User talk:Lukascb/Church

The following was moved here from User_talk:Lukascb --Darkskynet (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parish or Church

If you create an article about the parish, please name it as "Parish" not a "Church". The parish is the area and the church is building. Good luck in writing new articles about the parishes. But most will be deleted, as those that I wrote by myself, because they must have a good sources.--WlaKom (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you slow down a bit and show how these churches (or parishes) are notable? Instead of creating so many articles so quickly, you need to create better articles. Why does each one of these merit its own article? It should be clear from the article, and it is not. LadyofShalott 02:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your time. There is no hurry. You should not be publishing an article about Fairfield, Connecticut full of links to Farfield, Connecticut. You are also still not giving any indication of how these churches/parishes are notable. LadyofShalott 02:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Are you looking at these messages at all? Do you proofread at all? You have now created your third article with links to the nonexistant Farfield, Connecticut. Would you please slow down your article creation just a bit and try to create articles of higher quality so that others don't have to clean up your mess? LadyofShalott 02:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...And I think we are up to five with the same mistake you apparently don't mind leaving for others to fix for you. So it is quite clear you are completely ignoring these messages. Thanks, LadyofShalott 03:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a question as well: Sacred Heart Church (Georgetown, Connecticut), is that about a church or a parish? The article says parish. The name says church. Same for St. Thomas Acquinas Church (Fairfield, Connecticut). Drmies (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop entering not known in infoboxes. First of all, if you don't know, just leave it blank. Second, don't put wikilinks around it--"not known" is not an article, nor will it ever be. Note, I said "please", but since you keep repeating the same thing over and over and completely fail to communicate, you should not be surprised to find that editors' patience is wearing thin. This kind of behavior quickly becomes disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing how the articles are sorted by location and revert you edits. You created mess in related categories. If you want to sort by patron one of the category, you can add {{|PAGENEME}} after the name of the category. Also you can use it or make another category, similar to Category:Church building disambiguation pages. --WlaKom (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are wrong, and learn how to add text to {{DEFAULTSORT:}} . --WlaKom (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, right or wrong this is what I've done

As best I understand, you folks want a few things form me. The first is that there seems to be a general objection to the word parish. I have removed it replacing it with church where applicable. Now as to the sort order... I understand that the preferred method for defaultsort is St. Mary Church (Stamford, Connecticut). Presuming this I have for the past hour and a half edited all of the articles in Catholic Churches of Connecticut, where many of my articles were dumped without my knowledge. That category seems to be sorting correctly now. This should improve the situation and also demonstrate to you here that I am trying to do the right thing. My goal is to improve the knowledge base of Catholic church architecture in New England. Honestly this needs to be done as soon as possible because its slipping away at a rapid rate.

All right, so perhaps I'm not the worlds greatest typist and I seem to have gotten off to a bad start here. No one is more dissapointed about this than this author. I'm asking that you bear with my shortcomings because I believe I have a lot to offer to Wikipedia on this particular subject and, as I said before, if it is not addressed now, all of the knowledge is likely to be lost. This is very possible and would also be very unfortunate. I want to work with you to assure that not only does this not happen but that through wikipedia we can to some extent rebuilt the record of these distinguished artists who served our forefathers --- and now ourselves --- so well.Lukascb (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number one thing we all wanted was some indication that our concerns were being heard. That did not seem to be the case yesterday. Now you have rectified that. It is very important to look at your talk page messages - once a concern has been heard we can start to deal with it together. Thank you for giving your attention to these matters. LadyofShalott 03:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable church articles

I found my way here too, upon seeing many church article renames by editor Polaron, following some of your article creations, for example for the church that is now at St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut).

I don't think these churches are notable, they do not meet Wikipedia notability standards.

I will start an AFD on that one, to have a discussion about standards.

Lukascb, please don't start any more church articles like this. Please participate in AFD discussion. I will give notice also at User talk:James Russiello. --do ncr am 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]