Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... there are numerous Methodist churches which are notable and having a list of them is fine. See wp:CLT for discussion why complementary categories, list-articles, navboxes can exist. This barely started. No reason suggested why this is not a reasonable list topic. --doncram 02:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion was removed in this edit by editor TheCatalyst31 with edit summary "this is a list, which doesn't fall under A7, and the two places on it assert notability". --doncram 18:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"local" as it applies to Methodist Churches

The term "local" is used to refer to individual churches within Methodism. It is fundamental to the Methodist understanding of the church. One such reference to this practice is ¶201 of The United Methodist Book of Discipline, 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmqo (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't see your comment here before I posted the new section below. This seems very relevant. Could you possibly please add to a statement about use of "local" which I will draft and put into the article. Thanks, --doncram 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good by you, Doncram? Is there any way to add the citation to the Page Title itself? I don't think so, but I don't know much! :-) --Revmqo (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Vesey - This issue has been the subject of much debated between Orlady, Doncram, and several others. How about particpating in the discussion to build consensus rather than editing first and asking questions later?--Revmqo (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should look at the section below where I asked you twice for your thoughts with no response. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But basically, I believe the information should be removed for 3 reasons. The relevant sentence is "In many cases the name of a church as a congregation is synonymous with the name of a corresponding building". That information isn't necessary for this article and doesn't comply with articles in the list like "Andrews Chapel". Second, there is an insert into that sentence "which would be termed a "local" church in Methodism". That is based on ¶201 of The United Methodist Book of Discipline here. There is no emphasis on the term "local" used in that reference and no indication that it is used in any other way than to describe a Local church. Any other interpretation is original research and not worthy of inclusion. The third reasons is the reference note we use for that sentence. That note is full of original research "perhaps unique to methodism" and the term "local" as if it is somehow symbolizing something different than what is described in local church. It is true that Methodism emphasizes that individual churches should be involved in discipleship and outreach in the community; however, that is hardly relevant to this article. It could be included in Methodism as long as it didn't emphasize the importance of the term "local" in some strange OR way. Ryan Vesey 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram will have to speak to whether or not he is willing to accept the edit. I am simply pointing out that it has been the subject of intense debate and to simply dismiss that debate and make a unilateral edit does not recognize the efforts of others. As for your suggestion that "local" as used in the sentence represents Original Research.... this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Methodist use of the word. Yes ¶201 is one source, but the rest of the chapter fleshes out the use of the term. Also the practice and structure of the church proves that "local" is in fact fundamental to the Methodist understanding of the church. ¶¶201-205 make this abundantly clear. I invite your edits and participation in the ongoing discussion, but to make an edit that says "Not relevant nor important to methodism" when the opposite is true invites my skepticism.--Revmqo (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we take a step back. Can you explain what the sentence "local" is a term used to refer to individual churches within Methodism, fundamental to the Methodist understanding of the church means? It's quite possible that we are on two entirely separate wavelengths. I still contend that the statements are original research when you consider the statement "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". The material in the article (specifically the information on local churches) is analysis of a published source and isn't directly supported by the source. The information about the names being synonymous is unsupported entirely. Ryan Vesey 23:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I will endeavor to be as succinct as possible. (Some info is for later readers, no implied suggestions)

The term “church” has different understood meanings as you move across denominations.

1) In Roman Catholicism, the “church” refers to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. Every local congregation is really just a part of one church, and rules are dispensed from the Vatican. The polity is decidedly Episcopal/hierarchical.

2) In the Southern Baptist Convention, “church” likely refers to an individual congregation. The polity is congregational, and rules are derived from the individual congregation’s understanding of scripture in the light of a greater Southern Baptist mindset.

3) In the United Methodist Church, the term “church” has a myriad of meanings. Does the speaker mean an individual congregation? Does he mean the Church Universal? The District Church? The Annual Conference? United Methodist polity is Connectional, not Congregational. Rules are derived from the denomination’s quadrennial meeting, “The General Conference.” The Administration of the church happens at the local level, but also at the district and annual conference level. Thus when referring to an individual congregation, the denomination has historically called that body the “local church.” The UMC defines the local church as the basic unit of ministry within the denomination. It is the level at which people form relationships of mutual support and accountability. If you remove the word “local,” then you must decide which level of the denomination to which you are referring.

The Book of Discipline, 2008, of the United Methodist Church defines the ministry of the local church in Part V, Chapter One. For 78 pages it goes on to define the role, responsibilities, and expectations of the “local church.” In almost every case, when the word church appears it is preceded by the word “local.” The chapter itself is entitled “The Local Church,” not the local “Church.” The word “local” is intrinsic to any discussion of an individual church within Methodism.

Further, a particular role of ministry with the UMC is that of “Local Pastor.” A Local Pastor is a layperson that is empowered/authorized to function as a pastor with sacramental authority within a “Local Church.” But only a specific “Local Church.” The terms are established as such to draw the connection between the two uses.

I cited the 2008 book since it is the most recent published version. The 1952 Discipline of the Methodist Church, in part II “The Local Church, chapter 1 “The Pastoral Charge,” ¶ 102, states “ The local church (bold text is present in original source document) is a connectional society of persons who have professed their faith in Christ, have been baptized, have assumed the vows of membership in The Methodist Church, and are associated in fellowship as a local Methodist church in order that they may hear the Word of God, receive the Sacraments and carry forward the work which Christ has committed to his Church.”

Clearly the use is historical, intentional, and intrinsic to a Methodist understanding of a particular, or “local” church.--Revmqo (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

local or public or other options in name of this list-article

At the AFD, some editors have questioned and supported use of the word "local" in the name of this list-article. Please discuss here, okay, so the AFD can be closed?

