Talk:Guildford Grammar School Chapel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Guildford Grammar School Chapel is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Perth.
Assessment comments

}}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guildford Grammar School Chapel article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] issues

This article is a stub - and as a consequence is in process - please note that the articles appropriatness has been questioned on other talk pages. I will be addressing these in time. SatuSuro 08:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Badly needs a decent photo. That shouldn't be too hard should it? —Moondyne 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a photo, but somebody removed it under mislicensing claims! I believe it was an admin. I shared it on an image hosting site. Auroranorth 11:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value

This chapel's value to the Perth Metro community is astounding. As much as 40% have seen this monument to worship, and it is amazingly looked upon highly amongst those aging from 5 to 110. Man has been buried there, married there and confirmed there. Babies and young children have also begun their spiritual journey there. The chapel is a journey we should all be proud of. Auroranorth 11:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Auroranorth

The WP Australia importance rating isn't a measure of spiritual significance. It is merely a measure of how important it would be to include an article in a print encyclopaedia encompassing the whole of Australia. In the context of all the printable encyclopaedic information about Australia, this chapel is utterly insignificant. "Low" is the only sane rating.
Don't take it as an insult; I rate nearly every article I ever write as low importance. Hesperian 11:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but value will not make or break an article - as far as wikipedia is concerned the criteria are WP:V, WP:N, and sufficient edvidence to back both up are required. When trying to support the retention of an article - it is sufficient to argue for the points that will assure any doubters that it is indeed worth the retention as an article. References are always achievable at http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X, and sometimes at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First. References always come first - and the chapel has them SatuSuro 11:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No! What I mean is the Chapel has an amazing cultural significance in the community of Western Australia. Perth or WA, either wikiproject would be good for a Mid to High importance. Auroranorth Auroranorth 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. The {{WP Australia}} rating refers specifically to how important the article is to encyclopaedic coverage of Australian topics. Not Perth, not WA; Australia. Hesperian 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. That's exactly what I mean. Funnily enough, I live in Australia! And the GGS Chapel is heritage listed and a federal penalty is applied for damage.
This would not be mid to high importance even on a Perth article. Please read WP:COI carefully and also please note that you can't rate your own article a "B" as you did on 24 Feb 2007 in this edit [1]... otherwise an assessment system would have no point whatsoever as everyone would make their articles B grade and High importance. I feel bad even rating this a Start as Stub would be more appropriate, but thats what it was before the self-rate. DanielT5 10:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Per your edit summary, I'm not sure if I should even regard that childish statement. That's just my humble opinion Auroranorth 10:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My "childish" statement (please note WP:NPA and WP:AGF carefully) was that it *should* be a stub, but that I wasn't heartless enough to make such a change. The article fails to meet the criteria for Start class that are used on WP Australia, however I am saying I'm willing to accept the judgement of another editor that in their opinion it did. Rating your own articles, though, (*especially* about a school or organisation you belong to) is a big no-no. It's a conflict of interest. I rate mine Stub and Low when I create them to save editors the work, and if people coming through think it should be higher then that's up to them. About the "Mid" thing there is no way an article about a chapel in a school in Perth matters to Australia more than, say, an article about the Battle of Pinjarra or the Swan River Colony which was a founding chapter in our history. I even live in this state and I hadn't even heard of Guildford Grammar until 2 weeks ago. DanielT5 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur: Start and Low both seem appropriate to me. —Moondyne 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

<- (Reply to above, just dropping colons) Per [2], the chapel is marked but not named in WA's official street directory, and is not named in the list of Anglican churches at the back (although, confusingly, the Catholic chapel two blocks away is also called St Mary). It's notable enough for an article per the heritage listing, history etc but is definitely not Mid or High. Orderinchaos78 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see my apology to all Wikipedians here. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing Guildford Grammar School Chapel

Done! I can't believe it, but I cited sources using the embedded link format. Auroranorth Auroranorth 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New contributor

Just to let everyone know, I'm here to take over from Auroranorth as Wikipedia's resident Guildford Grammar School student. I've been editing for a while on my (ever-changing) IP address, and I decided to go all the way because Auroranorth got blocked. I'll see you in the future! Seventy dot 03:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I refactored the above to remove the personal attack / schadenfreude. Hesperian 05:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)