This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
p.s. I've used the Cadw template. This creates a little inconsistency in the cites which I hope Peter will forgive. It wasn't available when he originally did the list. KJP1 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wire723, Peter I. Vardy - Wire, I wonder if we could discuss. You’ll see that the page layout was a point of discussion at the time this list was promoted, and when it was promoted, it had a substantial, three-paragraph, lead. I restored this layout today, but you’ve flipped it back. To me, that’s not an improvement. A two-sentence lead just looks wrong, and the sub-sections are more suitable for an article than a list. If you look at similar FLs, Grade I listed buildings in Bristol or Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire or Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, for example, you’ll see they have substantial, three/four paragraph leads and then move into the list. I’d be interested in why you think the version you’ve re-instated is an improvement. KJP1 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor who has had some involvement (at least in 2006), I believe that it looks and reads better with a few headings rather than a wall of text. I do agree however that it would be better with a more informative lede. Is there a compromise here by using the opening para (aka the lede) written as more of a précis of the entire article rather just an opening sentence? Having said that I have just tried to formulate a slightly expanded first sentence without any success. If it ever came to the vote! , I would prefer the version with headings. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 15:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 - your point would be entirely valid if this was a list article, but it ain't - there's no "List of" at the start of the article name. Many readers will come here to learn about the organisation, so I feel the conventional layout of a short summary followed by sections is called for. It doesn't matter that the lists of properties form 90% of the article, since they only appear after scrolling down. Wire723 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wire723, KJP1 The clue is at the top of this page, which confirms that not only is it a list, but it's a featured list. It's a pity it's being meddled with, although no doubt with the best of intentions. I've moved on from bothering to get things featured, but at the time I submitted it for FL, I think it was expected that the lead (for a list rather than an article) should not be divided into sections. The rules may have changed, but IMO lists (rather than articles) look better if the lead is not broken into sections. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 While I am here, can I thank you for keeping the list up to date. I tried to do so at one time, then got distracted, and neglected it. Keep up the good work! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the gold star at the top, and few readers will infer "list" status from it. If the desire is to restrict this article to only have the list of properties, that's fine, but the organisation (with its 60-year history) would then merit a separate article. Wire723 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It started as "just" a list. Then I thought I would have a go at getting a star for it. But that meant it had to have a more substantial lead. I agree that an article and a list would be more appropriate, especially as some of the info is out of date. Then the lead could be reduced, but that might affect its listed status. I'm involved in other things at present; anyone interested in taking it on? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peter I. Vardy, Wire723, Velella, So, I think there is a consensus that what would best suit is an article, “Friends of Friendless Churches” which describes the charity and its 60-year history, and a list, this page, which would carry a title something like, “Churches administered by the Friends of Friendless Churches”. We could then have a, perhaps slightly shorter, lead here, and an article with appropriate section headings etc. Does this work for everyone? I agree that we don’t want to compromise the Featured status of the list, it’s a grand piece of work. I’d be pleased to have a go, and to liaise with the FL coordinators, if the approach is acceptable to others. KJP1 (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GrindtXX - Many thanks, most helpful. This is one that got away, I'm afraid. I shall try to remember to pick it up, when I finally get my books out of storage. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peter I. Vardy - I'm bloody useless at coding in tables - it's so fiddly!! I don't know how you do it, Peter, it's taken me 10 attempts to get that last image right. And now, thanks to GrindtXX, there are three more redlinks that need turning blue! KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 - Many thanks for the additions of the new vestings - they look fine. The redlinks will only turn blue, as you know, when someone has time and energy to write articles about the churches. (Not me at present as I am in the middle of a different project.) Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