Some comments about "local" and "public": (begin copied comments with ellipses (...) indicating other text omitted)

  • I'm just slightly concerned over the usage of the term "local". Local to what, exactly? If you were to incorporate churches from all over the world that pass notability guidelines, at some point it'd cease being a list of local churches because England would not be considered local to the USA. I wouldn't even consider a church in California to be local to say, Nevada. It's such a vague yet specific term. Now if you intended the usage of the term "local" to mean "public", the list should be re-named List of public Methodist Churches to avoid confusion over the term "local"....Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took "local" to mean an individual congregation and/or its building, to distinguish it from the overarching organization, as both may be called "church". I don't understand at all your use of the term "public" in this context. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not familiar with the term "public church". From a Google search, I learn that at least one denomination (not Methodist) and some congregations style themselves as "public churches", meaning that they are actively engaged with society at large. I don't think that's a good term to introduce here. In contrast, the Wikipedia disambiguation page Church and the articles Church (building) and Local church provide a reasonable basis for a common understanding of terms used (or potentially used) in this list article. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...A rename is ok too.... --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • .... the term "local" is an entirely appropriate and source-able term when referring to a church within Methodist denominations. --Revmqo (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what aspect, though? If it's a term used in a way other than "this is local to myself personally" in how the term "local" is used 99% of the time, it needs to be sourced and elaborated on in the article to explain how the term differs from the typical usage of the term local. Most of the times I've seen the term used, it's used in reference to something that was local to another topic, such as the church being local to the town of Town-ville or that John Smith went to his local church.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you accept that there can be more than one meaning to the word "local"? You seem to be wrapped around one definition, but there are in fact more definitions of the word. At this point the word is only used in the title. The appropriate reference would be ¶201 of "The United Methodist Book of Discipline, 2008". Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2008. I am not sure how to put a reference in the title of a page. My earlier comment was only to show that it is an appropriate use. If you want to move the page to one with a new title, go ahead as far as I am concerned, but the word is used appropriately.--Revmqo (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copied comments)

