• Reworded

• What is the meaning of "safe" in: "The trust's primary aim is to ensure that the buildings in its care are weatherproof and safe."?

• Reworded

• Is the definition of "South West England" due to the Churches Conservation Trust or only used in this list?

• The CCT use a definition of SW England which doesn't include Gloucestershire whereas South West England and West Country include it (based largely on government department definitions). The ongoing debates on their talk pages demonstrate there is no single definition.

• I don't want to join the discussions on this issues. Just wanted to make sure that the CCT uses the same partition in SW England, N England,... as this list. They do, right?

• Yep these lists are all being based on CCT regions. Their list of SW England is here

• OK.

• Please remove doubled information: "Rural churches dominate the list" and "The majority are rural village churches..."

• Reworded

• Some overuse of "largely" could be copy-edited.

• Some reworded

• Empty cells should be filled with ((center|—)) AFAIK.

• Added

• The link for footnote "C" does not work.

• Fixed

• Should "St Nicholas (old)" be replaced with "Old Church of St Nicholas"?

• Done (& also in a few other cases)

• What is Thurlbear in "St Thomas, Thurlbear, Orchard Portman"? A church, village or town?
• Same for a couple of other entries ("St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton",...). The column heading suggests that there are only two things appearing while sometimes there are three. Maybe reword the heading to something like: "Church name and location".

• I've changed the column header as suggested. these are often where a tiny village within a parish doesn't have an article & therefore the parish is wikilinked.

• I am a bit confused by the note in the reference section ("The Heritage Gateway website is published by...). What is it supposed to tell me?

• We are supposed to give the publishers of the sources used. Heritage Gateway is published by a consortium of three bodies. The note is intended to prevent the repetition of this information in every reference, which would make the section large and ugly. It was deemed acceptable in the FL Friends of Friendless Churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can add the full publisher info to eeach of these references if that would be preferable?

• I see and it is perfectly fine with me not to repeat the publisher information. However at the moment I have a problem locating the Heritage Gateway references. The term "Heritage Gateway" only seems to appear in the note and not in the references.

• I have removed this as heritage Gateway is not used in this list.

• Categories referring to the Churches Conservation Trust such as "Charities based in London" should be removed as this is a list about churches and not about the trust.

• These cats removed

• Thanks. If you wish, you could also get rid of category "Conservation in England" since the category "Churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust" is in that category already.

• Removed.— Rod ^talk 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A navigation template for other similar lists (Northern England) might be a good idea for the future.

• Yes that would be a good idea - but several of the lists haven't been written (yet)

• But hopefully will be written. In any case it is not essential at the moment.

bamse (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for you comments. I hope they have now been addressed.— Rod ^talk 08:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments mainly on the notes column... (to be added to as I read along) bamse (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The main table is currently in the section "Key". Maybe create a special section "Churches".

• Done

• Should "over looking" be one word?

• Taking advice on this one

• Done - all one word

• "...there is evidence of a wooden church in about 700 AD...". Surely the evidence is not from 700 AD. Possibly "in"->"from"?

• Done

• "Outside the tower is a stone dedicated to John Coumbe, said to have lived from 1484 to 1604 – outliving the entire Tudor dynasty." Is this essential for the church?

• Removed

• "The 15th-century tower houses three bells, two of them medieval and one 17th century", maybe add something in the second part of the sentence.

• I don't understand what is wrong with this one

• Reworded

• Same for: "The nave of Whitcombe Church dates from the 12th century, with the chancel being added in the 15th"

• Again this seem allright to me - what needs changing?

• Reworded

• "...and altar rails, and the remains of wall paintings", maybe get rid of the first "and"

• Done

• Capitalization in "St Antoninus King and Martyr." correct?

• Changed

• What's a "Gurney Stove"? Maybe add a footnote.

• named after inventor added

• "The presence in the floor of the church of trapdoors..." reads cumbersome.

• Reworded

• "a ... tree in the churchyard suggest it was", maybe "suggests that it was..."

• Reworded

• "The manor was held by Shaftesbury Abbey's manor of Tisbury". The manor was held by a manor, correct?

• 2nd "manor" changed to endowment

Taking a break (at "St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton") now. Will continue later today or tomorrow. bamse (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all comments so far - I will try to catch up with you.— Rod ^talk 11:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You use "28 feet (8.5 m) by 17 feet (5.2 m)" and on the other hand "62 by 12 feet (19 × 3.7 m)". Use the same way throughout (also check other occurrences. I'd prefer the second version.

