Talk:St John's Gardens, Manchester

Campanology
The 1906 Manchester Courier makes reference to some bell-ringing feats but I've no idea whether they are notable or not. Some "grand-sire triples", involving 5040 changes in 2 hours 46 minutes, and a similar number of changes in 2 hr 58 m for a "true peal of Oxford triple bob trebles" (that one sounds more like a modern ice-skating manoeuvre!) - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, probably not, lots of churches had bell ringers that executed these peals, one of my great great-grandmother's brothers rang in Queen Victoria's reign with some enormously long peal and lived to ring her out with another. I don't think it was that unusual at the time. J3Mrs (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Forking
So, do we fork to St John's Church, Manchester or St John's Church, Deansgate? The latter is by far the more common usage in the newspaper sources but perhaps that is inevitable given that they are Mancunian newspaper anyway. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My preference would be for St John's Church, Manchester. Eric   Corbett  10:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mine too, to be consistent with other church articles. J3Mrs (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * said the same on Eric's talk page, so I think the consensus is pretty clear already. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done the fork and trimmed a bit from this article. It probably needs further trimming and then we'll have to check the sources again because I'm pretty sure that some will be redundant. I've got some more stuff to add to St John's Church, Manchester, which will also need tidying. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1914 proposal
We have already said this in the preceding Church section. I'm not fussed which version we keep or which section it goes in but please can we bin one or the other. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I looked for the ref I gave you and ....well. Hope it's ok now. J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's fine either way, thanks. I'm not convinced that the thematic structure really works because it causes us to jump back and forth about plans for the gardens but that is a different issue. I know that Eric thinks biographies are better handled thematically rather than chronologically (viz: his recent comments about William Beach Thomas) but does the same apply here? - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I rather like themes than a chronology too. The article is rather lop sided at present, far too much about the church and I don't think the parish boundary description is necessary. Need to find more on the garden too. J3Mrs (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with removing the boundary thing and otherwise pruning the church section. It can be cut right back to a link as far as I am concerned, although that probably would be a bit too far. Those who are familiar with me will know that I'm not good at summarising. That's one reason why I tend to farm out the task of writing lead sections to people such as and the now long gone . I also have no particular issue regarding themes cf chronology: both have their place but I'm always reminded of how my dad was put off history at school because he was taught little more than a list of dates, whereas I took history through un.iversity because I was not (dates were more or less completely immaterial and I could happily not bother trying to remember them, just as in real time I never remember people's birthdays/anniversaries etc). All I want to see here is knowledge, presented in a manner that flows. The problem is that flow is always going to be somewhat subjective. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not good at leads either. (Eric is though) I'll get rid of the boundary and might put the garden first. J3Mrs (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)