To add, I'll offer that I chose to use the word "local" in the title based on how I thought it would go with the United Methodist Church article which had/has a section, "Local churches". There have been multiple Methodist churches in the sense of complete whole religious orders (e.g. United Methodist Church, predecessors The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church and others). "Local" is a word that clarifies that an individual congregation/building is meant, without getting bogged down into which order the individual church belonged to at which time. I chose not to include the word "United" to allow for coverage of non-United ones, though the list-article could potentially eventually be split by United vs. other if the distinction is very important and divides the local churches cleanly, or by geography, or otherwise. If others think that "public" or some other term works better than "local" or that no such term is needed in the title to differentiate from entire church orders, I am sure I would be fine with a page rename/move. --doncram 17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's necessary to go to United Methodist documents to define "local church." As I noted in the comment on the AFD page that somehow didn't get copied here (I've added it here now), the Wikipedia disambiguation page Church and the articles Church (building) and Local church provide a reasonable basis for a common understanding of terms used (or potentially used) in this list article. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you took the time to read the Local church page you keep trying to push, and the source document that I posted, you will see that the word "local" can have radically different meanings when the context for its use is changed! Rather than being obstinate, why not make real suggestions as to what make you happy?--Revmqo (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, you've said that 3 times now. Umm, aren't you opposed to the existence of this list-article? I didn't copy your comment because I thought you were invested in opposing, rather than developing this article. I advise the deletion nominator not to interfere in the article under deletion review, so please don't edit in the article. If you no longer oppose, please withdraw your AFD. But, anyhow, the Local church article you recommend is a wikipedia article labelled as having no sources, not a reliable source for reference from this list-article. Editor Revmqo and I have developed this topic somewhat in the article. I don't expect to reply further here. --doncram 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that's really needed is a 1-2 sentence statement to clarify its usage within the scope of the title. For instance: "This is a list of local Methodist churches, in which religion the term "local" is often used in a colloquial context to designate the Methodist religion as a whole rather than the more common usage of the term as a means of physical location." Then we source it with one document that backs this up. That's really all I'm asking for in the article if the name isn't changed and I think it's a reasonable request. I know that the article's lead is somewhat trying to state this, but it's sort of clunkily written. I'd also like to use one of these as a source to back up the usage of the term local: [1], [2]. Both are academic texts and it's always good to supplement a primary source with a non-primary one and you can't do much better than an academic text in most cases. I'm still a little concerned because while the term is somewhat used, the church as a whole tends to use the term to designate location rather than to show the church as a whole. It's no biggie as long as it's neutrally stated and sourced, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of consensus I figured that I'd post that sentence here rather than paste it into the lead, since I don't want to get into a revert war. I think it more succinctly summarizes the term "local" in the context of the Methodist church and considering that this is ultimately a list, we don't really need a long and flowery introduction. I'd also like to state that I'm concerned that the current state of the article gives undue weight to the UK branches and buildings. We have long paragraphs about the churches in the UK, but not much about the churches in any other country. This is why I really think it'd be better to create articles for each continent rather than lump them all together. If someone is more of an expert on British churches and writes predominantly on that while only writing a few sentences on the Chinese or American churches, it becomes lopsided and uneven. It's not that the paragraphs are bad, just that more emphasis and priority seems to be given to the UK churches.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tokyogirl79 for your concern and for your courtesy. But I don't quite understand "local" to mean what you say it means in Methodism. From the perspective of an interested outsider, I thought it did mean a local-in-location individual church building and its congregation, not "the Methodist religion as a whole" that you suggest it means.
  • About the coverage of multiple countries, I think that will even out, and we should split out countries only when growth of the worldwide list requires it. That said, I would really like to find some notable Canadian, Korean, Chinese, other Methodist churches sooner rather than later to put into this article. --doncram 23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was kind of my argument for taking "local" out, because the term is sort of archaic. It is sort of used, but predominantly the term is used to specify location rather than to show that the churches are all part of one unified branch of Christianity. Many refer to the Church (as a whole rather than the individual churches) in a similar manner as the Catholic religion does, saying the One Church or they just refer to it as the Methodist religion. The only places you generally see the term used are in documents, mostly older ones. The usage of the term as anything other than location has really tapered off since then. It's kind of how 30 years ago you could say "gay" and people would automatically associate it with "happy", whereas today people automatically think of it in its more common term as a sexual orientation. It's still used, but nowhere near as frequently. That's why if it is to be left as that, it needs to be pretty pointedly clear. I'd just as soon remove the word "local" because it's such an antiquated term. The "new hotness" tends to be just referring to the Christian religion by it's branch name (Baptist, Methodist, etc) or using terms such as "Unified", "United" or such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you are both misunderstanding the use of the term "local" within Methodism. Sort of like amino acids are the building blocks of cells, "local" churches are the base unit for ministry within the Methodist Church. While the building is technically a church, in a Methodist understanding it is the membership (the people) who form the church. It isn't an archaic term, and it doesn't refer to Methodism as a whole.... it refers to one piece of a larger whole which is the church, in this case the Methodist church. If it is misleading to the reader, then I would invite them to read to find the answer for their confusion. While it is used appropriately for this article, why not just move the page to a new one entitled "A list of Methodist churches"?????--Revmqo (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revmqo, you are misunderstanding the term "local" within Methodism. In Methodism, the term "local" refers to a specific congregation, not a building. When John Wesley was spreading his message in the United States, he preached in tents and open areas. Much of his ministry was in mining camps. Other denominations would build a structure and would use that as their base for evangelism. This article is about the buildings and should be renamed to "List of Methodist Churches". The lead should make a point that it refers to all branches of the Methodist Church. In addition, I feel you place far too much emphasis on the term local. If you read the relevant chapter of the Book of Discipline of the UMC, you can see that the emphasis being placed isn't on the term local. It is on the fact that at a local level, the Church is responsible for ministry. That is one of the core tenants of Methodism, that every church should be involved in Missions. Regardless, this is a list of buildings so local does not belong in the title and "Perhaps unique to Methodism, the "local" church is considered to be the most important tool through which discipleship occurs. It is understood to be the true community of believers, and it is the redemptive fellowship in which the sacraments are administered and practiced. As such, "local" is a term used to refer to individual churches within Methodism, fundamental to the Methodist understanding of the church" should be removed. It doesn't come close to using encyclopedic language and it isn't relevant to the topic again because this is a list of buildings. Ryan Vesey 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who hasn't seen the section Revmqo is referring to, it is here. The chapter is setting guidelines for Churches at a local level. No extra importance for the term local is expressed in the chapter and any comment on our part relating to that is WP:OR. Since this discussion has become both one for what the title should be and how the information should be presented, should a separate move discussion take place or should it be moved based on the outcome of this discussion? Ryan Vesey 15:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Vesey: Why don't you re-read my comments? We are saying the same thing.--Revmqo (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I misread your most recent post; however, I still feel the second paragraph is out of place for this list article. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revmqo, are you currently opposed to removing the second paragraph? Ryan Vesey 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I have moved this page to List of Methodist churches. Using this title is clearly correct and I don't see any opposition to moving it. Ryan Vesey 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Language

The use of the term Methodist and Methodism, and a clear list with church from varying Methodist denominations makes the sentence "this list includes any Methodist denomination" redundant. The sentence as inserted also makes the opening paragraph flow improperly.--Revmqo (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be desirable for the article to include a link to List of Christian denominations#Methodists? Otherwise, won't there be conflicts over adding churches that are denoted as (for example) "Wesleyan"? --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with that link being added.--Revmqo (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was necessary because the term Methodism evokes different things depending on who is asked. Personally, when I hear Methodist, I think of United Methodism. I understand that there are various forms of Methodism (my grandparents are Free Methodist). Others hearing Methodist might immediately associate it with Free Methodism or some other form. The statement I used makes it clear that this list contains all Methodist churches and it limits the scope of the article by excluding denominations like Wesleyan Church (per Orlady). Ryan Vesey 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that you bring pre-concieved notions to your reading of the article. The article says "Methodist" churches. Not United Methodist, Free Methodist, or Methodist Church of England. That being said, I see no problem with adding a 'further' link that directs to the page listed by Orlady above.--Revmqo (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point with that was that I bring pre-conceived notions, and many readers will bring pre-conceived notions. The clarification is there for the reader. In regards to the flow of the article, it can be modified somewhat, but I feel the link I included should be mentioned in the first paragraph so it is clear that the article includes all Methodist churches. Ryan Vesey 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how about reading my whole comment before you reply? I have no problem with the link that you inserted, except that its structure was haphazard at best. Inserting a
Further information: List of Christian denominations § Methodists
link would avoid paragraph wording problems, and probably make us all happy. However, I am not absolutely sure that this proposed linked page is the best one. Are there suggestions for another page that might be a better informational fit?--Revmqo (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read your whole comment, let's try to be less condescending. My point is that we should be more clear than we currently are. WP:LIST says "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list". While I admit that saying it is a list of notable Methodist churches implies that it includes all denominations within Methodism, our failure to make that clear to those who have preconceived ideas of the word Methodist can leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria. I also disagree with a generic further link because the article doesn't provide further information on the topics presented in this article. Linking to it while stating all denominations are included would be acceptable. Ryan Vesey 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence includes a link to Methodist, which links to a description of Methodism worldwide. There's no need to make this more complicated. --Revmqo (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More complicated? How do we determine which part is more complicated? Remember that readers don't have Masters of Divinity degrees and readers don't follow every link. Clarification should always be preferred over anything that requires the reader to have a certain level of understanding. Ryan Vesey 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms

