Talk:St Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Oriental O. / Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

Name[edit]

Please note that St Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe (not Andrew by-the-Wardrobe) is the official name of this church. -- ChrisO 19:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could this page be moved to St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe - note St., not St --Kylet 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sentence - Syrian Orthodox Church[edit]

What does this mean??

"This church has been alive and had by regular weekly Sunday services conducted by the Syrian Orthodox church (founded by St Thomas the Apostle in India) for the last 40 years."

Perhaps "had by regular weekly Sunday services" should be "had regular biweekly Sunday services"? And what does "been alive" mean? It has an active congregation? It once had an active congregation?

A bit of digging in Wikipedia and elsewhere suggests that the "Syrian Orthodox Church" is the Indian Orthodox Church, whose London website is here. Their website is not detailed, but seems to suggest that services at St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe are weekly. I propose removing the bit about St Thomas the Apostle, since it is almost certainly controversial (it appears to rely on the Acts of Thomas as a source, written about 150 years after the events described).

Unless anyone objects soon, I will change it to

"Regular Sunday services have been conducted here by the Indian Orthodox Church for the last 30 years"

Mtford 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The move request wasn't done quite right, so I'm adding this section. Would the nominator please explain the logic of removing the period from the abbreviation "St."? Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the mistake. It seems to have been decided on as the standard abbreviation on WP at some point, at least when relating to UK institutions. I can understand smaller buildings having varied titles, due to how lesser-known they are, but major buildings and place names (which presumably have had more agonising over the titles carried out) tend to omit the period - examples: St Albans Cathedral, St David's Cathedral, and this category of place names. Essentially more articles go without than with, and for the sake of uniformity, I suggested this. Antienne (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that it was decided? Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I think you are mistaken in this. This guideline - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)#Buildings named after people - indicates the exact opposite, ie, that there SHOULD be a stop in names such as this. If you can find and link to a precise source for what you are claiming, please so do, and I'll think about it some more. Otherwise, could we have the stops back? HeartofaDog (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that link does indeed refute my assumption (which I now withdraw), and it would seem that based on that article a very large amount of articles are incorrectly named, including some of the most important buildings around. I am fine to revert my changes, as long as it would be okay to convert the ones I left to match this standard? Or perhaps it should be discussed further somewhere (this talk page is rather out of the way)? Antienne (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're withdrawing it you need to do so on the WP:RM page: strike your entry through using <s>...</s> and just put "Withdrawn by nominator" afterwards so that it's clear what's happened.

On the more general question, to be entirely frank it seems to me there's a lot to be said for just leaving it alone - how tedious is it going to be adding a full stop to thousands of article titles? and you can be absolutely sure that halfway through someone will object for some reason and overturn the whole thing so that it has to be done again the other way, and so on ad infinitum.... HeartofaDog (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done so. You are right, I shouldn't make issues over such small things, but it is kind of infuriating to see the inconsistencies when they are listed next to each other (such as in categories)... Antienne (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]