User talk:Fj42
Fj42, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Fj42! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC) |
Discussion on St Johns Anglican Church Precinct[edit]
Moved from Editing Talk:St Johns Anglican Church Precinct (section)[edit]
- As I tried to explain above, although we use information from the NSWSHR, our article is no way fixed upon or defined by that content and it is able to be changed as necessary. The NSWSHR does not determine the infobox that we use, the church infobox potentially allows us to display more relevant data about the key parts of the site, and I severely doubt anyone here is interested in rehashing politics about the site from the time of its heritage listing. Your ownership edit appears to be correct and I don't really see the need to get into the weeds of trust law: the article only used "owned" because of a quirk of the script that transferred the material from the NSWHD, and it's pretty common for church property to be held in these kinds of arrangements - however you want to (in as few words as possible) summarise it is probably fine by me. I'm not sure why you would want to remove the architects from the lead section as it seems like a very obvious fact to include at that level, particularly since they're very notable architects. As I said above, no objections to pruning the whopping amount of context that's really not closely related to the church (and some of which could arguably even be used in more relevant articles). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife, I want to understand the infobox issues. Rangasyd as made similar comments without detail. From what I can see, the extra fields in the church infobox relate to the operations of the church and are not heritage related, so why are the relevant? Don't they distract for the heritage? The church building dominates the site, but it is not the key part. The NSW Heritage Council has determined the key part is the unusually complete collection of ecclesiastical buildings, so I suggest the precinct should be featured, perhaps with a second info box for the Church. It is not a question of politics (which by the way are still current and generating a lot of interest here), it is a question of accurately reflecting the heritage values of the site. Generally you are right about Church property, almost all is held by a trust. However, have you seen the Feoffment and the Declarations of Trust for the precinct? They are very unusual, and reflect the Macarthur Family's world view, and the start of the heritage of the precinct, ideally the story should be told somewhere in the document. I removed the list of architects because I was trying to change the focus to the precinct and because it is misleading and too difficult to correct - the Scott & Blacket had nothing to do with the main church, the were involved with the chancel and vestry in finished in 1874. I will make changes to clarify the trust status and provide the requested references, the infobox can wait until we determine the future of the pageFj42 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- It is not unusual to have a topic to which multiple potential infoboxes apply, and so people pick the most relevant one: for all historic churches I'd be inclined to use the church one because it has more relevant fields than a generic heritage-site one. It isn't an either/or: it is an article about the church (and precinct), so having material about the church doesn't distract from the heritage site - we're interested in both, and the heritage site one is necessarily generic. To be honest, I was just baffled initially where you were coming from so I did a quick research and realised that there's a current preservation battle going on relating to the precinct. Quibbling about the infobox doesn't help anything - it's not making a statement of any kind, it's just deciding how Wikipedia can best display pieces of key information; equally, taking information about the church out of the lede is unhelpful (it would be much better to say that so-and-so designed the church, Scott & Blacket designed the chancel and vestry, and for your purposes make it explicitly clear in the lede about the collection of ecclesiastical buildings (preferably by quoting a heritage source directly and attributing it to them). What I also think would be a better use of your time would be adding information about the preservation battle (along with, as I said earlier, focusing the article): it's absolutely relevant, should absolutely be in the article (including in the lede), and is the kind of situation where the facts really just speak for themselves. You need to be really careful about neutrality because you're clearly very personally involved but it's something I'm happy to edit if there's issues with additions initially. The article needs these updates that would help improve our article and help explain your cause to people, but no one who isn't overwhelmingly passionate about the subject is even going to notice what infobox you use or value the surrounding site more because you took the church architects out of the lede. If the ownership situation is that complicated, it's probably worth concisely explaining it somewhere down in the body of the article - it's not of interest enough to average people to be in the lede. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife, Thank you, so I'm clear I understand let me restate the issues as I understand them, I'm doing this, so I am sure I understand what you are saying, not to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. Your criteria for the choice of Infobox comes down to selecting the one which best presents the material. I came from a different perspective. I choose the Template:Infobox historic site because of projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and DBpedia. The Template:Infobox historic site would place the page in the Buildings and structures tree while the Template:Infobox church would place the page in the Religion and belief tree. Should be possible to do both. Preservation battles have and will come and go. My interest in this place predates the current issues by decades. I agree it is important to focus and complete (there is a lot of detail missing) the article. The ownership is legally complicated, but simple to explain - the Macarthurs gave this place to the people of Camden 