For the record, "British Methodism" and "American Methodism" aren't newly coined terms, but rather the general terminology for discussing the two predominant strains of Methodism.... i.e. British and American....--Revmqo (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that. I thought that they were possibly meaningful phrases. I removed them as section titles and think they should stay removed though (not saying you are arguing otherwise). Anyhow, the sections in the list-article are for churches in Britain, churches in United States, and in other locations. I suppose it is possible that in the United States or in China or in Canada there could exist churches following both "American Methodism" or "British Methodism" models. The sections are not about defining what "American Methodism" is, etc. --doncram 23:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the change. You are correct that there are British Methodist Churches that exist in America and vice versa. Rare but they do exist.--Revmqo (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then it would be appropriate to identify the rare ones of the unexpected type, in the text above the list of British churches and above the list of U.S. ones. If that is done, then some definition of American vs. British methodism would indeed be needed in the upper intro, too. Are there articles on British Methodism and on American Methodism and/or are these terms defined somewhere in wikipedia? --doncram 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split out AME ones, all U.S. ones?

There exists a separate list article about African Methodist Episcopal churches, so I wonder if the AME ones should be split out from here. However, for the moment I am developing the NRHP items of all types, in the U.S. section. The whole U.S. section could possibly soon be split to a separate article, or just the AME ones out of it. Open for discussion, but please do allow me to develop the U.S. ones here for now. --doncram 23:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I believe they should be listed together. They are both Methodist denominations. If we separate them, then we need to create a UMC page and then separate the others out as well.... i.e. Methodist Church of Britain, Methodist Church of Singapore, etc.--Revmqo (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay by me to keep AME here. I added all U.S. NRHP ones that have "Methodist" in their NRHP listing name; these are almost all valid entries to this list, tho there may be a few to be weeded out. Where "First Methodist Parsonage" or similar is listed, there is obviously a church associated, so I think the item stays in (altho the parsonage but not the likely-more-modern church is what is NRHP-listed), and the corresponding article can address both. Next I want to add the U.S. NRHP ones that have "AME" or "A.M.E." or similar in their name; so far have only caught some AME ones where "Methodist" was spelled out. Current article size is 152,493 bytes, big but not too much IMO. --doncram 23:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the AMEZ and CME ones as well.--Revmqo (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Had the AMEZ ones already, then also went and got any with either "CME" or "C.M.E.", also. Thanks for pointing this out. --doncram 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about adding Central Halls

In the (ridiculous) AFD, there was mention of "several current and former Methodist Central Halls in the UK: Methodist Central Hall, Birmingham, Grand Central Hall in Liverpool, and Methodist Central Hall Westminster in London", by mention of Central Hall dab page. It was suggested that these should not be added, on basis they may be regarded as not-churches. I mean no disrespect, but think these should be added, and the intro/lede adjusted as necessary to accommodate them. I'll pause for comments. --doncram 02:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Notability of churches

