Template talk:Children of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Children of God page.

Contents

[edit] Created template...

... started initially with (32) entries. Smee 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, cool. I guess you noticed that I went on a Wikisearch for articles to add to Category:Children of God. Joie de Vivre 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, but I did take a look at the category for some relevant articles for the template. Smee 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Members and ex-members

This looks to me like undue weight to put the names of members or ex-members or people whose parents were members in the template. So I removed those sections. --Justanother 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

COG is a group of people; how is it undue weight to mention... the people? Joie de Vivre 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

I removed several POV and barely connected links from the template. Please discuss here the relevance of such links before restoring them. Sfacets 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please justify your opinion that these links are "POV and barely connected" before removing them. Joie de Vivre T 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors may wish to view Talk:Children of God#Removal of content; other editors have expressed disapproval of Sfacets' removal of content from Children of God. See diff, diff. Joie de Vivre T 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Three editors (i.e. all who responded) at Children of God disagree with what you did there. I believe that what you are doing here similarly goes against consensus. Joie de Vivre T 12:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It is as I mentionned in the article - have a look at the other templates in the same category - notice anything different? You cannot arbitrarily place links to push your own POV such as links to articles on anti-cult organisations - this is both misleading and does not solely deal with the COG. Sfacets 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't get into COI, however the reason there is a talk page is to discuss issues, and so far, there has not been much input from editors not directly associated with the article or the movement.Sfacets 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your selective removal of items from the template as POV-pushing. You even removed Flirty fishing, which was invented by David Berg and practiced solely by COG members. Removing an article on a topic that is solely associated with the COG, how does this improve the template?
Also, I do not understand what you meant, when you said "there has not been much input from editors not directly associated with the article or the movement". Joie de Vivre T 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point Sfacets is trying to make about the participation of editors who are associated with the subject. Is it a bad thing or a good thing?
As for the specific links in the template, most if not all of the entries that were removed appear to have a direct connection to the topic. It'd be best to bring them to the talk page to discuss rather than deleting with no consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what they mean by "associated". Joie de Vivre T 23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Sfacets. That is not how it works on Wikipedia (I trust you have been around a while to know this). You do not remove alleged POV and then discuss it; you first discuss it, get a consensus, and then remove it. The links you removed because they are "POV" is only your opinion. As Joie de Vire pointed out, you removed the link to the Flirty fishing article. That not only does not make any sense it almost betrays an agenda. The original links should remain. We can discuss each link individually before anyone removes them. --Thorwald 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)