Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:13, 20 July 2010 [1].

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement edit

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --ARTEST4ECHO talk, Ecjmartin (talk), Surv1v4l1st

I am nominating this for featured list because, after the implementation of this article's Peer Review, I feel that this List meets all six "Featured list criteria". As this list has improved significantly since April 2010 and I feel that this list now disserves "featured list" status.

Please note that all the recent changes came in response to the Peer Review or from information provided by the "Toolbox" listed in the "featured list process". --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This article has been vastly improved, and I think it more than meets the required criteria. I am also a major contributor to this article (I didn't realize I needed to mention that, but I guess I do, so I am now) - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Director's note Support de-bolded as co-nominator's support is assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article has indeed made some great progress and I am not seeing anything that would disqualify it from FL. In the interest of procedure, I will say I have contributed to the article over the years, though I don't know if it would to the level of "significant contributor." Nonetheless, I would be remiss in not mentioning it per the guidelines. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did some basic work of adding entries to this page some time ago, but anything I contributed has been greatly improved on in formatting and structure. It didn't come close to meeting the requirements for a featured list when I had been editing it, but I think that it does now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a quick skim over...
  • "miniscule factions" probably unnecessary weight here, small factions?
  • What does "First Counselor" mean, and why is it in quotes?
  • "Each of these men still retains a following as of 2010" is this referenced anywhere?
  • You link Independence, Missouri but not Salt Lake City, Utah. No reason for inconsistency.
  • "1844 Tinted lithograph ..." no need for capitalised T
  • "No offense is intended by their use here" I don't think Wikipedia needs to apologise for factual accuracy.
  • Spaced en-dashes, not hyphens please, (e.g. "Before the schism - Joseph Smith's..." should be "Before the schism – Joseph Smith's..."
  • Headings - Church Name->Church name, Date Organized->Date organized, Current Status->Current status.
  • Would prefer columns to be the same width from table to table, looks messy right now.
  • "Joseph Smith Jr." or "Joseph Smith, Jr."?
  • Date organized column of second table does not sort correctly under Safari.
  • Organized by column would typically sort by surname, not first name, using the {{sortname}} template.
  • "mostly in Centennial Park, " we don't normally have links in the article like this.
  • At least two links go back to Latter Day saint movement, (e.g. Church of Christ, which is pipelinked to Church of Christ (Leighton-Floyd/Burt) which redirects to the LDS article) - this is quite misleading.
  • Some single line tables are not sortable, at least one is. Be consistent.
  • I would far prefer to see the images down the right-hand side in the relevant sections.
  • Ref 3 needs spaced en dash, not two hyphens.
  • Same for ref 5.
  • Ref 10 "Pages" -> pp.
  • Ref 13 needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for the year range.
  • Ref 15 - remove the overcapitalisation and you reference just a single page, so p., not pp.
  • Ref 18 is just a single page, so p., not pp.
  • "Retrieved" or "retrieved" throughout, be consistent.
  • Ref 29 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
  • Ref 31 needs an en-dash, not an unspaced hyphen.
  • Ref 39 - p. not pg.
  • Ref 40 has ".,"
  • Ref 43 p. not pp.
  • Ref 47 needs an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • If you wish to keep adding copyright symbols, do it consistently, e.g. ref 47 is just a (c).
  • We have a large number of external links, are all relevant?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can this be said to be a complete list (that is, is there some official list of what constitutes a sect)? If not this needs {{Dynamic list}} Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing

I have been working with the list of issues that The Rambling Man and Staxringold provided. Here is what I did or an explanation for why nothing was changed.

The Rambling Man Items:
1. The consensus has been that if a Church is can be cited by an WP:V source that it belongs in a "list of sect" no matter the size, since it is a "Sect". This first lead to citing all groups and then to the removal of a large number of wp:SELFPUBLISHED sects, as anyone can claim they have created a “sect”. This seams to be the best setup. As to "miniscule factions" having “unnecessary weight”. That is why the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was moved from the bottom to the top of the list, just after the “Before the schism” sects as it is the larges and most known sects. (see). Other then that the sects have been arranged by date of founding in there respective sub-categories.
2. I changed to “member of the First Presidency” as this leads to a wikpage that explains what Sidney Rigdon definition of what First Presidency is, while keeping the same general information.
3. Fixed. Added cites as requested
4. Replace all but first link to Independence, Missouri, the same as with Salt Lake City, UT. If I am correct in my understanding this is how internal links are supposed to be. The first one only.
5. Already fixed before I got to it.
6. "No offense is intended by their use here". Although I did not put this here, I believe that this came from “Shields”. I also believe the reason for it’s inclusion is in order to prevent a bunch of “NPOV” tags (as can be found in Category:Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Yes this term is “factual accuracy”, but no matter what term is used, someone takes offence. I can remove it if you think this isn’t a good enough reason, but I think most the common editors would prefer to leave it in.