So if this is a list of "notable" Methodist churches, then how come so many of them have redlinks? Methinks it could do with a good old fashioned culling. Bazonka (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. All the ones i have added are listed on the Canadian register of historic sites or on the U.S. national register of historic places. They are all individually wikipedia-notable, they have passed multiple levels of review by professionals, and extensive documentation exists for each one of them. Among the U.S. states, the documentation is on-line for almost all of them in California, Colorado, Connecticut, and many other states; it is available but not as convenient for Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, other others. See wp:NRHPhelp for more info about NRHP documentation. I'm gonna start articles for the first alphabetical item in each state, if there is not already one, and will continue starting more articles gradually. But, every current redlinks is valid. --doncram 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If articles are going to be created, then I suppose that's OK. I do find it a bit odd that there are hundreds of US churches and only 3 for England though. I wonder if there is a similar criteria for establishing the notability of UK buildings? (I don't think listing is appropriate because there's all sorts of non-notable stuff that's listed.) But if the UK list is expanded much, then I would recommend splitting the article. Bazonka (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks, and yes I agree. It would be good to interest some British editors and develop out that section of this list-article, or figure out ourselves how to identify the items to add. I think that Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings are usually regarded as Wikipedia-notable, while Grade II ones are not. I don't know how to tell how many, and what are the names of, the British I and II* Methodist church buildings. Indeed this list can and should be split eventually. Cheers, --doncram 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All UK listed buildings are regarded as being notable; the definition of a Grade II listed building is that the building is "nationally important and of special interest", which IMO satisfies the requirement of notability. When I have time, I'll look for listed Methodist church buildings in the UK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a further look at the list and IMO it is impractical to create a list with this title. A list should be comprehensive; with this title it should contain all the Methodist churches in the world, active and closed. Even the addition of the word "notable" would not help – problems of definition, etc. I've had a look at the listed Methodist churches and chapels in England alone. The word "Methodist" provides 1,549 buildings. Not all of these are actual churches, but I did a quick survey of the first 100 "hits". This produced 46 active Methodist churches, 12 closed (but notable) churches, and two churches in combined use. Even a List of listed Methodist churches in England would be enormous if we were to include the amount of detail, photos, etc required to make a good list. I added Wesley's Chapel to the list before I realised this impracticability. I suggest much splitting before too much time is wasted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for contributing to the discussion here and for adding the Wesley's Chapel one. As you'll see I just split out the U.S. section. After considering that the United Kingdom section can be split out, and further split as needed into smaller articles, I don't think you really disagree about the practicality of listing the notable Methodist churches in the U.K., even if there are 700 of them, do you? There are at least several hundred U.S. ones already listed. As noted in the AFD about this list, the List of RHPs in the U.S. is a huge list (of more than 85,000 items) that was eventually split many times. And the U.K. methodist church list can and should be split when necessary, probably best by geography. Also, I see no way that any time has been wasted or could be wasted, by developing U.K. list here. Anyhow, there's more room now in this article; load-time is reduced by the U.S. ones being split out. I do hope you can add more U.K. Methodist ones here or in a split-out article. Or, can you point me to how to get the potential 700 items to add myself? Thanks again! --doncram 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you only going to include nationally listed Methodist churches, or include locally listed ones as well? Have a look at http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/listed/localist/hhmethod.htm for an example of the latter.--Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at splitting the UK churches off tomorrow. The title will be Listed Methodist churches in the United Kingdom (to match other listed building lists). To add the English listed churches go here, click on List Entry Text, insert "Methodist" in the box, and click on "Search". This will give you more than you want (all the pages including the word Methodist), but you can sort out the churches and chapels as you work through it. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hugely appreciate the many great articles about Listed buildings and lists of them, which you have created, and appreciate your contributing here. If the only way to have your interest is by your creating a list-article by that name, I'd take it. But, that said, I think it would help readers more if the list were List of Methodist churches in the United Kingdom, allowing for coverage of former church buildings and of spectacular modern church buildings and of congregations that are notable for other-than-their-building reasons. It would mostly be churches notable for their architecture or other reasons that the buildings are listed, I do expect, but I'd rather not see a separate, awkward Methodist churches in London other than ones in Listed buildings, or a comprehensive list re-stating all the Listed building ones.
Specifically, what about Methodist Central Hall Westminster, Surrey Chapel, Trinity Independent Chapel, West Street Chapel and maybe West London Methodist Mission? These, besides the Wesley's Chapel one that is in a listed building, make up Category:Methodist churches in London. I think having one unified list, divided by geography, is better for readers....who, focusing specifically on Methodist churches, would like to learn about all of the notable ones in an area, i think.
Also, I don't know if, in England, churches decline Listed buildings status. In the U.S., many churches (more than other types of building owners) do decline to be listed in the National Register, so any list of just NRHP ones would omit too many obviously notable historic buildings. In the U.S. sections of List of Methodist churches, List of Unitarian churches, List of Presbyterian churches, List of Anglican churches most items will be churches that have National Register-listed buildings, but there will be a good number of others. And for a notable for other reasons one, All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) is one in the Anglican list now, which is notable for its activism, and is repeatedly in the U.S. national news, but it is not NRHP-listed.
In the U.S., BTW, i don't like the too-narrow-in-my-view List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in California and in each other state. Those omit other historic bridges, and omit modern bridges, and leave the state-wide lists of bridges in an awkward position of either duplicating them or being a hard-to-explain leftover list. The natural order of reader interest there, I think, is "Bridge" then "Area" then go to the individual one, or maybe first divide by "historic" vs. "modern" (and simply identify whether the bridge still exists or not). Here, with churches, i think the most natural order of reader interest is "Methodist" then "Area" then go to the specific one, without dividing by "in a Listed building" vs. "notable as a congregation" vs. "previously existed".
All these are just my thoughts, about how I feel getting away from being just like other NRHP lists or just like other Listed Building lists, is best, for these church list-articles. Again, if you really want to limit it to just the listed buildings, I'd like to understand why you prefer to not cover the other ones, but I'd generally want to go along. Okay, i'll try adding some if i have time later tonight. Thanks! --doncram 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed comments. Basically, I see two "kinds" of lists: comprehensive lists, and lists of notable items. The way it has been done in Cheshire is as follows. List of churches in Cheshire is the comprehensive list; just a straightforward list of churches, with little else. Then Grade I listed churches in Cheshire is an example of a list of notable churches, in this case those listed at Grade I. The latter is a FL, and IMO the way a "good" list should be composed, with photos, coords, notes, etc. It would be impractical to give this amount of information in the comprehensive list; IMO it's big enough as it stands. Taking these as models, I see the possibility of a comprehensive list of Methodist churches in the UK, and a list or lists of notable Methodist churches. The problem is how to define notability. Listing automatically provides notability. I accept that non-listed churches can be notable (as you suggest, modern unlisted architectural triumphs, or particularly active congregations). But I see that approach as leading to arguments about what is and what is not notable. My suggestion is that I set up a trial format in a sandbox, using the approach I have already found to work well for listed buildings, add a few items, and see what you think, I'm a bit busy at present, so I think the best thing might be for you not to add any more to the existing list for the time being, and see what you think of the sort of format I know works well (and is approved at FL). Then I'll drop a message on your talk page.
A difference from the US is that the "recipient" has no say in whether a building is listed or not. An application is made, English Heritage do a detailed survey of the architecture and the history of the building, then if they think it should be listed they make a recommendation to the appropriate Secretary of State, including the grading, and this is usually rubber-stamped. The final matter is the choice of the nation, not the individual. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off the topic of methodist churches, but I disagree with Peter I. Vardy's assertion that "All UK listed buildings are regarded as being notable". Many are, yes, but there are plenty of barns, gravestones, cobbled pavements, cowsheds, etc. that have their own listing but have received no significant coverage and aren't particularly interesting. Bazonka (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's basically what i thot, that there are many Listed buildings which are not Wikipedia-notable. It's certainly hard to find any substantial info about many of them, while for almost all U.S. NRHP-listed one there exists a substantial individual nomination document. Did i get it wrong, is it the Grade II and Grade II*, rather than the Grade I and Grade II*, that are more significant. The Listed building article requires you to be familiar with various specific English places, to understand which are higher vs. lower levels. :( --doncram 03:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed comments, too, Peter I. Vardy. I don't get "comprehensive" vs. "notable" really. I do totally believe you, that you could produce a lovely, Featured-Article-worthy list of Listed Methodist church buildings. You do great work that way. And I agree that would shy away from any issues about which churches are notable, on the margin. But, what is needed for wikipedia readers, IMO, is a list of Methodist churches, indexing all the articles categorized as such (or the article categories need to be changed). Per wp:CLN, this is a list-article system complementing a good system of categories (though there may well be mis-categorized ones among the others). I honestly don't think there is going to be much difficulty, much controversy about whether any one congregation or modern church is notable. If it is, then it has a Wikipedia article. For certain types, like NRHP ones and UK listed buildings, we know the church is notable and should show redlinks, too. IF there is potential dispute about which articles are worthy or not, let's not totally avoid that. The point is to create the most useful list-article.
About a list of Listed Methodist buildings, isn't that already covered within List of Listed buildings? Someone interested in just the historic and surviving Listed ones, is probably just as interested in other denominations' buildings in the same area, and is just as well served by your lists of Listed church buildings of all denominations. But someone interested in Methodist churches, first, per title of this article, wants to learn about newer non-listed ones, too, and whichever ones, if any, are active and notable for their good works, etc. I am afraid a narrow list article of just Listed-only and Methodist-only church buildings in an area won't add much, and will complicate the main task of building a good list of all the notable Methodist churches. --doncram 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if I were doing this sort of thing, I would do it this way (with Wales added later) which does not seem to be to sort of thing you wanted. I'll leave it to you. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for developing that material now in your sandbox and for discussing. I appreciate being able to have a reasonably slow discussion. I've been off developing parallel lists such as List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches, which has numerous churches that are not historic-building ones. And others. But same topic comes up now also at Talk:List of Presbyterian churches#Article title, where i reply with mention of this discussion here (and also mention nice Grade I listed churches in the East Riding of Yorkshire. I just wanted to mention that and to say I'll respond more substantially soon, here. --doncram 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red links in See Also

