Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of places of worship in Worthing/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 15:11, 21 February 2010 [1].

---

List of places of worship in Worthing

Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of places of worship in Worthing/archive1

This is the fourth in a series of lists of places of worship in the county of Sussex—a set of lists which I hope will eventually cover all of its 13 local government districts. Modelled on the current FLs for Brighton & Hove, Crawley and Adur, it is a comprehensive list of every extant public religious building, whether open or closed, in Worthing. All notable churches have their own non-stub article; I am satisfied that the others have insufficient reliable source information to write viable articles or stubs. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NB. Peculier [sic] is shown as a disambiguation page on the dab-checker, but the page is the only place with the correct definition of this term, so I have left the link in place. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other names you can choose for this article? Something like "Houses of worship in Worthing" or something. CrowzRSA ^{17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)}

Previous FLCs for similar lists have determined that "List of places of worship in..." is the preferred form. "Houses of worship" sounds slightly odd to me, especially when used in respect of Christian churches, which most of the places of worship listed here are. (It can't be called "List of churches..." because there is also a mosque.) I note that the Wikipedia article is Place of worship, with House of worship given as a variant. Comments from others would be welcomed. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are several others with the same text, "List of places", I would leave at that, mainly to avoid confusion and blend with the rest. CrowzRSA ^{21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)}

From the way he spells "favorite" on the user page of CrowzRSA, there is little doubt that he comes from the western side of the Atlantic. "House of worship" may be an accepted American term, but this is an English list and the title is therefore correct.

I have not studied this list in any detail, but from what I can see it is up to the usual very high standards of this editor, and I am sure that, apart from any minor details which may be discovered in the review process, this deserves to be another FL. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Minor nag, never really understood the use of, say, a 1.1 subsection when there's no 1.2. Another minor comment, but one that may be brought up by those more particular, the claims of the urbanness and the absorption of "ancient villages" is unreferenced. (note, I see this is quite well described later on, and referenced, so no major issue...) Ditto for the "religious identification". (ditto) Only problem being you have some claims referenced in the lead but not all... Another picky one, and one you are free to ignore, but I'd prefer to see [10], [11] and [12] all together after the comma following "19th century"... Fate seems rather an odd word (for me), would "status" be a little more natural? "followed another religion" I'm guessing you don't just mean an other religion, perhaps place "another religion" in quotation marks? " much higher " in absolute terms, only 2.4% higher, (16.99% vs 14.59%). I'd just remove "much". "Location and Coordinates" just "coordinates" would be fine. I note that the majority of your architects are all unlinked. None of them meet our notability guidelines? Col widths of two main tables are not the same from section to section, would prefer if they were. You link Scout in the "closed" section but not in the Mission hall section. Check page range refs for en-dash (e.g. 11, 12, 21 etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Have started to work on these, but lunch is over now, so more to come this evening. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC) →Responses to TRM's comments (in order) I've changed the "Mission Halls" bit into another second-level heading. For the uncited bits in the lead, I have repeated or added extra refs. I prefer to keep refs [10] etc. in their current places to show exactly which fact each one is citing. Yep, "status" is better: changed. "Another religion" bit reworded as well. "Much" removed from "much higher". Actually I've changed to just "Location" if that's OK, because it covers both aspects. No, sadly the architects are a fairly insignificant lot for the most part (no offence to them!): most of them designed a few churches in Sussex and not a lot else. I've linked all those w/ an existing article. I will do some digging around and see if any could safely be written about though... Not sure how to sort out the columns without forcing the widths, which may cause more probs than it solves. On a related note: the heading "Refs" was recently changed to "References" on both tables, causing that column to be quite wide. Is it permissible to abbreviate to "Refs", which would be my preference? Scout is now linked in both places. Darn: I thought I'd caught all dashes/hyphens. Will do that with the next edit. Many thanks for your helpful comments. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC) ← 8 page ranges found and en-dashed; I think that's all. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - This is a nice list and the context is well explained, but a couple of little niggles:

• There are several phrases in the notes section which could be seen as POV eg "impressive arches", "well-regarded" etc - I assume these are backed up with who holds the view, in the references but as these are in a separate column this is difficult to tell.
• The "Images of England" web pages referenced are dated to 2007, however there is no indication on the site to support this date (which, as you know, covers listed buildings in 2001 & has now been superseded).

Otherwise looking good.— Rod ^talk 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

→Responses to Rod's comments

They are all referenced as you say, but I have tweaked, removed or directly attributed certain phrases (including, but not limited to, those examples) in this diff.