'for ever' - they did not place the usual 'for the use of the church' in the trusts, and the Bishop of Australia swore an oath (likely by almighty God) to keep the place 'for ever'. - Certainly worth an addition. I think the most important issue is to accurately tell the story of the place because as you say it speaks for itself. Fj42 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- @The Drover's Wife: Methinks someone has a WP:COI and cannot see it. Is it time to take the article with {{COI}}? Rangasyd (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife, Thank you, so I'm clear I understand let me restate the issues as I understand them, I'm doing this, so I am sure I understand what you are saying, not to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. Your criteria for the choice of Infobox comes down to selecting the one which best presents the material. I came from a different perspective. I choose the Template:Infobox historic site because of projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and DBpedia. The Template:Infobox historic site would place the page in the Buildings and structures tree while the Template:Infobox church would place the page in the Religion and belief tree. Should be possible to do both. Preservation battles have and will come and go. My interest in this place predates the current issues by decades. I agree it is important to focus and complete (there is a lot of detail missing) the article. The ownership is legally complicated, but simple to explain - the Macarthurs gave this place to the people of Camden 'for ever' - they did not place the usual 'for the use of the church' in the trusts, and the Bishop of Australia swore an oath (likely by almighty God) to keep the place 'for ever'. - Certainly worth an addition. I think the most important issue is to accurately tell the story of the place because as you say it speaks for itself. Fj42 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- It is not unusual to have a topic to which multiple potential infoboxes apply, and so people pick the most relevant one: for all historic churches I'd be inclined to use the church one because it has more relevant fields than a generic heritage-site one. It isn't an either/or: it is an article about the church (and precinct), so having material about the church doesn't distract from the heritage site - we're interested in both, and the heritage site one is necessarily generic. To be honest, I was just baffled initially where you were coming from so I did a quick research and realised that there's a current preservation battle going on relating to the precinct. Quibbling about the infobox doesn't help anything - it's not making a statement of any kind, it's just deciding how Wikipedia can best display pieces of key information; equally, taking information about the church out of the lede is unhelpful (it would be much better to say that so-and-so designed the church, Scott & Blacket designed the chancel and vestry, and for your purposes make it explicitly clear in the lede about the collection of ecclesiastical buildings (preferably by quoting a heritage source directly and attributing it to them). What I also think would be a better use of your time would be adding information about the preservation battle (along with, as I said earlier, focusing the article): it's absolutely relevant, should absolutely be in the article (including in the lede), and is the kind of situation where the facts really just speak for themselves. You need to be really careful about neutrality because you're clearly very personally involved but it's something I'm happy to edit if there's issues with additions initially. The article needs these updates that would help improve our article and help explain your cause to people, but no one who isn't overwhelmingly passionate about the subject is even going to notice what infobox you use or value the surrounding site more because you took the church architects out of the lede. If the ownership situation is that complicated, it's probably worth concisely explaining it somewhere down in the body of the article - it's not of interest enough to average people to be in the lede. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife, I want to understand the infobox issues. Rangasyd as made similar comments without detail. From what I can see, the extra fields in the church infobox relate to the operations of the church and are not heritage related, so why are the relevant? Don't they distract for the heritage? The church building dominates the site, but it is not the key part. The NSW Heritage Council has determined the key part is the unusually complete collection of ecclesiastical buildings, so I suggest the precinct should be featured, perhaps with a second info box for the Church. It is not a question of politics (which by the way are still current and generating a lot of interest here), it is a question of accurately reflecting the heritage values of the site. Generally you are right about Church property, almost all is held by a trust. However, have you seen the Feoffment and the Declarations of Trust for the precinct? They are very unusual, and reflect the Macarthur Family's world view, and the start of the heritage of the precinct, ideally the story should be told somewhere in the document. I removed the list of architects because I was trying to change the focus to the precinct and because it is misleading and too difficult to correct - the Scott & Blacket had nothing to do with the main church, the were involved with the chancel and vestry in finished in 1874. I will make changes to clarify the trust status and provide the requested references, the infobox can wait until we determine the future of the pageFj42 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- As I tried to explain above, although we use information from the NSWSHR, our article is no way fixed upon or defined by that content and it is able to be changed as necessary. The NSWSHR does not determine the infobox that we use, the church infobox potentially allows us to display more relevant data about the key parts of the site, and I severely doubt anyone here is interested in rehashing politics about the site from the time of its heritage listing. Your ownership edit appears to be correct and I don't really see the need to get into the weeds of trust law: the article only used "owned" because of a quirk of the script that transferred the material from the NSWHD, and it's pretty common for church property to be held in these kinds of arrangements - however you want to (in as few words as possible) summarise it is probably fine by me. I'm not sure why you would want to remove the architects from the lead section as it seems like a very obvious fact to include at that level, particularly since they're very notable architects. As I said above, no objections to pruning the whopping amount of context that's really not closely related to the church (and some of which could arguably even be used in more relevant articles). