Talk:Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| This article falls within the scope of the Unitarian Universalism work group. If you are interested in Unitarian Universalism-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on September 3, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Districts should all be renamed
All of the individual district articles should be renamed (moved to new articles). The article names are simply too general. Northeast District, Southwest District... of what? There are vast numbers of organizations which have different districts and which might well have northeast and southwest districts. Probably all of them should start with the word Unitarian. --Xyzzyplugh 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- When making these articles, I just used the normal names, without qualifiers, because that's what I had seen done with other articles (see Sunshine District, Dixie District, Far Western District, all Barbershop Harmony Society districts, with no qualifiers). What I've seen done in similar situations is simply going along with un-qualified (un-disambiguated) article titles, until a conflict arises, and dealing with it then. The only conflict existing right now, is with the Southwest District; there's also a Southwest District (BHS). But that was handeled with a simple disambig. note at the top of the page. However, I'm certainly open to discussion on the matter. HellaNorCal 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a big deal for me personally, I won't be getting involved in this. I think that eventually there will be a conflict with other groups of articles, and that these will all be renamed eventually, so my thinking is it would be better to do it now. But, it's certainly no crisis if you want to leave them as they are for now. --Xyzzyplugh 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmk. Thank you for your input. I'm thinking I'll leave them as they are for now, but I won't wait for a conflict to arise. I simply have a lot more to do first. HellaNorCal 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a big deal for me personally, I won't be getting involved in this. I think that eventually there will be a conflict with other groups of articles, and that these will all be renamed eventually, so my thinking is it would be better to do it now. But, it's certainly no crisis if you want to leave them as they are for now. --Xyzzyplugh 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wiki webhosting
Without getting personal, i would like to refer to Comparison_of_wiki_farms, where (at the pages of a wiki domain) content can be edited in a similar way like here on wikipedia. Personally i know pbWiki service is used for an online church.
Using external wiki webhosting, you (or any other editor editing the articles) are the domain (URL) maintainer, and there are none of the wikipedia policies. See also WP:WP. It is a question of consensus; very difficult to make an exception. We would have to allow other, for instance business, directories.
I would like to express seeing the articles being good faith creations, it is just they do not meet several wikipedia policies. I have no personal interest to get the articles deleted (unless some other articles on the afd discussion). I am new here myself, but it is 100% allright to question articles. Hope this means a few misunderstandings less. User:Yy-bo 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
