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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.
WP:SEEALSO advises that "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic." I fail to see how a list of church buildings around the world is relevant to the article about this specific church or reflects the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic of this church. --Orlady (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is a matter of editorial judgement. I don't think the Wikipedia is helped by you, Orlady, following me and finding minor matters to take a different judgment. As, for example, you also do in following me to brand new article All Souls Universalist Church just now. I reverted your change there too, please do comment extensively at its Talk page or perhaps open another ANI?
My reasoning when I added the See also item was that a) it does add in a way, and b) that this article was isolated and tagged orphan and otherwise tagged, and there could be readers and/or past editors who are unaware of other examples. Perhaps, on the page still tagged with "Please add citations from reliable and independent sources", it would help readers and past editors get some ideas, if they could also see their way to other examples. Without explicit statement, it was meant as a general, mild invitation to join the bigger crowd, to see who else to keep up with. It was meant kindly, by me. I explain this to share to you, Orlady, who seem to assume everything I do must be invalid and you are the one to counter everything you can. As you should understand by now, I tend to think you are biased, that you are following me to in order to find anything to complain about (with good reason) and because of that, I tend to disbelieve the value of any quibble you have to make (because it is your negative bias that is likely to be driving you, anywhere you are following and reversing me). Given that you do understand that, why on earth would you be trying to follow and contend on every minor issue you can drum up?
My judgment is: the link helps, both for the article and readers, and for the potential help in stirring readers to fix up the article and respond to the tag.
I am afraid that now that contention has started here, that any gentle persons arriving will be scared off and won't do anything, which would be quite reasonable on their part.
But anyhow, I'll invite the original creator of this article, who built basically the whole existing article back in 2005, to come comment. I had already noticed that this editor has been active recently and I wondered about inviting the person to add more to the article. --doncram 23:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? Y'all are having a half-page-long (so far!) argument about that? I think you both have better ways to help the encyclopedia. LadyofShalott 03:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was ridiculous that doncram reverted my edit with a request to discuss the matter on the talk page, for reasons stated by Lady of Shalott.
FTR, I noticed doncram's edit here because this article was on my watchlist after several minor edits I made last January (see the article edit history). --Orlady (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that Orlady removed the link again, and I restored it. I don't think Lady of Shalott endorsed either Orlady or my position on this. But, to resolve the question, talk here. So far, Orlady suggested it is bad to have the link; i asserted that I think it is reasonable, and there is an impasse, I guess. There's not a consensus to keep it or to remove it. --doncram 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not endorse either position. I don't think it unreasonable to have the link, but it is nowhere near necessary. I think this is the lamest edit war I have ever seen. LadyofShalott 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm grateful that he didn't see fit to revert my other edits to the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)