• This will take a little while. I think I've done all these now.

• I think so too.

• Capitalization of "Perpendicular" correct? There seem to be both small and capital versions in the list. Also at least one of the "perpendicular" is linked to perpendicular and not to Perpendicular Period. Please check.

• Changed

• What is a "rectar"?

• Typo - changed

• Something should be changed in: "A church was established on the site, overlooking the River Parrett, in the 12th century, was valued at £5 in 1291,[122] although the majority of the fabric of the current building dates from the 14th."

• several full stops added

• "It is now in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust." Isn't this redundant given that the church is mentioned in this list?

• Removed

• Something is missing in: "It is currently on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register,[128][129] flood damage from the River Chew in 1968."

• added "following" flood damage

• Something should be changed in: "It has a perpendicular three-stage tower has an octagonal stair turret on the south wall."

• "with" and octagonal...

• Unify spelling of medieval/mediaevel.

• This will take a little while.— Rod ^talk 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardised

Done with the notes column. I also fixed some obvious things, but please check that I did not change any meaning. bamse (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is likely a typo in ref 104. bamse (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.— Rod ^talk 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is at least one "Heritage Gateway" reference, so you might want to put the note back or add publisher information directly to the reference.

• I can't find this one

• Edit the whole article and search for "www.heritagegateway.org.uk". I find two occurrences, one at "[St Giles' Church, Imber" and the other at "St Mary's Church, South Tidworth".

• Thanks - now done.— Rod ^talk 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is something missing or amiss in the sentence: "It includes a collection of medieval carvings, in the form of elegant corbel-heads, roof bosses, and externally in the form of fearsome gargoyles"

• Reworded

"Fearsome" might violate WP:NPOV, though personally I don't see a problem here so I leave it up to you to decide what's best here.

• fearsome removed (even though it was supported by the ref).

Welcome, and on it goes...

• "The first record of the church is an agreement dated 1226 between William, son of Arthur de Clopton and Richard of Keynsham Abbey." If possible, can you add what kind of agreement or in which way the church is mentioned in this agreement.

• Detail added

• Thanks. Possibly it should be "in an agreement"!?

• "in" added. I will try to get to the references this evening.— Rod ^talk 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes [2] a RS?

• The Newton Ferrers & Noss Mayo is a non-profit organisation and has a mechanism for correcting any errors (from home page)

• I have removed this one the info is covered by the Images of England ref already included

• What makes [3] a RS?

• Nadder Valley Focus is "a non-commercial site maintained by volunteers" and has a mechanism for correcting any errors from Contact us page)

• I have removed this one and sourced the information by reuse of the British History Online reference

• What makes [4] a RS?

• Replaced with a ref from North Wiltshire Council

• What makes [5] a RS?

• Replaced with ref from Pastscape (English Heritage)

• What makes [6] a RS?

• Ref removed as info already covered by RS

• What makes [7] a RS?

• I've removed the info re minton reredos at Fisherton as I couldn't find an alt source

• What makes [8] a RS?

• I've removed the claim re the plaque at Holcombe as I can't find an alt source

• What makes hiddendorset a RS?

• "Hidden Dorset was initially funded by Leader+ Chalk & Cheese; Arts Council England; a partnership of Dorset County Council, and the six borough/district councils in the county. It is now independent of these bodies." from About page

• Unfortunately this does not tell anything about the current situation or who is writing material for the site. If they were still funded by those bodies, I'd believe that they are reliable. The fact that they "are now independent" could mean that the funding bodies were not happy with the content for instance. bamse (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the claim about the bells which was supported by this reference.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes [9] a RS?

• Ref removed as info already covered by RS

• There are still two refs using this site.

• Thanks I hadn't spotted them - now replaced/removed.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes [10] a RS?

• See their Policy page

• What part of the policy page should I look at? Apparently about-bristol is written by several members of the Stiles family according to About us. How do I know that they are reliable?

• I have replaced the ref supporting the quote about a "Wedding Cake Church" with one from the Churches Conservation Trust.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes everythingexmoor a RS?

