This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
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
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
Can we please call a halt to the sporadic edit-warring, which had been going on for over 18 months, over what is the official website for the Borough Chapel. The two options are: https://welshchapel.com/ , which calls itself the official website, but which looks a bit dated in terms of design, and appears not to be secure; and https://boroughwelshchapel.com/ , which also calls itself the official website, has a trendier design, and is secure. Both appear to be kept up to date in terms of content. The former is favoured by Theborough and about 6 IPs; the latter by NDavies425, AlexColeman86, Eihel and 3 IPs. I have no idea what the hell is going on; but I strongly would strongly encourage anyone who does to explain themselves here. Meanwhile I'm going to revert to the longer, secure version, simply because that looks a bit more convincing. GrindtXX (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an adequate explanation. Please tell us who is running the rival site (which also has links to social media), why there are two competing sites, and what your connection is to either site. GrindtXX (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://boroughwelshchapel.com/ is a venue/hall hiring website unfortunately purporting to be an official church site for commercial gain over shared space. www.welshchapel.com is the official church website created and run by volunteer chapel members and Theborough since its creation in 2009. www.welshchapel.com is not 'competing' with any 'rival' sites or attempting to be 'convincing' as it the official site and has remained largely unaltered since inception. Content of boroughwelshchapel.com is largely a carbon copy of the official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:4600:3B00:20D1:26C:D64D:605E (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GrindtXX and El C: For my part, I was waiting for remarks here. I came from WD a year ago after the proposal of a Property related to Q4946330. The item is problematic because the website (official website (P856)) is changing. I still corrected WD for patching a bot from the info from here. I ended up removing this information from WD. The situation is simple, if one is mercantile and the other insecure, the information must be removed. WM is not meant to save bad data. Indeed, those around the unsecured site have placed a security exception that allows them to browse quietly, but WM is not a directory of extravagant external links. After removing the link from the site here, I advocate a WP:ECPad vitam æternam (in keeping with the principle of a modified page constantly bringing about a publishing war, where one or more protagonists is / are autoconfirmed (SPA: Theborough), at the discretion of admins (non-arbitral decision), and of which a semi-protection is not sufficient) must be formulated on WP:RPP. Wikipedially. —Eihel (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree the situation is "simple", but otherwise I concur with Eihel's analysis and suggestions. There clearly are two competing websites, both claiming official status, and relecting some sort of local turf war. It is not Wikipedia's place to get involved in that. I now see that, whereas https://boroughwelshchapel.com/ looks persuasive, the contact details offered include the email address boroughwelshchapelhallhire@gmail.com ; whereas https://welshchapel.com/ is insistent that "For our mutual security we no longer use any third-party booking systems, nor accept enquiries through spoof or 'dummy' websites / Please only use our official enquiry form". I am prepared to believe that https://welshchapel.com/ is the more genuinely official site, but it is insecure. For the time being, we should include neither address on this page, and the page should be protected to prevent further amendments by partisan editors until the situation is sorted out on the ground. GrindtXX (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