WP:SEEALSO prohibits red links in the see also section. I thought I'd make the note here rather than remove them again. Ryan Vesey 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't remove them. Thank you, honestly, for posting here instead. This is itself a brand new list, under construction, and it should naturally link to the other comparable lists of other church denominations' churches. I am starting those and they won't stay redlinks for long. It is unnecessarily disruptive to remove them. Another editor--the editor who nominated this list for AFD and who seems to focus on following me and causing interruptions--did remove them once, but I have since started several of the articles. If any more editors want to claim credit for identifying some small criticism of this new article, please do claim credit here on the Talk page, or somewhere else, rather than disrupting the article itself. :) --doncram 22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a reason (other than long-standing deep-seated animosity toward me) for removing the "see also" link to the list of Primitive Baptist churches that I added? --Orlady (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Also note the existence of List of Strict Baptist churches. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you know fully well Orlady, I do resent your following and criticizing. And playing the victim, even, that is your current game.... you are so innocently "just trying to help"? and finding that I do not appreciate your help... of course I do not. Anyone but you could do a better job "helping" in any of this. And, I put a link to the List of Primitive Baptist churches into the larger List of Baptist churches instead; it is included within that so doesn't need to be linked separately. Anyhow, is that your fine piece of work that you wish to promote for some reason? It is a shoddy list, frankly. --doncram 02:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Primitive Baptist Churches should be linked from here, no doubt about it. It doesn't matter what the quality of the article is. In addition, like I pointed out, red links are prohibited in the see also section. Even if you intend to create the articles later,the red links can't exist until they are created. Another option for presenting these would be in a navbox. That way, it could be presented in a uniform manner across all of the church listing articles. Your responses to Orlady are WP:OWN violations. It doesn't matter whether you appreciate her help or not, she is helping an article that is not yours. It also doesn't matter that she nominated the article for deletion. One of my favorite articles is one that I nominated for deletion. I suggest you treat Orlady as you would any other editor. Ryan Vesey 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that editor has long expressed hatred and has harassed me for years. It is long term harassment, bullying, evil. The editor has refused mediation which once possibly could have cleared up some stuff, i dunno. It's a long pattern of following me, of battling, of urging on bully assistants (read about patterns in bullying). Of multiple ANIs, of exceeding 3rr, of abuse of admin privileges, all in a cause of hate following me. I don't follow that editor. That editor follows me. Sorry, i cannot interpret new s*** as if this person is innocent, it is long past assuming good faith. And, i suppose now that editor is pleased to egg you on a bit.
About the one or two remaining redlinks in the See also section, as you could see I am starting those articles, all of them link to each other, it would simply cause unnecessary work to remove the links. REmoving them, as this editor has done, is just to interrupt, to harass, frankly, and to cobble up a situation of contention at the Talk page now. --doncram 05:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor, apparently also attracted to causing disruption, has repeatedly removed links from See Also. This editor, Nyttend, hasn't even bothered to check the contents, and has deleted bluelinks as well, e.g. in this edit which i have reverted. The point I take from this is that a few editors are dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on. If you are not part of developing this article, please go away. And, either if you are dedicated to disruption, or if you seriously think you have a legitimate issue, be civil and discuss it here, at the Talk page of the article. Repeated disruptive edits by administrators. without any explanation and demonstrating ignorance of what is blue vs. red, seem more to be about exerting control and bureaucracy and hatred, than anything else. If you are a real communicating person, Christian or otherwise, or at least Human / humane, use your words, please. --doncram 00:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as anyone that the link was not blue when it was removed. You have been told repeatedly that it is against policy to have red links in the see also section. Do not restore them. You also need to cut the personal attacks. Ryan Vesey 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not know that. I may have mispoken, I acknowledge that it is possible i made a technical error in what i said, because i did not look up what time Nyttend edited vs. what times the various linked articles have been moved in and out of mainspace. What I do know, 100%, is that Nyttend's edits and now some of yours are disruptive, interrupting of development going on. If you are not fully aware, let me tell you: i developed articles for all of those redlinks, and they are valid Wikipedia topics, and if they are temporarily not in mainspace because another editor moved them out, that is only a temporary result of my not being able to fight battles with disruptive editors on every front at once, and subtracting links to them is silly. Ryan Vesey, i otherwise have a pretty good impression of you as a reasonable editor. Do you seriously have an issue with the legitimacy of any of those article topics as Wikipedia articles? If so, please do say so. If not, could you just help out and stop the removal of links and help restore and solidify the linked articles. Please, help be part of a solution here, don't get involved in shoring up some kind of ridiculous disruption. Yes, I will acknowledge that leaving redlinks in a See also section is not technically to be desired. Deleting the redlinks from many articles linking to them is not constructive, when they have been already and obviously are in the process of being remade blue. Comment, please. --doncram 03:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd looked at the page histories for the Baptist, Congregational, and Lutheran churches, you would have observed that when I removed them, you hadn't yet put them in mainspace. Be aware that any further personal attacks, upon my discovery thereof, will be greeted with an immediate request for sanctions unless someone else make such a request first. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get Nyttend's assertions of personal attacks, and I don't get Ryan Vesey's comments either. When I commented above, it was after I just found my way to the deletion by Nyttend here. Nyttend had deleted the same See also links at several of the List of churches-type articles, and I thought I had restored them all. I noticed the links missing here and thought he had just deleted them. I still have not gone through the timestamps but I gather I must have misunderstood, that he had deleted them here sooner than I understood. I object to anyone claiming that I was intentionally lying about anything, I simply was not and never have. --doncram 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still problematic