• Everything Exmoor describes itself as 'by the Community for the Community' but does undergo editorial control before publication About Page. It is a stable site already used as a source on multiple wp pages including List of museums in Somerset (FL), Exmoor (FA), Somerset (FA), Minehead (GA) and Geology of Somerset (GA) without any problems,

• Material can be submitted by everybody. Not sure where it says that there is editorial control. I guess it would also matter who the editor is. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes megalithic.co.uk a RS?

• According to wikipedia article The Megalithic Portal "Its listings are often referenced by noted web sites[2] and in recent books on megaliths[3] and Holy Wells[4]...Founded by chartered engineer Andy Burnham, ... The Megalithic Portal has existed in its current form since February 2001. .. In 2002, Archaeology Magazine reviewed the Megalithic Portal, describing it as 'useful, fun, and accurate'.[6] As of January 2010 the Megalithic Portal has been constituted as a non profit making membership society[7]. From the site About page under terms and conditions and see The Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters.

• According to terms and conditions, they cannot guarantee the accuracy of material submitted by third party contributors. Is the material cited in this list by third party contributors?

I've removed lots of the non RS sources and either removed the accompanying information or used other (RS) sources which cover the same information. I am convinced "Everything Exmoor" and "Megalithic Portal" should be allowed as Reliable. "Hidden Dorset" and "About Bristol" have suitable policies in place about quality controll etc and I think are probably RS but would be happy to compromise on these two.— Rod ^talk 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will have another look as soon as I get time. bamse (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from an expert on RS issues. However Hidden Dorset and About Bristol look less reliable to me than the other sites (see comments above). To make sure I asked the experts at WP:RSN. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Everything Exmoor the About page states in "the only limiting factor will be the time available for the volunteer editor to process the incoming information." this leads me to question how they factually check the information. Also in the About is "All the information is provided 'by the Community for the Community'" considering what you're sourcing with the information it leads me to believe it may not be factually accurate. I'm not sure on Megalithic however the information which you are citing appears to be user submitted with no expert knowledge in the field. Afro (Talk) 07:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Although it pains me to do so (because it means I should go & check all the other FAs, FLs & GA which use it) I have replaced the reference to everything exmooor with the reuse of the Images of England one which has the same information. I have also replaced the megalithic reference with one from British History Online.— Rod ^talk 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will support after the display problems of refs 119 and 131 are fixed and "church" is capitalized in ref 130. bamse (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I must be getting too close to this I didn't even spot those - now fixed.— Rod ^talk 18:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was legally established ..." - you've talked about several things between the Trust and this sentence, so suggest you make this "The Trust was established..."

• Done

• Any ideas if the Trust has been affected by the recent austerity measures to be implemented by our gracious orange/blue government? If it's partly financed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is it likely to see this funding disappear? (Just a question really).

• This was discussed at Talk:Churches Conservation Trust with various people checking different published lists - but it appears to have survived (so far)

• For anyone interested,the latest info is here. Basically the grant from the DCMS has been cut by 20%.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "2,000 volunteers" spare space here.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Table captions (and well done for giving the ACCESS thing a go here) should not be bold (but that may not be your fault) and, if incomplete sentences, shouldn't have full stops, like the one for the Key currently does.

• This comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#tables which was recently pointed out to me & I can't see how to change bold. Full stop is gone

• Caption says "year of construction" but you sometimes have just the closest century.

• I've changed this to year or era

• Not keen on bold at the start of each row, but hey...
• "The church is now one of three in the care of the priest-in-charge of Gerrans and Philleigh." no ref.

• Removed as I can't find a reliable source

• I seem to remember asking about this once before but Ham stone redirects to Hamstone. Is there a reason you use the former?

• I think about stone from Ham Hill but now changed

• "with 4 bells" four.

• Done

• " 1833[92] during " I see no major problem with dropping this ref to the end of the sentence.

• Done

• Ref 1 title - The Trust, not "The trust".

• Done

• Similarly for ref 3, trust is capitalised in the page title.

• Done

• Check all ref dates are in the same format - ref 5 has an ISO date while rest (or, at least, the majority) are human format.

• This was a date of publication as opposed to accessdate but changed, I hope I've got them all now

• BBC refs, in general, have publication dates, like ref 82 was published 12 April 2009. Please add these.

• Hope I've got them all

• PDF refs should have format=PDF

• I've never understood the rationale for this but Done

• Ref 121 needs an en-dash for page ranges. Check others.

