Talk:St James' Church, Sydney

re Deleted content
"- a purpose betrayed by the unusual classical form and central positioning of the northern porch (which also serves as the main entrance) -"

The reason that I deleted this is that neither the classical form nor the position of the porch are an indication of its purpose as a courthouse.

On the contrary, at the date of its building, the classical style was still the norm. Of London's churches- St Paul's Cathedral, all Wren's churches bar one (as far as I remember), St Martin's in the Fields, St Paul's Covent Garden, are mostly classical.
 * The Classical form is neither unusual, nor is it any indication that the building was intended for a purpose other than a church.

The earliest churches in Australia are also Classical, St Matthew's, Windsor, being a fine example. There are a few, such as Port Macquarie, that have classical form but pointed windows. But Gothic Revival didn't really get going in Australia until Edmund Blacket arrived in the 1840s.


 * The position of the Northern porch half way along the side is also not unusual for a church of that date. Northern porches are common in general, and the location in the centre of the north side seems to have been the norm, in Australia in the 1820s and 30s, see, St Matthew's Windsor, St Thomas's Mulgoa, St Stephen's Penrith while St Thomas, Port Macquarie has a door but no porch.


 * In the early days of the colony, churches were usually multi-purpose buildings which served as either schools or courthouse during the week.

--Amandajm 13:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why has this been put back?
 *  a purpose demonstrated by the unusual classical form and central positioning of the northern porch (which also serves as the main entrance) –
 * I can't believe that after deleting this back in 2006, and giving really good reasons, including four Australian examples, it was still put back into the article. It's nonsense, obviously! See above! Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Aaaaargh! I looked up the history of this edit and discovered that User: Gene Poole, the person who had added this unsourced misinformation to the stub, reverted it within 15 minutes of my making the edit!
 * I left an edit summary that said the "info was incorrect. See talk page".... and left this full explanation for why the information was incorrect.
 * Gene Poole left an edit summary to say that it "wasn't incorrect".
 * Gene Poole, if you are watching this page, then just let me say that your edit has misinformed the public for the last five years.  You obviously  either didn't bother read this page. Or absorb the detailed information and the various examples that you were offered.
 * The side door and the Classical style are not indicators that the building was designed as a courthouse.
 * The Classical style was the NORM in churches of that date
 * Side doors were the NORM in most English churches and cathedral, with the "west doors" (as the doors at the end are often called) only being opened for major festivals and weddings.  (yes, yes, the individual building's orientation to the street affects this.)
 * Amandajm (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

 * Give yourself several major headings and place the other stuff under them. At present you have only got major headings. It breaks continuity in the reading every time you have to cross a line.
 * 1) Buildings, subsections: Location, History (Macquarie, Greenway etc), Architecture, Monuments and artworks, Restoration
 * 2) Ministry subsections: Worship, Clergy, Mission or whatever
 * 3) Music subsections: Organ, Choir, Bells. (NOTE: if you have every last detail of the organ, then it constitutes a separate page i itself. Likewise, in ancient cathedrals where the list of organists and organ scholars goes back to the 16th century, they have a separate page).


 * It is part of a surviving group of Macquarie period buildings in Australia.
 * Bad sentence on two points.
 * "Macquarie period" is meaningless to any person outside Australia, and also to many young Australian. It needs to state clearly "built during the governorship of Lachlan Macquarie" (dates)
 * It says "group" and means exactly that. It doesn't mean the scattered remnants of Georgian architecture across the colony. Since I last read it, someone has changed it. The term "group" applies to the precinct, that little clutch of buildings: church, courthouse, barracks, and two wings of of Macquarie's hospital now called the "Mint" and the "Houses of Parliament", that make up a significant remnant of old Sydney Town.