The following statement in the opening paragraph is still problematic to me:

"In many cases the name of a church as a congregation--which would be termed a "local" church in Methodism--is synonymous with the name of a corresponding building.[1] This list covers notable churches of either meaning."--Revmqo (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your new comment doesn't communicate anything to me (admittedly i am not reviewing everything else said in discussion sections before, but u started this new one). I don't think anyone is too hugely invested in defending mention of "local church", if that is your issue. If you take issue with the idea that a given phrase could either refer to a church congregation or refer to a specific building/place, then I would have a problem. Obviously people use "X Church" as a place, as in "turn left at X Church", right? Or what is problematic? If there is something problematic, could you suggest different wording here, or just change it in the article? --doncram 03:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I tried to make a reasonable edit. The article as it currently stands is an article about church buildings. It may talk about notable congregations, but only as they relate to a building. If you want to create an article about unique congregations, then we really need to find a different format, or create yet another article. It's hard to look at a list of buildings, with photos, dates of construction, physical location, and understand this to be an article about congregations vice buildings. Again I am giving my honest opinion, not an attack on your good work.--Revmqo (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your latest edit "Many church buildings are notable for their historical and/or architectural significance." undermines your own argument.--Revmqo (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC) If you leave it as "churches" then it can include either approach.--Revmqo (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Okay, after a couple edits in the lede in the article, please do let's discuss. The title of the list-article is churches, not church buildings. Lots and lots of the articless that the list will link to are active churches, and the name of the church is the same as the name of the building/place. IMO, wikipedia needs a list of the church articles (eventually broken out into many sublists), including every article that is categorized as a Methodist church, eventually. Wikipedia doesn't need a list of historic church buildings only, to the exclusion of modern church buildings and to the exclusion of notable congregations. Let's please keep this on the topic of the title of the list-article, which is a good one.
The list and sublist combo is obviously skewed, now, to historic buildings that survive and are listed on the U.S. National Register or otherwise. Those are obviously wikipedia-notable because there is extensive documentation available about them and there is settled precedent in Wikipedia that NRHP places are notable. So, please, let's add other modern Methodist churches and other non-listed-building ones. Or, are there not any modern Methodist churches? Are there no notable churches as active churches, other than custodians of old buildings???? --doncram 04:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to cooperate with you for several weeks. I am questioning the phrasing that we have agreed on as we have edited this article. Please stop assuming that every challenge or question is a personal attack on you or your work. Again I only asked a question.
I am beginning to see why folks have the impression you don't play well with others.--Revmqo (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the turn in your comments are justified, Revmqo. I am a bit embattled, you may or may not be aware, in the process of developing several list-articles about Baptist churches, Congregational churches, others. In this Methodist church list-article, I have been cooperating with you. Here in this section, I thot you were raising some point that seemed important to you but I did not understand, and I advised you just to go ahead and edit in the article. But, when you did so, your edit was changing the whole point of the article, and would be prefatory to a page-move / article title change. This article is justified as a list-article matching to the category topic of Methodist churches. It seems bigger to me, to change the topic, than one editor should now impose. I don't want you to open a formal requested move, actually, but that would be the technical way to suggest a serious page move and re-titling. I would much rather continue developing the system of Lists of various denominations churches for a bit. In the larger system, there are notable modern, current churches being covered. In this Methodist one, it seems we have not yet identified any modern Methodist churches that are notable to include into the list-article. If none are ever to be identified, then I eventually would have to agree that the apparent subject of the article is reduced to being a dead list of dead past churches, which would be sad. I would rather hold out for a while and help this list-article become a better thing than it is yet. --doncram 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments that this list, as it now stands, is a list of church buildings, not notable congregations. At least not congregations separated from the buildings listed. You seem to have the idea that the title "List of Methodist churches" can only fit your definition/expectation of what you believe the title means. Please take time to keep editing, but consider adding more notable "congregations" or changing the format of the listing to make it appear less connected to properties. As for the "attacks" of others, many people on Wikipedia wouldn't be able to function in society if they treated others as they treat them here; your two antagonists included. However, why not leave the questionable links off the page until the linked article is fixed? Really, there's no reason to egg them on. And keep in mind that you resorted to bold sarcastic statements rather than a discussion with me when you disagreed with my posts. I too have worked on this page. I changed the format of entries to tables for every section other than UK to make it look more uniform. I have also added details and made formatting corrections as they have arisen. When you insist that the article can only be the way you want it, or have the meaning that you want it to have, you dismiss the ideas and input of others who also have an interest. Please consider being more genteel in your approach when others are only trying to help.Revmqo (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on "For a more complete list, see List of Methodist churches in the United States."

