Jump to content

Talk:Cote Baptist Church: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Response to unsigned query
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
Why is the fact that the original internal fittings of this modern building still exist considered an item of special, remarkable interest on Wikipedia? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.64.175.140|202.64.175.140]] ([[User talk:202.64.175.140|talk]]) 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Why is the fact that the original internal fittings of this modern building still exist considered an item of special, remarkable interest on Wikipedia? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.64.175.140|202.64.175.140]] ([[User talk:202.64.175.140|talk]]) 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'm not sure that the fact is "an item of special, remarkable interest", (does it have to fall into these categories for DYK?), but IMO it's a bit unusual for all the fittings in a church or chapel to date from a single year, and for them not to have been altered, restored or added to in 140 years. IME alteration and addition is the norm in most churches. So, maybe not special or remarkable, but somewhat unusual.--[[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that the fact is "an item of special, remarkable interest", (does it have to fall into these categories for DYK?), but IMO it's a bit unusual for all the fittings in a church or chapel to date from a single year, and for them not to have been altered, restored or added to in 140 years. IME alteration and addition is the norm in most churches. So, maybe not special or remarkable, but somewhat unusual.--[[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::There are plenty of churches in the UK with older insides. Its nothing unusual here. [[Special:Contributions/92.15.12.165|92.15.12.165]] ([[User talk:92.15.12.165|talk]]) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:41, 4 July 2010

Why is the fact that the original internal fittings of this modern building still exist considered an item of special, remarkable interest on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.64.175.140 (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the fact is "an item of special, remarkable interest", (does it have to fall into these categories for DYK?), but IMO it's a bit unusual for all the fittings in a church or chapel to date from a single year, and for them not to have been altered, restored or added to in 140 years. IME alteration and addition is the norm in most churches. So, maybe not special or remarkable, but somewhat unusual.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of churches in the UK with older insides. Its nothing unusual here. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]