 * In 1900, the interior was re-oriented to face east.  You can't make this statement unless you have explained how the church was originally orientated.   In doing this, you also need to give an indication of why the change was made.  Also, refer to the original arrangement as "Georgian" rather than as 19th century. It was most atypical of the 19th century, but was typical of 18th century churches. "Georgian" spanning both, sets it apart from the radical changes that happened in the CofE in Sydney (in some quarters) in the Victorian period.
 * Wunderlich copper sheeting since it was constructed in 1822, er, I reeeally don't think so...... Wunderlich first hit the scene at the time they were building the concert hall at the Sydney Town Hall, many years later. If that copper sheeting was Wunderlich, then it was at least 60 years after the building of the church
 * and was carried out in the same design as previously. The refurbished spire was re-dedicate.... Forget the bit that says "carried out in the same design".  Simply state that the spire was "restored". (This is all that is necessary to indicate that it was the same design.)
 * Don't used the word "refurbished" and never say "renovated" if you are referring to a restoration, or a "conservation". What happened in the early 20th Century was an internal "refurbishment". Adding the chancel in the early 20th, and knocking out the chapel walls and replacing them with glass in the late 20th were "renovations".
 * If you want the exact meaning of "conservation" then go and look at the sandstone wall outside the Barracks. It was "conserved" ie. all the flaking stone, horizontal shelfs and fractures were sealed with a mortar that it softer than the stone, and neutral to it. The ingress of water is impeded, without replacing or removing the original stonework. The technique is non-invasive. The spire of St James was conserved back it the 80s or 90s.
 * They were terribly careful at the time, not to damage the beautiful green patina which had built up over 100 years. Shortly after that, some "restorer" (I don't know who, but I could place a bet) went arounds Sydney stripping the copper-green off all the bronze and copper, including the tarry-diddles on the Conservatorium.


 * Following these repairs, further necessary work was identified, including to the roof and perimeter fence.
 * Say "this restoration", not "these repairs."
 * This is a strange statement It suggests that no-one had realised the state of the slates that had been put on by a dodgy roofer in the 1970s. My experience is that if the slates had been damaged by poor fixing, this would have been apparent long prior to 2010. I would be better to say "The next stage of the restoration work ......"


 * You talk about the Greenway Award. State who your winning conservation architects are.
 * Sister Freda and Reverend Richard Hill cannot possibly link to articles in Wkipedia.  Look up "Richard Hill" and find out how to link him.  Find Sister Freda's surname. What did Sister Freda do? I presume she was a Deaconess.
 * The crypt. This is a very unusual feature for an Australian church.
 * The Children's Chapel. Describe it a bit. You mention two artists who were involved, but I believe that the major artist was a woman. Give this person their due, rather than just the famous names.

