Talk:Church of St Benedict, Ardwick

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Grade II* listed Church of St Benedict, in Ardwick, Manchester, is now a climbing centre? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Trying leekycauldron’s suggestion. Will find a QPQ shortly.

Created by KJP1 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC).

Interesting building, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. The hook: I approve it as the nominator's wish is my command, but perhaps we can improve? First wish: an image, which makes sort of understand why this high structure was considered good for climbing. Without it, it could be any church unless we add the architect, or at least a year. Second wish: get "Grade II*" somewhere later (if the particular listing matters enough), - I can see readers just not getting past that. Third wish (but more work): get in the sponsor's wish for it to stay - which the construction now did but not the spirit. - In the article, the sentence about the dedication in the lead has two verbs, and do we have to say "the saint"? Some will know, others may not care, at least not at this point of general intro. - Private question: is the name still "church", for the climbing facility? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

T:DYK/P2

"Crowther's masterpiece"

The lead section says "It is generally considered to be Crowther's masterpiece..." Where is this claim in the article main body? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

final sentence, Historic England, “The most original of Crowther’s designs”. KJP1 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Since when does "the most original of Crowther's designs" (described just by Historic England) equate to "It is generally considered to be Crowther's masterpiece..."?? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, those words from HE do not appear on that page of the source. They appear on this page. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

First, it’s the same page - the link takes you to the Overview - if you tab right, you get the List entry. Second, it works for me - HE, the body responsible for listing, considers it his most original work. “Most original” = “best” = “masterpiece”. If others have concerns, however, we can certainly look at the wording. Last, can you drop the aggressive tone. Aside for not being collegiate, you will find doing so makes others more sympathetic to your viewpoint. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the one dishing out block threats on a Talkpage? The lead section is meant to summarise the main body and not contain anything novel. That's pretty simple, isn't it? Your personal interpretations are not really relevant here. This problem can be solved very easily by just copying what the main body says. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That was after you’d repeatedly reverted without any attempt to discuss. To me there’s no problem, so I won’t be changing it, without a consensus that it needs changing. At present we have two views. If we get others, very happy to see what we can collectively agree on. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"without any attempt to discuss"? I thought each of my edit summaries was perfectly clear, unlike yours. Perhaps you'd like to add your little interpretation sequence as a footnote, so that the rest of us can understand why that assessment is "generally considered". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally, we summarise on here. For me, saying it’s his best work is a fair summary of the HE view that its his most original work. As I’ve said, if there’s a consensus for changing it, I’m absolutely up for having a look at other suggestions/ideas/alternatives. But I’m not pursuing this continuing this conversation, as it’s already clear we won’t agree. KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with summarising. That's what the lead section is for. You've taken a direct quote from HE in the main body, applied your own personal interpretation to those words, and then presented your opinion as a "general claim" in the lead. I really don't think that's valid, sorry. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)