Come on folks.... let's discuss the link rather than restore/delete/restore/delete....

My input: the section only needs one instance of the link. Doesn't matter to me whether it is before or after the list, but I lean toward putting it first. The list simply isn't long enough for the reader to forget.

At the same time, please stop treating Doncram so poorly. The user really is trying to make the list better. Just give him time and space to do so.--Revmqo (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't like the idea of pointing out a couple of the Methodist churches in the United States. While the four of them may or may not be exceptionally notable, our criteria seems arbitrary. We would need a source specifically calling them the four most notable, but it would still be out of the norm to have those there. Normally, for articles like this, no information would be provided under the United States section header. Just a link to the other article. I can understand providing some amount of prose. Even if the 4 churches are kept there, the note at the bottom needs to be removed. It's unencyclopedic. I will also note that Doncram has come close to violating 3RR by making 4 reverts today [3] [4] [5] [6]. The first 2 were consecutive, so I would assume that counts as one revert. Either way, it is edit warring. Ryan Vesey 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, edit warring takes two....or three....or four! On your other point, the churches listed are in fact among the most important churches within Methodism in the US. There are a few missing, but only a few. Your suggestion that "our criteria seems arbitrary," is off base to me. The criteria for all of them: those churches which are fundamental to the founding of Methodism in the US."
We should work to add: John's Street UMC in NYC, Mother Zion (AMEZ) also in NYC, Mother Liberty CME in TN.--Revmqo (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ryan Vesey, i hope you don't mind my combining the two above comments into one section. Thank you for opening discussion Revmqo, and for your note with some sympathy. Indeed, I am trying hard here to develop good content for wikipedia, and I do feel rather embattled. The edits by Orlady and Nyttend seem to me to be wp:POINTY, and indeed Ryan is right now calling those editors to an ANI and is seeking to expand it to be a large indictment of me.
IMO, this is being manufactured into an issue, suiting the purposes of some editors in what seems like harassment. I don't have the impression these editors are contributing seriously, I believe their point is to cause contention.
Anyhow, I haven't kept track, did not mean to reach or exceed 3RR on this point, and won't revert further on this point.
But, yes, the section of just a few select U.S. churches is an unusual one where the appropriate editorial style is not clear. I think having the short section is good. But, having it, given that it is unusual and readers will likely not understand it is just a selection, requires some extra transition, some extra clarity to be provided. I would rather seek some editorial guidance from editors good with style questions, to comment on this point. However, this is not nearly the most important work to be done with this article. --doncram 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, before this discussion started, I had counted 3 reverts in 24 hours. It's not a 3RR violation yet, but those 3 reverts are part of a longer pattern of edit warring on the page. The two issues (multiple references to the US list and redlinks in the See also section) are unbelievably trivial -- this isn't stuff that should be worth risking a block for. When several other experienced users say you're wrong, rather than reverting them, you should think seriously about the possibility that they are correct. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you disagree, but we should go back to calling this page List of notable Methodist Churches or "List of historic Methodist Churches," which would take care of the difference in style. The ones listed are in face "notable."--Revmqo (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

most influential Methodist churches

I found my way to this "U.S. Churches to Watch" webpage which includes a number of Methodist churches among its 487, including nine with "Methodist" in their name:

The source website, ChurchOfRelevance.com, compiles from lists published in Outreach (magazine) and The Church Report, and disclaims "Church Relevance has compiled a list of some incredible 487 churches that you may find as a great source for inspiration and ideas. Although the lists referenced are flawed and not absolute, they are undeniably lists of churches worth studying."

I expect these nine are all wikipedia-notable, will try to find if these have articles, and either way add them to the U.S. section. This gets away from historical-buildings for the U.S. section at least. Help developing about these in their articles and here in this list-article would be appreciated. --doncram 15:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, i've been developing split out List of Methodist churches in the United States. --doncram 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Methodist churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Methodist churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Methodist_churches