Talk:Rivington Unitarian Chapel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Unitarian Universalism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Unitarian Universalism work group.
 

[Untitled][edit]

Article is neutral.

Family tree[edit]

There is no need for a family tree in this article. It ought to be moved elsewhere or deleted.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite following requested deletion[edit]

It is perfectly feasible to rewrite this article with independent sources. I intend to make a start.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article lacks focus, it should be about the chapel, brief background, building outside & in. It goes into far too much detail about other things.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Walt Whitman section, not about chapel. The plaque has a reference elsewhere in the article so I think it should go.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Rivington Unitarian Chapel, Reference 7 [1], reads, "The Nonconformist Chapel in Rivington, Lancashire and its Early Registers edited by Joan Holding and Colin D Rogers, including a transcript of URI 1/7 with personal and place indexes URI 1/8 1988". From its position mid sentence, it appears to reference these two words, "in 1754". Can you explain how this is a verifiable reference? If it is not verifiable it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talkcontribs) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the reference meaningless. Unless someone can explain clearly what it is supposed to mean, then it should be removed. – HLE (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that references to primary sources should only be used if the summary refers to what is being referenced. This clearly doesn't so I will remove it.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Its not a primary source, its a secondary and was subject to peer review within a group of BA's MAs. The book referenced is a published work by the chapel itself without ISBN and was widely distributed at Rivington. Copy at Archives as stated. Also available at Bolton and Chorley and Preston Libraries. It is a detailed and acccurate account of the chapel. You are in error to remove the source. Rovington (talk)

5th Baron Willoughby of Parham[edit]

The history section mentions Francis Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby of Parham who was a parliamentarian soldier, but what has he to do with Rivington Unitarian Chapel? He died in 1666, nearly 40 years before the chapel was built. – HLE (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise. It's another instance of the article "spreading" yet again. He should be got rid of and the link restored to where it was.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
J3Mrs, I realise you didn't know. The info about the 5th baron was added by another editor in this earlier edit. Since the 5th baron has nothing to do with the chapel, I've removed the sentence about him. – HLE (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed some more. This article keeps losing its focus. I've removed some more about the Civil War & Eagle Street College. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Eagle Street College[edit]

If this is notable start a different article it doesn't belong here.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, however the Blue Plaque is present and rather noticable in the grave yard.--PL.-Snr (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rating to Mid[edit]

The guidance for the rating of the importance is detailed on the portal of articles for the Lancashire and Cumbria as this is a grade II* building it is Mid importance and I have therefore graded the article in accordance with the criteria. --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal blood[edit]

Shaw, Ronald Cunliffe (1940). The Records of a Lancashire Family from the XIIth to the XXth Century. [On the Shaw family. With plates and genealogical tables.]. Preston: Guardian Press.

pg 280

Traces family back to Edward I, the statement refers to the bloodline of Elizabeth Shaw, sister of Lord Willoughby.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovington (talkcontribs) 12:55, 17 September 2010

If you want to write genealogy please do it in the Willoughby of Parham article, not here. This is about the chapel.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop over emphasising Lord of manor it does not belong here, the Rivington Hall article is linked as it was before and from there its pretty obvious who the families were. The Andrews didn't even like being called Lords, I can cite work after work if needed but lets leave it as it is now, lets not get into an edit war. Andrews preferred 'Squire' in life, his grave has no title nor his memorials. --PL.-Snr (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a stand alone article and readers might not know what you & I know hence it is fine, whatever title they gave themselves they were Lords of the manor. Cite what you like, I can cite too. I have removed the trivia about other places WP:UNDUE, this is after all about the chapel.

Various tweaks reverted[edit]

I came across this article earlier today. I found it more or less at random, as it was not listed in the Category:Unitarian chapels in England, nor in the article on General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, nor in the List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches. I have now rectified these omissions.

I also made some edits to tidy up the article itself. I have no access to special sources, but I was struck by certain infelicities in the text, and thought I could improve the achronological ordering, the somewhat haphazard capitalisation, and the deviations from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I also saw some other areas that might prove difficult for a reader not already familiar with either Rivington or Unitarianism. Some of these edits have been reverted, with explanations in the edit summary that I find insufficient. Rather than edit-warring, I thought I would explain my rationale point by point here.

Grammar

It is a comon error to join two independent clauses by a comma; this creates a run-on sentence. They can instead be joined by a semi-colon, as in the previous sentence, or one of the clauses can be re-cast as a dependent clause, thus creating a complex sentence, or they can be separated entirely by a full stop.

In this edit here I corrected the sentence:

Four men rallied support to build the Presbyterian Lee Chapel at Horwich, one of them was Moses Cocker whose farm in Rivington bears his name.

to:

Four men rallied support to build the Presbyterian Lee Chapel at Horwich, one of them being Moses Cocker, whose farm in Rivington bears his name.

This was reverted here to the previous incorrect version. A further correct alternative would be:

Four men rallied support to build the Presbyterian Lee Chapel at Horwich, one of whom was Moses Cocker, whose farm in Rivington bears his name.
Redlink

The phrase "Bartholomew Sunday" was used, in quotation marks. I added a redlink, to indicate (as per guidelines on Wikipedia:Red link) that in my opinion an article on the subject was needed. This was reverted here with no explanation other than "remove redlink". An article cannot, in fairness to its readers, mention a new and unfamiliar concept like this without providing an aid to understanding, usually either a gloss or a wikilink. It turns out that a redirect would be sufficient, as evidently "Bartholomew Sunday" is a simple paraphrase of the day of the Great Ejection. However, it is not usually referred to as such in the scholarly literature; in fact, it apears to be somewhat of a neologism, as a phrase. The term most commonly used appears to be Black Bartholomew's Day, as in Black Bartholomew's Day: Preaching, Polemic and Restoration Nonconformity, by David J. Apple. (Manchester U.P., 2007). Our own article on History of the Puritans from 1649 uses the longer phrase.

External links

I added the single webpage, hosted by the national organisation, that appears to count as the RUC's website, in that it lists officers and contact people as well as a potted history and details of current events. This was removed here with the edit summary "Used as reference". However, that is not relevant, and not a reason for removing it. Wikipedia:External links states that "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any" and "Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section". (Emphases mine.)

Nesting

I changed the single References section, which was subdivided into Notes and Sources, into two separate sections. This was reverted here with the edit summary "References as in other Rivington articles". However, the point is not really what other Rivington articles may do, but rather what the MOS requires. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) specifies that "When certain optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==". By my reading of it, that means both notes and sources stand independent; they should not be subsections of anything.

Linking in lede

I wikified the word "England" and this was reverted here with the edit summary "de link England MoS". I have looked at the WP:MOS but have not found the requirement to avoid links to the name of the country in which the subject of the article is situated. I would be grateful if this line of MOS could be pointed out.

I made other changes that, thankfully, were not reverted, such as providing readers with an easy link to the context via History of Unitarianism. I wish the best for ths article, and would be interested to hear responses to these points. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Rivington, a Good Article, you will see that England is not linked, (and isn't in any of the GAs I have contributed to, or those I used as role models) and that the Bibliography is "nested". If its's good enough for a GA review then it's fine for this article. As I found most of the references I used the term references as I usually do for the GA's I have written. When you have written Bartholemew Sunday please link it. I have a particular aversion to being. I had not kept all the history chronological as I wanted to keep the actual chapel info together but whatever, the marriage didn't really seem that important to the history, bit of trivia really. I am aware of the weird capitalisation but most wasn't mine and it's good it's sorted out. But whatever.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)