Talk:Thorncrown Chapel

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stub? edit

should this be a stub or not? It seems like a fairly large article Vesiv 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Images edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please upload more images to the commons, beautiful chapel.. Best regards, --CopperKettle 08:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Power line edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Should the whole power line paragraph be removed since the issue is now dead?Ta1036 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by dead? If the issue is dead, can you provide a bona fide source that says it is dead? And why remove the information, it's not as if the issue didn't happen?842U (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Source is Arkansas Public Service Commission records (this was referenced in the text) http://www.apscservices.info/pdf/13/13-041-U_451_1.pdf . There was also a ton of local media coverage -- http://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/swepco-withdraws-plans-for-transmission-project & http://www.joplinglobe.com/news/local_news/updated-swepco-withdraws-application-for-controversial-power-line/article_e3ee8558-e1f4-5372-b689-85462f87c35e.html for example. Tons more available through Google News.

As for why remove it: Since it's over and done with, it's just clutter now. It would make much more sense to focus on things like the chapel's inclusion in lists of the country's most beautiful churches -- http://www.budgettravel.com/feature/vacation-ideas-americas-most-beautiful-churches,12751/ , http://www.boredpanda.com/50-most-extraordinary-churches-of-the-world/ . Ta1036 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I removed the power line paragraph per the above conversation as I agree that it no longer has relevance to the new expanded article. Doghouse09 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead needs editing edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Lead is supposed to have summary information based on the body of the article, but it has information that does not appear anywhere else. I will be editing it to reorganize this material. Parkwells (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic