Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [1].

List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove edit

Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Here I go with this epic! Credit should go to Vox Humana 8', who had the idea for this list and started it a long time ago; and Kierant, Circeus and Aldux, who have spotted all sorts of errors, inconsistencies and additions that I had missed as I went along. This started as a prose article, with each church under a second-level heading; then I went for a prose-cum-list sorted by denomination; then I finally decided to put it in true list format after finding a workable design when doing the equivalent list for Crawley. A lot of this spadework went on in sandboxes; ask me if you want to inspect the edit history (I would need to find the sandbox in question!). Some points I need to make first:

  • The order of the two tables is quite complex and has been deliberately chosen. "Denomination" is the first criterion, in descending order of number of churches of that denomination, then alphabetically by denomination name; then within each denomination, listing grade (I/II*/II/none), then alphabetically by church name. I hope this is suitably logical!
  • Every church with listed status has an article, as do one or two others with enough notability. Churches with no articles are not notable enough to be mentioned separately outside this list.
  • I am happy to create a "Refs" column and consolidate them in that if preferred. (As demonstrated here.)
  • I know ... it's huge. Sorry! There are so many places of worship in the city...

All comments will be attended to promptly. Thanks for your interest. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - nice list, but it can be better if you actually explain some of the things clearly to readers

  • I have no idea what the grade means? Is it for preservation? Who grade them?
  • Some churches also have no grade. Why is that?
  • What does the asterisk means?
  • Might be helpful to explain all that by adding a key section

—Chris! ct 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→Good point; I hadn't added context. I have put together a paragraph explaining listed status and the grades. "Grade II*" (with the asterisk) is one of the grades. The last part of the second paragraph of this new section does not have a reference at the end, because it simply represents a count of the number of churches/places of worship listed at each grade. Is that acceptable, or shall I leave that bit out? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to add a reference if it can by verified by the list.—Chris! ct 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is very good for a list of this size.
  • "which between them serve a wide range of Christian denominations and other religions" "between them" is probably unnecessary, and "a wide range" could be shortened to " a variety"
  • "There are also more than 20 former religious buildings which, although still in existence, are no longer used for their original purpose."-->More than 20 former religious buildings, although still in existence, are no longer used for their original purpose.
  • "mentioned in the Domesday Book" Publications such as books should be in italics.
  • "and those of the nearby villages which are now " "which"-->that
  • "where 71.74% people identify themselves as Christian" "where"-->in which
  • "It covers 28 extant churches and nine which are no longer used for worship." "which"-->that. Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be formatted the same.
  • "one of 13 deaneries in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton." "one of 13"-->1 of 13 or one of thirteen
→Corrected all of the above.
  • "when the Church of Our Lady Star of the Sea and St Denis in Portslade was declared redundant " "was"-->were
→"Church of Our Lady Star of the Sea and St Denis" was the name of one church, so the singular is correct here. (It is a strange, unwieldy name!)
  • "Also in this network is a Baptist community in Woodingdean which does" "which"-->that
→Corrected. I need to one of those "which/that" exercises ;)
  • Could I ask you to red-link the buildings in the table that stand a chance of having their own article created someday? Research shows that red links help Wikipedia grow (WP:RED).
→From my research, I feel that every building which could have a viable article written about it, has had one written. In all the other cases, the prose in the "Notes" column is all that can be written about the church/place of worship using reliable sources, unfortunately.
  • "a combined parish which existed from"-->a combined parish that existed from
  • "the style of a Greek temple which collapsed " "which"-->that
  • "a medieval village which became depopulated "-->a medieval village that became depopulated
→Corrected those.
  • "which at the time was a poor, densely populated area"-->that at the time was a poor, densely populated area
→I've put a comma before the "which" here instead. "That" doesn't quite look right here.
  • "The church, which dominates one of Hove's main crossroads" It's not clear what "dominates" means here.
→Intended to give an indication of its size; but reworded anyway (to "on one of Hove's...).
  • "and parts of the chancel of the present building are 12th-century."-->and parts of the chancel of the present building are from the 12th century.
→Changed (but to "date from" rather than "are from").
  • "This was opened in 1987 in the grounds of the Grade II-listed Hanover Chapel, " on the grounds, surely?
→No, it was built in what had been the garden of the Hanover Chapel, and the buildings now stand next to each other (well, the Hanover Chapel is behind the new church actually). I think "in the grounds" makes more sense in this context.
  • "This chapel is one of 24 in Britain which belongs" Refer to the "one of 13" comment above. Also, "which"-->that
→Changed.
  • "It has a particular emphasis on youth work."-->It has a emphasizes youth work. ("emphasis" is particular, don't you think?)
→True; I have a preference for "has an emphasis on", though, so have just removed the redundant word.
  • "The small red-brick church was built in 1887 for £1,535 to serve local" Consider using {{inflation}}
  • "was only the fourth Catholic church to be consecrated "
  • "electrically-lit Catholic church." -ly adverbs should not have hyphens following them.
  • "met in various public rooms until they"
→Changed the above, including adding the present-day £ value.

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's one disambiguation link; check the toolbox to your left. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→I've removed the disambiguation link to Church of God on the basis that the church identifies itself only with the general "Churches of God" movement rather than with a particular denomination within that body. "Churches of God" currently redirects to "Church of God". Found a few other fixes to make as well: incorrect use of "date" parameter in refs, and some redundant use of "website" in other refs (must have missed those first time round!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In references in which the website name and the publisher is the same, it is redundant to have something like "Fabrica website. Fabrica." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→All examples removed, I think; I have left the JCR-UK examples (3 in the synagogues section) as I'm not sure whether they are redundant or not. Thanks for your helpful review. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]

  • How are you sure that you've include all the places of worship in that area?
  • The google link is dead.

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→The Google and Bing links are working for me; they generate this url. It seems to be temperamental occasionally; could you try again and see if it's still not working for you?
→There is no reliable single source showing all current and former places of worship in the city – not that I have found anyway. I have therefore had to research very widely to pull all this together, although two sources were particularly useful in confirming details on existing churches, ones that have been demolished etc.: Carder's Encyclopaedia of Brighton and Middleton's Encyclopaedia of Hove and Portslade (15 volumes and about 3,000 pages). I have been through both at some length, and am confident that no building that is within the scope of this article and within the present city boundaries has been missed out. (The intended scope is the same as that of the List of places of worship in Crawley, so no demolished churches, and no school, hospital or cemetery chapels.) It's a difficult question to answer, really: would you like me to clarify further, and are there any specific concerns you have about possible omissions? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that I thought there would be at least one Buddhist temple on Brighton and Hove, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Ah, I see what you mean, with the relatively high proportion of people affiliated with Buddhism as per the census. As far as I know, and have been able to research, the only Buddhist-type "venue" in the city—and I say "venue" because it does not appear to offer any worship in the way a dedicated Buddhist temple would—is the Brighton Buddhist Centre down the North Laine. Funnily enough I used to walk past it every day when I worked down there, at the end of the same street! Anyway, it appears that it doesn't function as a temple. Hopefully in my ongoing research into Sussex places of worship (more of these lists are brewing), I will find out where Sussex Buddhists can actually worship!! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll just AGF the references, as I'm sure you live there, and know the places more than I do. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All issues resolved, good to go. – (iMatthew • talk) at 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_places_of_worship_in_Brighton_and_Hove/archive1&oldid=1207833667"