Don't miss my comments in the previous section on "Deleted content" Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all these comments! I am working my way through implementing the suggestions and trying to develop the article further. Whiteghost.ink 06:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress
The introduction needed reworking after so much has been added and it's better for it. It will probably need doing again as the article develops. There is still a way to go. However, I think the engagement with the legal community is part of the church's total engagement, of a piece with an engagement with the disadvantaged community and that is why I put them in one section. Cruikshank's opinion is surely not one of the most important things here. I thought it fitted into the Tourism section, which is an additional, though unusual, activity for a church. I had earlier removed the "special role" wording after criticism that they were weasel words. Soon I will break out the section on the Children's Chapel to its own article. Whiteghost.ink 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, I know it needs more work. That is why I am working on it. For example, the architecture and building history need developing. At the moment I am working on the Chapel.
 * I put the Cruikshank sentence in, because you cannot use your "weasel words" without them being deleted, but you can use a quotation that indicates the church's significance. It is, in fact, a very very significant building historically, and Cruikshank makes that clear, in a way that neither you or i can do.  A bald statement that it is on the National Register is not sufficient.
 * The introduction should make reference to the important issues that are going to be brought up within the article. The intro should not include a lengthy description of which buildings are in the immediate vicinity (for example) or the detailed history of the commission of the building. These things belong elsewhere.  But if the church has an ongoing ministry of some sort (apart from regular services and functions such as Sunday School) then this needs to be indicate in the intro, along with its association with the legal fraternity.  This is the case, even if the details are then repeated in a more elaborate form further down the article.
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you create another article from the children's chapel bit, you need to leave a paragraph that sums it up. Amandajm (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for "special role", well honestly, how is one supposed to word it? I have just had a lengthy argument over at the la Sagrada Familia page, because, although the building is nothing like any church built either before or since, and constitutes one of the most amazingly original designs ever conceived,  some silly person (to put it in the politest terms I can muster) feels that to be true to the principles of Wikipedia we must simply say that it is based on Gothic and Art Nouveau, and has columns and arches.  In other words, nothing in the description actually describes the extraordinary nature of the building. (winge, winge)
 * The fact is that St James holds a significant Position in Sydney, but defining exactly what that significance is, in terms that are Wiki-acceptable is very very difficult.
 * BTW, I do churches, and church architecture on Wiki all the time. See Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches.
 * Anyway, I spose "special role" will be deleted. What's the next option?
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this article is coming on well, actually. I'll work on the architectural description and drop that in. I've got to be in Sydney tomorrow. I might drop by St James.  Amandajm (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this (that you will work on the architecture bit) until after I added things to that section. You will probably have better and more extensive refs. Also didn't know that there was a principle about the sequencing of sections in church articles - (stable up and changeable down). Helps to know that. I understand the role of the Intro better now too. Glad you think it is coming along well. There is so much possible material about this church that in the end balancing the content might be tricky. Your experience will come in handy there too. (Sagrada Familia, is, as you say, so much more than Gothic and Art Nouveau.) Whiteghost.ink 12:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Chapel of the Holy Spirit
This section needs a rewrite. At the present, it puts the cart before the horse in that the section beigns by stating what the main feature is, before it has told us the what and the where. Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Response

 * Scrap that lead picture. It tells you nothing about the church except that it has a copper spire and that there are trees and a cathedral near it. It doesn't convey the sense of that elegant little church surrounded by buildings. The view from Hyde Park Barracks looking through the gates tells that storey much more effectively.
 * - Changed it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The arrangement of pics with all the important interior views jammed under the lead pic isn't working. They need to be paired. I'll fix that.
 * - Yes, they need to be paired. I can't get them to work well at the moment. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The detail of the modern window can be replaced with a view of all the sperm. The pic needs some adjustment.
 * - Replaced detail picture with broader perspective. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One of your porch pics will look just fine after I've photoshopped it it improve the angle a bit.
 * - Added one. Might keep trying for a better one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That stupid plastic memorial sign drives me up the wall! I told the designers of the Sydney Museum that it wasn't an effective method of conveying real information, but the gap between heritage practice and media design is enormous.... grumble grumble..... I have worked in both building conservation and museum education...... grumble grumble.... don't even ask me about the restoration of that mural because you wouldn't want to know..... Leave the photo of the plastic sign out. It takes up space and tells you nothing that isn't in the article, except that the designer didn't think about readability.
 * - Deleted this image. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of the expression needs tweaking.
 * - Still tweaking. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it thought of as one of his finest works? Don't bother to say that. You and I know that there are approx 10 works reasonable attributed to Greenway.  Saying that it is one of his finest works is a bit like saying that St Paul's Cathedral is one of Wren's finest works.......
 * - Will work on it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Put the church in better context within Greenway's work. People from outside Australia would like to know how very small the colony was at that point, and that he also designed St Matthew's in the newly-founded town of Windsor.
 * Georgian town church. It refers to  churches that were being built in the growing Industrial towns in England. Georgian churches are typical of towns and not villages.
 * - Added image of classical portico. Text needs more work. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The current paint job really is awful! The gold dome is tacky enough without having a stark white wall underneath it.  The coffers of the ceiling used to be blue, which had a nice Adamsish Wedgwoody feeling, but that has been changed. If you are a parishioner, put in a word about that white paint in the chancel.  It needs to be toned down to something more neutral.
 * - Um ... Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll fiddle with some of the pics. Amandajm (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just fiddled around with some of the pics, but I can't upload anything at the minute. It's running too slow. Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia circumlocution
"St James' is thought to be one of Greenway's finest works."     The combination of "is thought to be" and "one of" is total nonsense! We are looking at an architect of ten known works, of which several are minor. It is obvious that Greenway gave a little extra attention to his churches. There is no shadow of doubt that it IS one of the finest, so the "thought to be" is unnecessary, even in the cautious world of Wikipedia. The words "one of" imply that no claim is being made that it is the finest. Amandajm (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy
The solution to the roof deterioration is to replace the slates using Welsh slates