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Rangasyd: I think Fj42's interest here is pretty obvious but he seems like he might be willing to work with us and the article could use the work, so probably no need for that. He's not wrong that the history section could do with a good solid prune of material that's too distant from the subject matter and the article fundamentally needs updating, with the history section ending in 1973 despite there being major current developments that aren't in the article. I hadn't looked at the "description" section closely until now, but now that he brought it up I'm not sure I've ever seen a NSWSHR section more desperately in need of being completely rewritten into prose. That description section re: the church is actually the sort of mess that people stumble across, assume everything else is that bad, and start whining about CC-BY content more generally. Fj42's knowledge could be very useful in working out what is actually relevant in the early history section and working out what is actually important in that shambling mess of a description, particularly if he's willing to get it and do the reworking.
- Fj42: I think you're just barking up the wrong tree about the infobox: nobody is ever going to notice again whether the infobox places the article in the buildings and structures tree or the religion and belief tree, but the latter one seems more logical for an ecclesiastical precinct, even putting aside that the church infobox provides more useful to the reader. There are so many productive things you could be doing with this article and fretting about the infobox is about the least helpful (or noticeable to anyone who isn't us and you ever again) one of them. A paragraph about the ownership somewhere in the article makes sense as long as you can back up your claims there with solid sourcing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's WifeThe infobox change is trival. My reason for pushing the issue is to find out how receptive the wiki community was to input and different points of view. I now know the answer. Fj42 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- You've got numerous examples of people on this page being very receptive to many of your suggestions, but appear to have chosen to sulk because you picked a fight about an infobox and everyone else didn't cede to your demands, and have shown zero interest in actually working with others to put your more helpful suggestions to the article. It appears my good faith might have been misplaced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife, please stop making assumptions. The answer I have is that there is a tight knit group of people working in this area and on this page with specific goals in mind (eg I'm just going to delete this section too because definitely no one cares for our purposes). None of this is necessarily bad. For me it means I can either spend a great deal of time learning the workings and views of the group, limit my changes or simply withdraw. I have tried to engage by explaining the origins of the SHR information and why it has issues, by asking questions on this page, offering to make the changes in a sandbox for review - the response is to focus on the infobox, ignoring my questions, make large scale changes to the article without discussion, or snide comments (eg Methinks someone has a WP:COI) - so it seems working with the group, at the groups choice (not mine) is off the table. Likewise, leaving the article alone is not an option for me. So, I'm left with making relevant changes from time to time as I see fit.Fj42 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- The edit summary you just complained about ("I'm just going to delete this section too because definitely no one cares for our purposes") was making a change to the article that you explicitly requested ("One of the purposes of an SHR Listing is to require the upkeep of a place, and so the SHR entry documents the fabric and condition of the area in detail. As a result the generated page contains long lists of detail which could be a link.") and then peculiarly deleted from the talk page along with your most recent reply. I'm just bewildered at this stage: I'm broadly in agreement with many of your changes apart from the infobox, you don't engage about anything else but the infobox and solely obsess about it despite us trying to point you in any other direction then accuse us of focusing on the infobox, and complain when I make changes you explicitly requested. We're bending over backwards to work with you because you've got a bunch of issues that are reasonable and you're just throwing tantrums because you won't get support to use your desired infobox and/or delete the SHR material entirely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife I hate trying to communicate using text - it is so limited. I'm clearly not getting my message across. I'll try again. There is no tantrum, it is about setting boundaries and efficient use of time. I will continue to work on this page and others and adhere to the wiki conventions as best I can. I will not create the sandbox or do a significant rewrite of this page for prior approval. The infobox issue was simply a straw man to see you things works, I'm very wary of engaging on the internet as it is usually a huge waste of time. I could have picked any one of the issues I raised - say the 200+ zero length Circular references. To be clearer, the infobox is trival. What is not trival are assumptions on my motivation, the unilateral changes when it's known others might be working in the area, dismissing other people projects (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, lack of answers to direct questions and the snide remarks.
