split from Albuquerque, but Bodley's Librarian, BBC Young Musician of the Year and Master of the Rolls aren't splits from anything. Lists of listed buildings don't start with "list of..." to avoid the repetition, which is a clear sub-rule of whatever the main rule is, but anomalous. Discographies and filmographies are splits from a main article about the artist/group, but use a posh word instead of "list of ..."(!) Looking at the wikitext of WP:FL (to see which ones are called "list of", hidden in the main display), I see a few oddities and I won't try and pretend I understand the convention for TV episodes or series, but that's how I look at it. So, I do think that this should be moved back to Heritage Chapels Trust (I fail) Historic Chapels Trust, as it's not a split from a main article since there's nothing more to say about the HCT than you have already. However, I'm not going to oppose on that basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's say... Governor of Alabama. The corresponding list article would have two options: "Governors of Alabama", or "List of Governors of Alabama". The former is too similar to the main article and so should be discarded. The latter works, but as you said, we probably should only use that format when there is actually a parent article. Unless there is enough information on the trust itself to outgrow the list (or rather, until such time as the list outgrows information on the trust), the article should probably be at Historic Chapels Trust. That said, either way, "Historic Chapels Trust" needs to be bolded in the article lede. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is typical for lists to start with "list of..."; I remember a while ago Dabomb went around a lot of list articles moving them to "list of etc" (a couple of examples [2] [3]) as it's the established convention. I'm not especially fussed one way or the other. Having "list of" at the start makes it explicit, but in the examples I've given the original title would have worked just as well in my opinion as the lead provides a summary of the topic. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing: When there's no 'parent article', do you need to be explicit? Why does it matter if it's a list or not? There's only one area on Wikipedia where such a distinction is made, and it's the featured content process. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the name goes, I agree that Historic Chapels Trust is the correct title for this list, as this is the main article regarding the Trust and not a spin-off article about a specific aspect of the trust. More generally, there are some cases where the "List of" could be considered unnecessary or even clunky (as with the aforementioned Listed buildings series of lists). However, I have seen several instances where it does matter. One example comes to me at the moment: compare Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (an FA) to List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings (an FL). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, it's not unheard of for lists to be promoted, even nowadays, and subsequently be uncontroversially but significantly renamed (for instance List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season → Watford F.C. Player of the Season). Although I feel that the short name would be a big improvement, and that at the very least it should be created as a redirect, I don't believe that the matter should have a bearing on the final FLC decision.

I'm still on a reviewing holiday for the next few weeks. But while I'm here, I will say that those are some lovely images. Nice work! WFC (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks folks for your comments. I am entirely happy for the title to be Historic Chapels Trust (it's now emboldened in the lead); I was just trying to follow what I thought was the normal guidance. But I am unsure of the process of moving the title. We already have Historic Chapels Trust as a redirect to the List. Do we just move the content of the article to Historic Chapels Trust; but this leaves List of ... empty. Would this then be a case for AfD of the List? I don't see any point of making List of ... a redirect to Historic Chapels Trust — who would type in the former when looking for the latter? And the title of this page will have to be changed too. Can someone with the necessary skill/experience do this without causing the complications that would arise were I to try to do it? Thanks in advance.

Re the images; I take no credit for them. The credit must go to the photographers who have "given" their work to Geograph (not all images from that source are good; I've been lucky with some in this article).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page and this discussion, fixing the links. The "list of..." title is now a redirect to HCT, and is harmless; in fact, it has various inbound links so ought not to be deleted unless those are fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; I most grateful.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments an excellent list with a clear lead and enough information about each of the entries. The only minor nitpicks I can find are:

• In the table headers "date" presumably relates to date of construction - should this be made explicit?
  • I've done this as a footnote so that the size of the columns is not distorted by the heading.
• In the references "Listed buildings online" is used as part of the title (followed by the chapel name) in several of the titles (eg 6, 9, 11, 13) personally I would used "work=Listed buildings online" and move it out of the title.
  • Agree. Done.
• In a few refs (eg 19, 25, 41) RC is used in the title - should this abbreviation be written in full?
  • I've copied the titles precisely as given by the source. It this not correct?