Has this been done, or not done? The verb is in the present tense. Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been done and the sentence changed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Decent churches
Amandajm (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is going to be said, then it has nothing to do with the Foundation. It goes into the section about the early church.
 * If it is going to be said, then the reader needs to know whose opinion it is, since it is an opinion. It can't be stated as fact.
 * Any better? I think Symonds is a great source, especially given that it is online and an authentic 19th century voice. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The 19th century church historian, Edwards Symonds, describes "decent churches" and "additional clergy" as contributors to a "better moral and spiritual tone". 
 * You have again written out any direct connection to St James'. Did Symonds refer to St James' specifically; was he referring to the earliest churches i.e. St James', St John Paramatta, St Matthew's, St Luke's; or was he referring to churches in general, throughout the 19th century?
 * If he said "St James'", then it needs relating directly.
 * If he said or implied the earlier churches (i.e Colonial not Victorian) then that implies St James', because it is one of a small group of scattered churches of the Colonial period.
 * If he did not state or imply either of those things, then it isn't relevant. If he did imply one of those things, then it needs to be reflected in the sentence, otherwise, regardless of how true his observation might be, it's pointless in the context of that paragraph. The sentence, as it stands, doesn't relate to St james'.
 * Leave out the "additional clergy". It adds nothing. Two churches rather than one implies twice the service. We are talking here about the very earliest period of the establishment of St James.  If Symond's late 19th century opinion is going to fit at all, then it has to be relevant to the 1820s.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have clarified that Symonds was speaking about the earliest times and his mention of Cowper implies a relevance to St James as well. From a perspective of 1898, I think that his direct mention of 1808 would encompass the 1820s as well, especially considering how few churches he had to base his judgement on. I hope it now exemplifies opinion at the time. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Context and continuity
Although the article is going well, I think it is tending towards "recentism". The more I look at into it, the more it seems that this Church has been front-and-centre in Sydney since it was consecrated, and the continuity of its service to the people and life of the city is striking. This continuity appears in all the aspects represented in the article - worship and ministry; education and music; heritage and architecture; people and events - and it needs to be better represented. So I propose to develop the text and add some historical images in order to demonstrate this aspect and balance out the decades. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the periods that particularly would benefit from expansion are the Allwood period, 44 years, and the Early 20th century. There is no indication of the church's service through the war years. The emphasis on one significant marriage is a overbalance. More could be said about the association with the Courts etc. Amandajm (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Referencing problems
The referencing in the article is a dog's breakfast with various kinds of formatting and other problems. I will do my best to fix some of these problems but I don't pretend to be an expert on doing this. If anyone else feels up to the task please feel encouraged to assist. Anglicanus (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am conscious of this problem. Need help here. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Afernand74, the refs are now beautiful. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my work on references is pretty much finished. I followed a "less is more" approach :-). Not happy with something? Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. The following ref should be better sourced imho. I assume it is coming from the parish but not obvious for a casual reader "Church Wardens' Report March–September 2013". Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which St James?
The question has arisen about which "St James" is the patron saint of the church. Obviously it isn't "St James the Deacon" from the 7th century but either "St James the Great" or "St James the Less". Anyone know about this? Anglicanus (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * St James the Great
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Map
I hate them. In fact, I hate boxes, but tolerate them because some people love them

But pushpin maps, I abhor.


