Talk:Warfield Church

How's it looking? Are we nearly ready to go live??

Rhian Griffiths (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think it's ready, the way to submit it for review is to add  to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

List of incumbents
One thing that could be improved (though it will make no difference to the chance of acceptance as an article) is the second image, the list of past holders of the benefice. It is out of focus, so that even when the full image is viewed, it is almost impossible to read the names. Can a better photograph be obtained? If I lived nearer to Warfield I would do it myself. Maproom (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I can probably take a clearer photo of the board mentioned and put it up. I'll do it next time I'm in Warfield.

Mark Griffiths (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Vicar list now typed up. Photographic images were never going to be of suitable quality. Rhian Griffiths (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I am related to a previous vicar. My input in regards to him is restricted to date of arrival and date of resignation. In terms of the other historical aspects of the article, I have no conflict. However, that does mean that I should have no further input into the section on the 21st Century. Hopefully if changes are needed there I can make suggestions here and allow others to edit. Rhian Griffiths (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (and pinging ). The edit you made here was not 'controversial' as such; rather, it flew in the face of a number of Wikpedia policies. Viz:
 * 1) ; this is cited to a primary source; this is not favoured.
 * 2) This is sourced.
 * 3) This is comopletely unsourced, which is a no-no.
 * So, the only part that actually conforms to policy is the bit about the population increase; and, as you will agree, as a stand-alone factoid, it is completely irrelevant to this article. Hence the reason I am now removing the paragraph agaon. Many thanks! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * On edit I have made various stylistic and content alterations, mostly regarding WP:MOS. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow Fortuna. Breathe before resorting to the axe! But I think the axed section is useful information and the source is the Berkshire Architectural Society and the Oxford Diocesan Advisory Committee who both keep records on this. If you'd highlighted the omission this citation could have been added before the axe fell :) The increased attendance is of course a mater of fact and one carefully noted these days by the Church of England in its climate of decline - maybe someone will reinsert Rhian Griffiths (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

List of incumbents
I see that a list of incumbents of the church has been deleted by, with the explanation "unsourced". Does File:Warfield Vicars 2.png qualify as a source? It is published in that it hangs in the church, available for inspection by anyone. Maproom (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. I have undone this. The photo of the vicar list is also on Wikimedia - although as previously discussed, the quality is not god enough for the page. Rhian Griffiths (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Two things: firstly, the image itself is not a reliable surce, so no (please see MOS:TEXTASIMAGES). But it can go in as a stand-alone image (bearing in mind our obligations against WP:IMAGECRUFT). Secondly- to Rhian- what you have undone had nothing to do with what Maproom asked. You are talking about a table, which was unsourced. Th epicture is not the same thing. Please be aware I have left you a message explaining certain policies of your talk page. At the moment, the information shall stay ommitted until further sourcing is available. Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)