Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square

Infobox
I've no idea why the infobox I added to this article was removed, as the applicable edit summary did not give a reason, and the matter was not raised here. It should be restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why it was added in the first place, as the applicable edit summary did not give a reason. Nevertheless, I've added the relevant metadata. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, the infobox should be restored. We still have no reason for its removal, and no reason to make it unreadable by humans. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We still have no reason for its addition. The metadata included is not meant to be read by humans, but by automated tools and services. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to give a reason for an edit, as there is with a reversion (and stop stalking my edits - you've been warned about that before). Infoboxes are meant to be read by humans. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, the template is being used only as a convenient means of providing metadata - if you would prefer we not do that, we can of course remove it. You are mistaken about requirements, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You assertion (indeed, both of them) are false. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Really, I'm not that bothered, but...
The church's address per its website linked from this article is St Mary's, Wyndham Place, York Street, London W1H 1PQ, whereas the name of the parish and the history of the architecture link it with Bryanston Square. Conversely this article is at "St Mary's, Bryanston Square", whereas the infobox now has "St Mary's, Wyndham Place", thanks (or no thanks) to me. It would be good if someone who understands what's going on might introduce some consistency here, but right now that's not me. Supposing I have understood what's going on. Which I'm not at all sure I do. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, today I could be bothered – briefly. I hope it's an improvement. Nortonius (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)