 * They rarely look good with the lead image.
 * They displace the right hand images
 * They do not work effectively, because the minute you click, you lose the info.
 * Co-ordinates serve the purpose effectively

In this case, on a wide computer screen (which is the usual sort nowdays, the map is displacing the two images of the church.

Either the map goes, or the two images go. We cannot have both. It is a ghastly mess from a point of layout (anyone with a vertical screen will not see the problem)

Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Parish
"acquired its own parish in 1835" doesn't sound right to me. It may give the impression that the church bought some piece of land from another parish. I think it is the diocese who creates a new parish when the population grows in an area and then appoints a church as its parish church. I would suggest to replace it with "elevated to parish church in 1835" (Two caveat to my suggestion: English is not my mother tongue and I am not familiar with the ranking of churches (if any) in the Anglican Church) --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Amandajm (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

James Street Cathedral
James Street Cathedral in Hamilton, Ontario was built in 1879 on land donated by Nathaniel Hughson in 1835. Haitian terrorists tried to demolish it in the decade after the election of Obama. Create a separate article for the church and link to anti-demolition squads. Nathaniel Hughson (16 July 1755, New York - 1 November 1837, Hamilton, Ontario) was a Loyalist who moved to Canada following the American Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.86.47 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Organist?
I think it is highly unlikely that the organist shares a name with the US President. Can someone check this and update if not true?
 * It was just some simple vandalism due to the higher visibility the article had while being "Today's Feature Article". It, and some other minor vandal edits have been removed. Sincerely, Wittylama 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on St James' Church, Sydney. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/b-os19-sermon-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St James' Church, Sydney. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icssydney.com.au/index.php?id=435
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007010038/http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/b-os19-sermon-15.pdf to http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/b-os19-sermon-15.pdf

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) 19:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on St James' Church, Sydney. 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/20140113035353/http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/bdm_fh/bdm_crh.html to http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/bdm_fh/bdm_crh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309030417/http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/sco2_history/sco2_oldsupremecourt_building.html to http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/sco2_history/sco2_oldsupremecourt_building.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118232706/http://www.dwdnsw.org.au/ves/index.php/article/videos to http://www.dwdnsw.org.au/ves/index.php/article/videos
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219034523/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20120215033 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20120215033
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127101134/http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/otherbanknotes.html to http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/otherbanknotes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214052911/http://sjks.org.au/childrens-chapel/ to http://sjks.org.au/childrens-chapel/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818021822/http://fom.org.au/ to http://www.fom.org.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141725/http://sjks.org.au/education/ to http://sjks.org.au/education/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141732/http://sjks.org.au/education/st-james-institute/ to http://sjks.org.au/education/st-james-institute/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110090933/http://www.graemeskinner.id.au/checklist1788-1840.htm to http://www.graemeskinner.id.au/checklist1788-1840.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141840/http://sjks.org.au/orchestral-masses-2014/ to http://sjks.org.au/orchestral-masses-2014/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110092027/http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/MUSIC_Further-information-about-the-Choir-of-St-James.pdf to http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/MUSIC_Further-information-about-the-Choir-of-St-James.pdf

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) 08:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St James' Church, Sydney. 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/20140903101204/http://www.thecom.com.au/about.html to http://www.thecom.com.au/about.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) 18:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St James' Church, Sydney. 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/20140125083415/http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/October-2011.pdf to http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/October-2011.pdf

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) 05:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Short description
The addition of a short description has been reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 840340970 by Pbsouthwood (talk) this is Reverse engineering Wikidata, please don’t duplicate work. That template has no consensus for use." In fact a strong consensus for its use was established in February 2018 by a lengthy, well-supported debate at the RfC at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 145. The close read: A full list of previous discussions can be found at WikiProject Short descriptions, but in brief, the template is merely a convenient wrapper for the   magic word, to allow tracking categories, etc. As the purpose of the template is well supported, and consensus on its use is clear, I'd like to suggest that the reversion is self-reverted and the established consensus is abided by. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)