- The edit summary you just complained about ("I'm just going to delete this section too because definitely no one cares for our purposes") was making a change to the article that you explicitly requested ("One of the purposes of an SHR Listing is to require the upkeep of a place, and so the SHR entry documents the fabric and condition of the area in detail. As a result the generated page contains long lists of detail which could be a link.") and then peculiarly deleted from the talk page along with your most recent reply. I'm just bewildered at this stage: I'm broadly in agreement with many of your changes apart from the infobox, you don't engage about anything else but the infobox and solely obsess about it despite us trying to point you in any other direction then accuse us of focusing on the infobox, and complain when I make changes you explicitly requested. We're bending over backwards to work with you because you've got a bunch of issues that are reasonable and you're just throwing tantrums because you won't get support to use your desired infobox and/or delete the SHR material entirely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Drover's Wife, please stop making assumptions. The answer I have is that there is a tight knit group of people working in this area and on this page with specific goals in mind (eg I'm just going to delete this section too because definitely no one cares for our purposes). None of this is necessarily bad. For me it means I can either spend a great deal of time learning the workings and views of the group, limit my changes or simply withdraw. I have tried to engage by explaining the origins of the SHR information and why it has issues, by asking questions on this page, offering to make the changes in a sandbox for review - the response is to focus on the infobox, ignoring my questions, make large scale changes to the article without discussion, or snide comments (eg Methinks someone has a WP:COI) - so it seems working with the group, at the groups choice (not mine) is off the table. Likewise, leaving the article alone is not an option for me. So, I'm left with making relevant changes from time to time as I see fit.Fj42 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- You've got numerous examples of people on this page being very receptive to many of your suggestions, but appear to have chosen to sulk because you picked a fight about an infobox and everyone else didn't cede to your demands, and have shown zero interest in actually working with others to put your more helpful suggestions to the article. It appears my good faith might have been misplaced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit conversations from article talk pages - it is not done on Wikipedia. Attempting to work with you on the article doesn't seem to have been a productive endeavour: you've attacked me for making edits you specifically requested and then ignored it when I pointed this out, and your own edits have either pushed fringe ideas relying on intense original research (the Macarthur grant issue may be very important to you but if no one else has written about it in the entirety of recorded history it can't be used in Wikipedia) or intensely unreliable sources (like some random website whining that the mainstream sources on the smallpox epidemic were too politically correct). These are edits that are fundamentally at odds with core Wikipedia editing principles and were never going to stand, NSWSHR content or no NSWSHR content. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Notes section[edit]
The issue isn't that we don't want/need a Notes section but rather that we don't have empty sections. When you have a note, then you add the header. Remember you are working on the live article; this is what people see. The stats show it gets about 2 readers a day, not a lot, but we care about them. Each edit should leave the article in a read-ready state. Having said that, the use of explanatory footnotes is relatively uncommon in Wikipedia. This is simply because we don't have traditional book pagination where the footnote can be easily seen from the point it is mentioned (on the same page). On Wikipedia, the equivalent to "same page" is "same screen", which is concept that depends a great deal on your device as to how big your screen is. So it's probably better to make that kind of commentary in the body of the article. Kerry (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Kerry, thanks for your guidance.Fj42 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)