Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of demolished places of worship in Brighton and Hove/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [1].
List of demolished places of worship in Brighton and Hove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a companion list to the longer established List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove. Having reviewed the sources on several occasions, I am confident that I have found every former, now-demolished place of worship in the city (even the really obscure ones, and there are a few of those). Each is given a comprehensive summary "blurb". None have separate articles, but in my view there is not really enough material to produce a standalone article about any of them – and in any case I would argue that the notability threshold would have to be higher for a building that is no longer is existence. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: I don't like the table very much. My suggestions:
- Replace the table with mine in my sandbox or
- Keep the tables but place the pics besides the table to the right.
I prefer suggestion number one. Remember it is just a suggestion :). Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately #1 doesn't like my screen resolution or something: it has made the table about six times wider than the screen, so I have to scroll across a very long way to get to the end. On #2: since there are few relevant pictures for this list, I deliberately placed them throughout the first three paragraphs to break up the walls of text. Hope that sounds reasonable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be useful to note the width in the table in his sandbox is 550%. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mh, my screen shows it normally. If it is so, then it shouldn't be replaced. But I don't like the space right beside of the table. Has anyone a suggestion how to delete this space? The list is very good, but triffles like this space might be improved, if it is possible. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll need help/advice with this from others who have different screen settings, as everything looks completely "correct" on my home and work computers (I use IE8 and IE6 respectively). Hopefully there might be a solution that accommodates all variants. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mh, my screen shows it normally. If it is so, then it shouldn't be replaced. But I don't like the space right beside of the table. Has anyone a suggestion how to delete this space? The list is very good, but triffles like this space might be improved, if it is possible. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be useful to note the width in the table in his sandbox is 550%. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately #1 doesn't like my screen resolution or something: it has made the table about six times wider than the screen, so I have to scroll across a very long way to get to the end. On #2: since there are few relevant pictures for this list, I deliberately placed them throughout the first three paragraphs to break up the walls of text. Hope that sounds reasonable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments nice list.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments and observations; changes are highlighted in this diff. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support happy now, very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is it really necessary to link the c. (circa) so much? Anyway, I support this. It is really sad that there are no pics with licenses :/. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments Courcelles;
|
- Support AS to the "more than 30", it's ugly, but until a number can be sourced, better not to assume everything that could be listed is listed. Courcelles 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.