Contents

Talk:Britain Yearly Meeting

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Quakers Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as High-importance).

Abbreviation "BYM"

[edit]

the Note:"{{Otheruses4|Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM)|Baltimore's Yearly Meeting (also BYM)|Baltimore Yearly Meeting}}." has been removed. As both organisations use the abbreviation and have it within the texts of their articles, it is good to avoid any possible confusion by restoring this text to the top of the Britain Yearly Meeting article, in my view. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment from the removal points out that since BYM doesn't redirect here, they felt it could be removed. I'm inclined to agree; that template is generally used for pages that have redirects to them, that might cause confusion. --Ahc (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me :D. I'm not really fussed either way, but I was trying to make the hatnote into a common template ({{dablink}} tends only to be used where a normal one doesn't fit the needs); I saw that in my opinion the only one the would really fit would be {{redirect}}, and that BYM didn't redirect here (it's a disambiguation page). Thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the section on National Quaker Week is a neutral encyclopaedic entry. I personally doubt really whether National Quaker Week is really notable enough to have an entry at all on this page, however even if it is, I feel it should be written in neutral language and mention that National Quaker Week is a controversial move that not all local Quaker meetings or Friends in Britain support. I also think the phrase to encourage Quakers to drop their traditional modesty and "to let their souls sing" is particularly inappropriate - Friends traditionally have been very open about their beliefs, with their plain dress, plain language, breaking up church services to preach publicly about their beliefs. Some people may feel that modern Friends do not talk about their faith enough, although this is an opinion, not fact. I think this section needs completely re-writing. Ceiriog (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Britain Yearly Meeting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090506001725/http://www.nottsandderbyquakers.org:80/fritchley.htmtohttp://www.nottsandderbyquakers.org/fritchley.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]