Talk:Churches Conservation Trust

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England was copied or moved into Churches Conservation Trust. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Abolition?

Listed as one of 177 "Public bodies to be abolished" in a government list published in The Daily Telegraph today, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html. Not yet clear what precisely this will mean. David Underdown (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a charity, but did not know it is a quango. Will it become "just" a charity; will the government cease to provide part of its income; who knows? I see from the same source that English Heritage is to be "merged or consolidated"; maybe CCT will become part of EH. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem reasonably logical, or at least just have government funding through EH rather than in its own right. Needs monitoring for further announcements though, I don't think there's enough in today's list and accompanying article to really add anything to the article at the moment. David Underdown (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a quango, see here, so what is it doing on the "list"?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's messed up then. Even more glad I didn't pile straight into the article. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quango or not, according to this list it is to be retained.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes

User:Rodw's last edit summary is doubtful about the apostrophe in the article title St Giles' Church, Imber. The occurrences in the article mostly say St Giles's. It's a general problem for English-language churches with saints' names, including those not ending in "s", and it would be nice to see some consistency and even nicer to see some guidelines. St Giles? St Giles'? St Giles's?. The Imber article, for example, has St Giles Parish Church but also St Giles's and Church of St Giles, and I've also come upon the problem in respect of another church - see Talk:St Denys's Church, York.

Is there some forum where this can be raised, I wonder? Maybe a RfC? As far as the CCT articles are concerned, I'd go for the Trust's own formulation. "Church of St X, village/town/city/whatever" would solve the apostrophe problem but is a bit long-winded... --GuillaumeTell 18:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up my anxiety about apostrophe abuse (which I've been accused of before). I'm sure it has been discussed somewhere when working on lists of Grade I listed buildings but I can't find it at present. I will ask User:Malleus Fatuorum (who'se opinion on such matters I respect) to comment.— Rod ^talk 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Church of St X" formula is the best option; names like "St Giles'" or "St Giles's" are just a popular shorthand I think. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ponting's plans at Church plans online for Imber, St Giles (1894–1896) have the hand written St Giles - Imber in the top left-hand corner. I do realise that grammar styles have evolved in the intervening 114 years. The church is recorded as S Giles in online version of Doves guide. --Senra (Talk) 19:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also The Times, Saturday, Sep 02, 1961; pg. 7; Issue 55176; col A which shows St. Giles, Imber.

Two thoughts: Google the diocesan list for instance: Manchester Diocese List, the old rule was one syllable name - 's, three syllable and more - just ', two syllable was difficult. This is a problem that exercised the minds of many a church school headteacher and manager. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That approach does have the virtue of being logical. I remember though a somewhat similar situation when I was fiddling about with the article on Robert Burns. It seemed reasonable to me to write about "Burns's poetry", but on the other hand nobody calls the anniversary of his birth "Burns's night". On balance I'd say that it's just got to be "St Giles' Church", absent any decision to go for the "Church of St X" option. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My general, ad hoc, and very personal opinion on this is to punctuate it as I'd say it, and I'd say "St Giles' Church", not "St Giles's Church". Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that there's a pointer from the St Denys talk page to Wikipedia:APOSTROPHE#Possessives, which may (or may not) help. And P.S. to Rodw: "who'se" up above was a joke, wa'sn't it? --GuillaumeTell 20:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks not sure the guidelines help much - seem to say all options are acceptable & I hate to admit it but no "who'se" was a genuine error - says something about my grammar school education in the 1970s.— Rod ^talk 21:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was at a grammar school in the 1970s as well ... actually now I come to think of I wasn't, doesn't time fly. I was at university then, best years of my life! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(It wasn't me who sent this off-topic but ...) ... so I went and had a look at Wikipedia:APOSTROPHE#Possessives (for a laugh, as you do) which sent me to apostrophe where I saw this gem, attributed to Kingsley Amis: Those things over there are my husbands. That tickles me on so many levels --Senra (Talk) 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've (sort of) agonised over this and, as has been said above, WP guidance is somewhat flexible. (How many angels dance ...?) As I personally think St Xs' Church somehow looks better than St Xs's Church, I've used the latter. And if you're reading it out loud it saves the "susses" at the end of the word. Also I used the same convention for a person's name in John Douglas (architect). But then, what about All Saints, All Saints', or All Saints's; or Holy Cross (Holy Cross's!). And it's not normal to add "'s" to Holy Trinity (is it?).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints is plural, so not an issue. If 'Holy Trinity Church' is the accepted title that is not an issue, but if it is an act of possession as in the Holy Trinity's belief, then the " '" is essential. Though this refers to the three aspects of of a deity, the noun is singular. It is a gut feeling that the s's plural for saints is is becoming a archaic form and that current English is more likely to use " s'" in cases of doubt. Before we leave this thread I think it may be worthwhile to put together a draft recommendation. So here goes:

In order of priority:

Be aware the title of the church may act as a stand alone phrase, with no possession implied
Where there is consensus on the official name- use that. Consult the official CofE database, or that of the diocese
In cases of three syllable words and above use "-'"
In cases of two syllable words, use local pronunciation as a guide, defaulting to "-'"
In cases of one syllable words, use local pronunciation as a guide, defaulting to "-'s"

--ClemRutter (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CCT is a Quango

Not only is the CCT a Quango, but perhaps one of the most inept, bureaucratic and officious of all semi-official governmental sponsored institutions. I can provide, for anyone interested, a whole catalogue of mismanagement errors, prejudices and ineptitudes about this institution for overpaid and failed, civil servants, who neither conserve, or are to be trusted with the cultural heritage they inherited without merit, and perpetually mismanage. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quango Norwikian (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Churches Conservation Trust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6IvSTD9dh?url=http://www.visitchurches.org.uk/Aboutus/ to http://www.visitchurches.org.uk/Aboutus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]