Talk:Child sponsorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dictionary Definition?

This article is still nothing more than a dictdef. If this is all that can become of it I say transwiki to Wiktionary and delete it. James084 14:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• This topic is not suitable for wiktionary. A dictionary defintion would merely state: "child sponsorship is sponsorship of chilren", which is self-evident. Kappa 17:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before: Help fix it, then. You feel strongly about keeping a lot of inadequate stuff but you never really do anything about it. I agree that this article is developing due to Park3r showing the article some love. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. James084 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone with time could take the pros and cons from the Rough Guide listed and rework them in a WP context? --BozMo talk 12:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization List

I've removed the external links and wikilinked the org names to bring into line with some of our policies and guidelines. But have some concerns about the section still - What's the criteria for being a "notable" child sponsorship organization here? Can we put more context around the names that shows why they're notable? I wonder if we shouldn't drop the list and use a category instead. -- SiobhanHansa 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to delete the red links on the presumption they are non-notable. --BozMo talk 10:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually go a slightly different route and suggest we delete any that we don't have a stated reason for considering particularly notable. I understand the impulse to simply delete all the redlinks but I don't think our coverage of charitable organizations is good. We have dozens (or more!) of small and fairly obscure ones covered and some major or significant ones not(*). So if we actually have good reason to call out a notable organization that is redlinked I think it would be good to keep them in and encourage the creation of an article. Equally, I don't think simply having an article in Wikipedia is a good reason for listing on this page. We have categories to aid navigation to all our articles of a particular stripe - in that case I think it would be easier to maintain and cleaner for the article to point to the category. -- SiobhanHansa 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

*For instance, I just worked on the community foundations article where I found that the very first US community foundation (and also the fourth largest) didn't have an article, and neither did 3 of the other most well supported and most impactfull orgs. We had plenty of more minor ones with articles though.

I offered a while back to set up a small team of you me and Opentoppedbus to review all the charities and try to get the right ones in. I agree its a mess: with idenitical issues on Orphan and Military use of children plus many more. I also agree the "delete red link disallow ext link" is far from perfect. I just wonder who has the energy to do better? --BozMo talk 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall. I was kind of distracted by off wiki stuff at the time, but I should have taken you up on that. Was Opentoppedbuss interested? Are you still interested? Anyway, back to Child sponsorship. I'm going to get drastic and just put a link to the category in the see also section and see what happens. I'm beginning to realize I kind of hate lists without context. -- SiobhanHansa 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. On the charities thing I was also a bit taken out by being dramatically ill providing a photo for the Inferior vena cava filter article. I am prepared to have a go at least with the non-US ones but I am slightly conflicted by working for a large NGO SOS Children's Villages and would rather some sort of team approach for this reason. At present the pages are pretty rubbish. OTB did not reply. --BozMo talk 05:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add the 35 UK entities offering child sponsorship mentioned I got off a small review website http://www.dontbuyicecream.com/ which isn't notable but is quite good and fairly independent. I have been in touch with the guy who runs it about correcting a few details on us. Not quite WP:RS sadly I think --BozMo talk 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)