Talk:Church reordering

Defining the subject

On the surface this looks like a potentially interesting and useful article. But because the article is specifically about "Church reordering" it needs strong proof (1) that the term is widely used (2) of its definition. Otherwise less sympathetic editors may consider it a neologism.

I'd also point out that if the term describes the development of churches so they continue to operate as places of worship, it implies that churches that have been converted to non-religious use shouldn't have a place here. Sionk (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been used in a few reliable news articles, but none of these verify the statement that "Twenty-first century church conservationists term this process..." Anyway, whether it is or is not a neologism is neither here nor there with regard to the topic. Even if the name of an article is a neologism, that does not affect whether the topic should exist as an article (while it may call for a move to a different title, which after all can be a descriptive title). The problematic article your post appears to be addressing are those on neologisms (as opposed to one being titled by a neologism).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay I take your point :)

Sources such as 'Re-ordering Church Interiors' (Committee on Church Art and Architecture), 'Church Conservation' (Stamford Conservation Society) and 'DAC Guidance Notes: Re-ordering' (Diocese of Birmingham) use the term, but to describe the rearrangement and adaption of churches over long periods of time (to meet changes in religious practise). The latter goes on to mention secular use. It's clearly not a term used exclusively by conservationists and it's unclear whether its a 21st century term either. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What we might use as a descriptive title, were it decided the current title is not a common title for this phenomenon, is not an easy one. I would think it would encapsulate something like "Repurposing of church facilities for secular use" (but that is not a real suggestion because it's quite an awkward mouthful!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Much of the article seems to concentrate on conversions to secular purposes and additions of facilities to encourage community use. One most controversial aspect of reordering (and I have as a church PCC member seen one abandoned project at my church) is the removal of pews and substitution by alternative means of seating, on which this is silent, although some subject projects have generated heated news coverage.Cloptonson (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)