• Not a major issue

Otherwise I feel it meets all the requirements for FL.— Rod ^talk 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rod for the comments. A reply to each point is above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Thanks I feel the list meets FL requirements.— Rod ^talk 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem. Having changed all the English Heritage refs to Listed Buildings Online, there is now a warning from the Toolbox that registration is required for them. In fact a couple of clicks on the opening two pages of the website takes you in and keeps you in for that session. But is there any way of getting more direct access: or do I have to add a warning similar to "subscription required"?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats why I avoid using LBO for refs & stick to IoE.— Rod ^talk 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is IoE is out of date — it's stuck in a time warp and is not updated. Two of the chapels on the list have since been upgraded from II to II*. I think I might have to use British Listed Buildings after all despite its advertising material; it contains precisely the same info as LBO and gives open access. What do others think?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note on Peter's talk page about this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Hassocks, the problem is solved; all the refs have been changed to Heritage Gateway; and the Toolbox seems to be happy now.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) High-quality work, as always.

• "As of summer 2010" Any way of rephrasing this? It's winter in half the world.

• Whoops! Summer changed to July.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• When I sort by street (Firefox), "Alie Street, London" comes between "Hockley Heath, West Midlands" and "Kensal Green Cemetery, London". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I arranged the Location sort by town/city; so London comes between Hockley Heath and Netherton. I think that's logical, and cannot think of a better way of dealing with the two (potentially aberrant) London addresses.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments - nice list! Anglican is overlinked in the lead. Fixed "at any reasonable time" this is a bit POV and I assume it's a direct quote? So directly "quote" it... Text amended to "at advertised times" "When it acquires a property, the Trust arranges a public meeting to discuss issues relating to its use..." may be just me, but the last "its" has got lost, i.e. it could relate to the Trust, rather than the property. "its" replaced by "the use of the building" Key isn't accurate, the word "Grade" doesn't appear in each row of the table. Agree; the repeated use of "Grade" in the Key is redundant. Deleted as appropriate. Surprised this has not been spotted on earlier reviews. Is there a link for "Catholic Relief Acts"? Yes, added "and is being restored" needs a timeframe. Done "The shrine is being converted into a community " similar. Done I would think you need to add Date to the key, i.e. is it when the chapels were built? Not sure what you mean — there is no Date in the Key. I guess you mean the column titles, and I thought I had dealt with this (see above). I've added a footnote to explain this. To add it to the title would make the column too wide for its contents.

• Any reason why a number of the titles of the references are in italics?

• I need help here. I think I am the victim of the Citation template. Usually what is placed in the Title field is italicised. In those cases where it is not, the contents of the Work field are italicised and those of the Title field are not. You will see from the discussion above that I have had difficulty with the citations for listed buildings. The website "usually" referenced is Images of England. But this is now out of date and is not going to be updated. The Listed Buildings Online website is up to date, but (unacceptably) includes advertising material. I have been advised that the site to use is the Heritage Gateway; up to date and no adverts. But how to reference it? I helped out with the referencing for Listed buildings in Rivington in a similar style. Another editor amended it, removing the names of all the publishers. I tried to remedy this by adding a Note at the start of the References section, and made a comment to this effect at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Rivington/archive1. But this has produced a similar problem with italics. It would be helpful to get this sorted out; once done it can be applied to this list, present and future FLCs, and indeed all articles and lists containing English listed buildings.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to The Rambling Man. Thanks for the comments. Most have been answered but I have raised a query about the last point.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to stick with {{cite web}} which doesn't italicise anything except for the work field. Would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions I have seen at FAC, the italicized titles generated with {{citation}} are an accepted style as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think the problems in this list are that some titles are italicised, and some are not. So I have italicised all the titles for consistency. Further comment: I may be mistaken, but I thought that we were encouraged to use {{citation}} for everything (as a sort of catch-all). But it then has to produce consistency across the board, rather than cause the sort of trouble we have encountered here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple widely used families of citation templates: {{citation}} (as you said, a catch-all), or the {{cite XXX}} templates (which includes cite web, cite book, cite news etc.). Neither "family" is encouraged or discouraged over the other, but it must be used for all citations in the article for internal consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely my problem in this list. I've used {{citation}} throughout, and it's produced internal INconsistency. Anyway that's sorted now, so far as the review of this list is concerned.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PS (as a slight diversion). Why do we have two families? At present there are two bots travelling around, one transferring {{cite XXX}} to {{citation}}, and the other doing the opposite!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, who knows. We've wandered outside the realm of FLC here, thanks for resolving the issue I noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Question. This is an idea I'm just throwing out there. What do you think of using sortkeys (or a seperate column if you prefer) to sort by county first. This was Todmorden Unitarian Church and Wainsgate Baptist Church would sort next to each other under West Yorkshire using {{sort|West Yorkshire, Hebdon Bridge|[[Hebden Bridge]], [[West Yorkshire]]}} etc. Your thoughts? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

At present the Location column sorts by town/city. I'm not convinced that there is anything to gain by changing this to sorting by county.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.