For IoE, although the info and pictures were created as of February 2001, I have used the website copyright date as shown on the home page ("© English Heritage 2007" at bottom right) for the publication date.

Thanks for reviewing and commenting. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting those.— Rod ^talk 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (I'm not sure if it can be fixed, though). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't really any way round it except to unlink it. (I hoped there might be a Wiktionary link to the term, but sadly not.) As mentioned in my rationale at the top, I would prefer to keep the link (because it's an unfamiliar term). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought; it's not a big issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is well worthy of featured status. A couple of comments that do not affect my support. I should prefer the Status or Notes columns to be merged with the Refs./References. References as such do not merit a separate column, it would reduce the amount of white space, and refs usually appear directly after the relevant text. And for the sake of easy reading I should prefer greater use of non-breaking spaces to join for example "St Mary's", "G. Highet", "Sir Arthur", and "St James's". Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter; I'll make a start on non-breaking spaces later today (I always forget that! If there was a nbsp button in the edit window, it would help remind me...). For refs: having tried it both ways, I have a slight preference to consolidating them in one column, but may consider changing this in future to integrate them with the notes. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces have been added as appropriate. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Don't think we need to link "English", especially since "West Suffex" is linked a couple words away and there's a link to England in that article. "growing town to postwar housing" Which war? The given link doesn't clarify much, either. Image caption: "Worthing located within West Sussex" just reads weird; perhaps "Worthing's locatation within West Sussex"? Goring United Reformed Church note: Not sure if a link to World War II is needed... "This Art Nouveau-influenced building, by a local architect" I feel that a verb needs to precede "by". "for the conversion of this 98-year-old Strict Baptist chapel into a house" Sounds like the chapel is still 98 years old. The reference section is quite long; consider adding a colwidth parameter (e.g. {{reflist|colwidth=25em}}) Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks Dabomb. From the top: England unlinked there. Clause amended to make post-WWII connection clear. Changed caption to your suggested wording. WWII unlinked in the Goring URC blurb. Could be argued either way, but on balance the addition of "designed" works better. Ebenezer blurb completely reworded to clarify, including the actual year (1907) this time. I've added colwidth=30em, which has been used on some of my other lists; I always forget this because I use Internet Explorer and the parameter doesn't seem to be supported by it (i.e. doesn't make a difference to the layout). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: In ref #100, clicking on the link requires a login and notes that it's a private area of the site. Perhaps add a registration required note in the ref? The place is triple-reffed in the list so this ref may not even be necessary given that issue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting; now changed to non-login link. I think they must have changed the website since I added that ref. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Now Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Alt text, dab and external links, and contributors are all up to speed. Lead A further 16 former places of worship are still in existence but are no longer in religious use. -- I think the beginning is a bit wordy, why not just 'Sixteen other former places ..' The Church of England, the country's state religion, is represented by more churches than any other denomination, but Worthing's first church was an Independent chapel. -- how is the Church of England the official religion? If Christianity is the official religion, which makes more sense? You mean state church? Places of Worship Why is St Mary not St. Mary, or any of the 'St's for that matter? Mission Halls Replaced by permanent church, which was demolished in 2008 -- so the permanent church was demolished? 2001 Why not link to the actual United Kingdom Census 2001?--Truco 503 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Reply Thanks for your comments Truco; in order from the top: "A further 16..." sentence amended. I have changed to "officially established church", retaining the wikilink to state religion and adding one to Christian church; hope that is clearer. I haven't been able to find a consistent rule regarding the treatment of church names in articles (especially "St" versus "St."), so my personal rule for consistency is to write all articles with "St" and to use "St" in all lists etc. St Mary's Broadwater was written by another user, who used the "St." convention. I have not moved the article to "St" because there is no clear consensus that this is appropriate, but I can if preferred. I have clarified the wording of the Emmanuel mission hall (although I hope it's not too verbose). Linked to census article now. Hope that all makes sense; I'm writing in a terrible rush because I've got to leave at 6am to catch a plane and it's nearly 11pm! As I will not be back until Tuesday, please could this be left open so I can check any follow-up comments, make any other necessary amendments etc. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Everything looks good, except the St./St argument. According to WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, if I am reading it right, both are acceptable? Any insight by other reviewers will be helpful. Until he returns.Truco 503 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC) You are correct in saying that St and St. are both acceptable on Wiki. I think the usage of "St" contrary to that particular article's name (it's hard to find total consistency on Wikipedia) is fine here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- All issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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