[edit] Placement of template in Category:Cults The template should be placed within Category:Cults. It is highly relevant to the category, and this is a convention done on lots of other types of templates. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC) - I disagree hence by revert of your edit. Category:Cults is for just that - cults. A template is a special page the editors add to pages for which it is relevant. Template:Cults is not a cult - it is a template. Templates are categorised under Category:Wikipedia templates to enable editors to find them. a bare template is of no use to a reader since it would have been encountered in the page that the reader had viewed. We must not forget that we are here as editors to create a resource for readers. We must distinguish between content and maintenance pages and keep them separate. There does not appear to be guidelines on inclusion of templates in categories used for articles but the general convention is to categorise template namespace separate to article namespace. I also disagree that "this is a convention done on lots of other types of templates". I see very few examples of this, and I spend a lot of my time checking categories. See also Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Templates_in_article_space. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and that is exactly why these sorts of things are sorted with a * symbol, to denote they are integral to the category as an index and not inherently characterized as part of it itself. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The ones that I have see
are have the tau symbol and so they end up at the end rather than the start of the cat listing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC) - Either way is fine, but the start is generally what I have seen with the majority usage. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, I disagree. Templates are rarely see in are namespace categories and when they are they are sorted by the tau symbol. Also, in your previous comment you said "denote they are integral to the category as an index and not inherently characterized as part of it itself." On the contrary, the use of * seems to have lost favour and was used for the eponymous article and for lists directly applicable to the category. Can you give examples of where * is used as template sorting? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- At the moment I can't recall specifically, but it does seem like you are pulling "conventions" from your personal opinion. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict)Lets stick to facts shall we rather than putting forward opinions on what my personal opinion is perceived to be. If you visit all of the categories where you would expect to find a template (because there is one that is directly applicable) you will very rarely, if ever, find a template. That is what I mean by convention and I edit by convention where it exists.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, whatever, I removed it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
[1] - Removed it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) - Update: Added back the category, per Category:Academy Awards. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry I am not sure Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry deserves to be listed among organizations. Given that multiple scholarly sources comment upon its being a one-man website, listing it as an organization seems misleading. Perhaps we need another category for websites. --JN466 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - The scholars may criticize it for "being a one man..." but they also discuss it and and acknowledge it in the context of being an organization. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Cowan quotes Slick himself as saying that CARM is just one man, him. [2] On the other hand, it is true that CARM is technically a registered non-profit organisation. I just think that given the scholars' concern that "CARM's web presentation could easily deceive a visitor into thinking it is a multi-staff, professional research organization" and that, as "the sole project of one man with a Master of Divinity degree [...] it ought not be confused with information offered by those more academically prepared" [3], we are somewhat playing into that deception's hands, making CARM appear bigger than it is, as an organization. There is no doubt that it is a popular website, but Douglas E. Cowan and David G. Bromley are two of the most eminent scholars in the field, whose views deserve some weight in our deliberations. --JN466 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- We should go by what the group actually is - an organization. And it is no longer one individual. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- perhaps it is necessary to consider what things really are, not what they name themselves. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is registered as a 501(c)3 organization. It is an organization. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- As an organization, it is on a very different scale from government-funded organisations like MIVILUDES, CESNUR, INFORM, or heavyweight hitters like the International Cultic Studies Association, which have huge notability as organisations acting in society. CARM's notability is as a website, as far as I can tell. I think a (generic) website category might make sense. It could include things like CARM and the Ontario Consultants. They are comparable.
- Should we change the headline to "cults/new religious movements"? --JN466 03:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. Best to keep it simple. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
|
