Talk:Roslindale Congregational Church

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

questions[edit]

The article states "The shingle-Romanesque style church was built in 1893 by James Murray." When you say built, do you mean designed, or actually constructed? And what is the source? doncram (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is NRHP info as provided by Elkman. Murray is listed as the architect. Swampyank (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the statement in the text of the article should technically be footnoted to clarify that. As written, it appears the author of the article could have had independent knowledge. Also, I observe that you have perhaps overly trusted both the NRIS database and your interpretation of its cryptic information. For example, the "built" date in Elkman infoboxes has often turned out to be some other date of significance for a site, other than the date on which it was built. Here, your interpretation may or may not be correct, that the architect was the construction manager for the building as well as having designed it, and that the building was built in 1893. It is conceivable that something else significant happened there in 1893, instead. You may be right in your assumption in this case, but since you created a large number of articles with text based on similar assumptions, I am personally rather sure that some of those interpretations are factually wrong extrapolations. I don't mean to be difficult. But, anyhow, I think the assertion in the text should either be removed or it should be footnoted, clarifying what is your source. doncram (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the date problem with some of the Elkman data. Using the Elkman data for stubs is easy, but it is certainly not as reliable as dendochronology or other research, which is far less efficient to obtain. At any rate, the Elkman data provides a starting point. Swampyank (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]