• 121 was a reuse of 119 so have reused that. I've looked for others but having never understood the rationale for this one either they don't jump out at me.

• Ref 132 has a bare URL, a bit odd.

• This was the same with 119 - neither used the cite web template - now fixed

• Do you need Category:Churches in England when the Churches preserved by... is a much more specific category which is a second-level sub-cat of the former?

• Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. Hopefully done but a couple I didn't understand eg As in lead & ? ALT or what for images

• Any chance of an update to the As of in the lead?

• Sorry I don't understand this

• Sorry, the date after "As of..." in the lead, i.e. November 2010 now.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks I see now - I have removed the "as of.. date" it is not an exact number "over 340" and unlikely to change frequently

• Nicholas's vs Nicholas' - source says one, table says t'other.

• This has been debated in several places for what to do with the apostrophe when the saints name ends in "s" - eg Talk:Churches Conservation Trust#Apostrophes I don't think a final solution has been achieved.

• I just want internal consistency within the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thnk I've got this now.— Rod ^talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If we persist with these captions, (and again, this is a question, not a directive), what do we do about purely visual columns, like the "Photograph" column here. Photos aren't mentioned in the caption, but there's no alt text, so I'm not sure what a screen reader would make of this.

• I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I thought ALT tags hadn't become required but will add them if you think they are needed?

• The caption still appears to have a full stop, but what I mean about using it for access purposes, you should mention that there are also photographs of each church in the caption for it to be explicit and complete. The boldness will soon be okay with MOSBOLD, so not to worry there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had removed the full stop from one table caption but not the other - now done, & added "with photographs".— Rod ^talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry I don't understand that comment. The grades are I, II* & II - there is no grade III. Do you mean the asterisk "*" - if so this is a part of the grading - see Listed building#England and Wales or the English Heritage web site. What are you asking me to do?— Rod ^talk 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry grade 3 was me jumping ahead of myself, anyway per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 15:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But the text in each of the boxes is different ie I or II* or II, so the colour is not the only way of differentiating them, therefore I can't see why a symbol is needed as well. If the colour were removed the cells would still provide the relevant information.— Rod ^talk 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry I seem to be jumping ahead of my a lot lately, ignore my previous comment. Afro (Talk) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can Note B, be phrased better the thing which confuses me is "or the exact years over which it was built if known". Grammatical error on Ref 179. Ref 183 I can't find where it cites this information in the source. Coding error in Ref 190. Afro (Talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to reword note B. English capitalised on ref 179. Ref 183 moved as it supports the POWs buidling the chu8rch but not being the only one. cite web coding sorted on ref 190.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the article is over 100,000 bytes wouldn't it be better to remove one of the images in the lead? maybe the bigger of the images. Afro (Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing an image will not reduce the file size much, however I can do this if required, although I was advised that for a long list it would be useful to have a couple of lead images.— Rod ^talk 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Who were you advised by may I ask? Afro (Talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. When I tried removing a lead image it reduced the size of the list from 102 kb to 102 kb. It's not one image that makes it a big list, it's the amount of info it gives — and that's not the nominator's fault!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was just a query on whether it'd be better in reducing the loading time, no worries. Afro (Talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• St Thomas the Martyr: The hyphen in 1791-3 should be a dash. Also, the formatting is inconsistent with 1896–97 later, in regards to the amount of numbers (one after the dash in one, two in the other).
• St Andrew, Northover, Ilchester: "It was also the site of as minister church...". "as" → "a".
• All Saints, Leigh: "between 1896 and 1897 in 1896". Which is it? Or is this referring to two seperate things?
• St Martin, Cathedral Close, Exeter: The dash in the year range should be an en dash, not the larger em dash. A few of the column dates toward the end also have this problem.
• St Mary, Wilton: Had trouble understanding the following sentence: "The ruins of the three arches of the south arcade, and fragments of the north arcade and the altered eastern arch of the west tower or west window within the churchyard."
• St Mary, South Tidworth: "the construction work was supervised by G. H. Gordon. for Sir John Kelk of the Kelk Baronets, The chancel...". The comma and period should be reversed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for spotting these. I have never understood the rationale for the emphasis on en dash v em dash/hyphen, but I've been through & hopefully got all these & other identified problems.— Rod ^talk 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]