Talk:SCP

Dispute between myself and Bkonrad

On 1 January 2018‎ at 20:24 I created the subsection "Religious groups". This subsection contained five organisations: Scottish Christian Party; Society of Catholic Priests; Society of Christian Philosophers; Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists; and Spiritual Counterfeits Project.

This was reverted on 1 January 2018‎ at 21:42 by Bkonrad. His edit summary stated "Bad grouping" as the reason. I recreated the subsection on 3 January 2018‎ at 16:18, this time naming it "Religious Organisations". It was identical to my previous edit, except for not including Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, which was originally included because I miss read the name.

This was again reverted by Bkonrad. His edit summary stated "just because something has the word Christian in name does not make it a religious organization". Rather than getting into a revert war with Bkonrad I am posting this in SCP's talk page in anticipation of needing a Third Opinion.

I say that if an organisation has a religious nature, in this case shown by the fact that most of the organisations name themselves Christian, then it should go in the Religious Organisations subsection which I created. What do you say Bkonrad?

86.132.149.100 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Religious organizations are generally recognized as being expressly to support religious activities. The Scottish Christian Party is a political party, not a religious organization. The Society of Christian Philosophers is not strictly speaking a religious organization, but more an intellectual society of persons who happen to be Christian. I think it is misleading to describe these as religious organizations. That leave only the Society of Catholic Priests and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project. We could have a section just for them, though you get to a point of diminishing returns when you start having multiple categories with just one or two members. older ≠ wiser 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

So why not just retitle it "Religiously-oriented organisations" then? Or something similar? Whilst these groups aren't just to support religious activities I do think the grouping is valid, just a little hard to name. 86.132.149.100 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the benefit of grouping these rather different organizations? older ≠ wiser 19:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the benefit of grouping these rather different, but related, organisations is that it improves the organisation and increases the clarity of the disambiguation page. Instead of having to look through a list of nine very different organisations, the reader can look through a list of four related groups. Even better the subsection will be listed under the Table of Contents enabling faster access to the desired page.

I'd also point out that these four groups have more in common with each other, being religiously-oriented, than the three companies that already have their own subsection or the two schools that also have their own subsection.

86.132.149.100 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. One of them would better fit into a grouping of political parties. And the other, as I mentioned is not really a religious organization. I think rather than assisting a reader, that could actually hinder a reader finding what they want. older ≠ wiser 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, why don't you make that improvement to the page rather than just reverting my edits? 86.132.149.100 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the way things are. older ≠ wiser 22:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm taking this to Third Opinion tommorrow. 86.132.149.100 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I provide a third opinion by saying I agree with Bkonrad? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion on adding a religious organisation subsection

This section has been added for Third Opinion discussion to help resolve the dispute on whether there should be a Religious Organisation subsection between myself and User:Bkonrad. I say that there should be a Religious Organisation subsection and it should be made up of the following four groups: the Scottish Christian Party; the Society of Catholic Priests; the Society of Christian Philosophers; and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project.

Bkonrad reverted my first attempt at creating this subsection with the edit summary "Bad grouping". He then reverted my second attempt with the edit summary: "just because something has the word Christian in name does not make it a religious organization". I say that if an organisation has a religious nature, in this case shown by the fact that most of the organisations named themselves Christian, then it should go in the Religious Organisations subsection which I tried to create.

When talking to Bkonrad on this talkpage he said that "Religious organizations are generally recognized as being expressly to support religious activities". He further stated that the Scottish Christian Party would be better placed under a Political Party subsection, along with the two Communist Parties, that the Society of Christian Philosophers is for philosophers who happen to be Christian, and that leaves us with just two groups.

Rather than get into an argument over definitions of what constitutes a religious organisation I tried arguing that creating a "Religiously-oriented organisations" subsection would improve usability and that the four groups had more in common than the three companies or two schools that already had subsections. Bkonrad again disagreed and stated that the Scottish Christian Party would be better off in a subsection with the two Communist Parties and that one of them wasn't really a religious organisation.

When I suggested he create a Political Party subsection Bkonrad said he wouldn't as he felt the page was just fine as it was.

Because of his words, shooting down every suggestion I made to improve the page, and deeds, reverting both attempts at creating a Religious Organisations subsection, I believe that Bkonrad will revert any changes I make to improve the page, whether that's creating a Religious Organisation subsection, a Political Parties subsection, or indeed both. I'm thus asking for a third opinion to try and resolve this dispute.

86.132.149.100 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I wrote above: "Can I provide a third opinion by saying I agree with Bkonrad?". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I object to the creation of a religious organizations section including entries that are not primarily religious in purpose. I don't object to the creation of a political parties section, though I don't feel any obligation to do that myself. Secondarily, I don't think the number of entries on the page is so large as to pose a great hurdle for readers. Arbitrarily grouping entries into small sub-sections doesn't necessarily benefit readers if they need to scan multiple sections to find an entry that might just as appropriately be placed in another section. older ≠ wiser 15:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The request for a third opinion has been removed as there are already three editors involved. Bradv 15:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As the Third Opinion I asked for agrees with Bkonrad I am happy to leave it at that. Although (Warning: Incoming [[1]]) I still think that the grouping is good. Yes they're not religious organisations like the Catholic Church, or my local church for that matter, but they're nonetheless religious organisations. The page on the Society of Christian Philosophers even categorises it as a religious organisation! I'm not going to create a Political Parties subsection as three entries is too small. I do have to wonder why whoever did it created the Companies, three entries, and Schools, two entries, subsections. 86.132.149.100 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

1276 = U.D

2A00:23EE:10A0:F6B2:C8BC:5486:1C11:3D7C (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC) This #### # # ### by #### ## ######### and could destroy our universe.

It is blue and has one eye.It is small. 2A00:23EE:10A0:F6B2:C8BC:5486:1C11:3D7C (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is protected by an indestructible material that is alive.

It looks like an arcade toy from our one picture.

If you #### ## #### it explodes.

Why no primary sources?

Is there a reason why citations for the "Examples of SCPs" section do not include direct links to the relevant pages of the SCP Foundation's wiki? According to the Wikipedia:Verifiability rules, reliable sources should be attributed to any text on Wikipedia and, whenever possible, citations should be provided that link directly to the source. Given that a primary source can effectively support a summary description of fictional works, why is the primary source not being used as a citation for the summary paragraphs provided in this section of the SCP article?

Secretikrit (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)