No stress, keep it, just found it odd to apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


7. Changed
8. Please explain. I’m not sure what you mean?

Don't overcapitalise, particularly non-Proper Nouns. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed


9. I am trying to fix this (see). I am missing some sytax knowlege as how to make this happen.

You could look at some recently promoted lists to see how this works. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it had to do with the contents of the columns, but I eventually figure it out. - Fixed


10. Already fixed before I got to it.
11. Can you tell me what is wrong with sort in Safari? I cannot use Safari, so I’m not sure what is wrong and how to fix it.

Safari for the PC is free to download? Normally these problems occur as a result of a combination of numbers and text (or dashes). {{sort}} or {{SortKey}} can be employed to fix this for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize Safari is free, but I am not allowed to install it on my computer for certain reasons (not that I don’t want to) I believe I have this fixed as I added sortkeys to the problem items. Please let me know if it isn’t working still.


12 See #9 - Fixed
13 Fixed by removal
14. All these groups are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Since these pages do not have actual Wikipedia pages, they are linked to the Latter Day saint movement with Redirects to allow them to appear in the various LDS type categories. I’m not sure if there is a better way to do this. However, I equal this to redirecting a brand name “Bob's Jelly beans” to “Jelly Beans” as Bob's beans are part of the Jelly Bean group, if you get my meaning.
15. The last table may or may not have additional church’s added, the others wont. That is why it is was made storable. I have changed it to a non-storable and will keep an eye on it to change it back if any in the future are added.
16. The decision to put the images at the bottom was made at Talk: Image gallery

Fine, but this is WP:FLC, not the Image gallery talk on the talk page. I won't oppose on this alone, but I'm surprised to see so much support for a pair of galleries whose contexts are completely lost as a result of being jammed in at the end of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


17. Fixed
18. Fixed
19. Fixed
20. Fixed
21. Fixed
22. Fixed
23. This is going to take some outside work. The error is in the citation templates. {{citation}} vs {{cite web}}. Posted note asking for correction from an admin.
24. Fixed
25. I think I fixed. I couldn’t find this error, so I made sure that all reference that had only one pages was listed a p. not pp.

Generally if a template has pages= it will say pp., while a page= will produce p. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was that someone made a change on the page and I think this one got moved to a different reference number, so I was unable to figure out which one was your ref 31. So, I made sure that all single page references used "page=" instead of "pages=", which should have fixed this one and #29--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


26. Fixed
27. Fixed
28. Fixed
29. Fixed See 25.
30. Removed all copyright simbols as they are not really needed.
31. These are links to the individual sects website. They were move down per Wikipedia:Peer review/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1. Some of these sects do not have Wikipedia pages, so removing them means they will be lost. I am happy to limit them to only ones that don't have wikipages, but then that would seem to give “unnecessary weight”, to those groups. Unless you say otherwise, I'm going to leave it as is.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Staxringold Items:
1. Added {{Dynamic list}} tag as suggested. See item 1 above as to what is required to be included on this list. Added statement that curches listed must be WP:V - See

Fixed?

I believe I have addressed all these issue. If I missed one, or not explained it to your satisfaction, The Rambling Man or Staxringold, please let me know.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Referencing: Citations use {{citation}}, {{cite xxx}} or no templates. For consistency, pick one citation style. This is the issue with the capitalization of retrieved noted above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was done after some input at Template:talk:Cite_web--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still several uses of {{citation}} mixed with {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}.
Several citations use no template, and their styles have minor differences and errors. #6 only has one quote mark, #12 uses periods as separators and has no quotes around the title, #27 uses first name last name, etc. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All references are now using the {{citation}} template, and only this template. However, not to argue, but if your not supposed to mix {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}, then how would you ever use anything but {{citation}}, unless you only cite one type of source for the whole artical?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Citation}} uses one style and {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}, etc. use a slightly different style, {{vancite book}}, {{vancite web}}, etc. uses another. You aren't the first to be confused on this— I am working on a proposal to name the style systems. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK now. I did some ref cleanup: expand state abbreviations (not all readers are in the US), fix | that were year only or month year and some other minor stuff. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I know next to nothing about the Latter Day Saints, but this looks like a great list. Just a few nitpicks
  • "In categorizing the Latter Day Saint churches for this article, for churches that have meet verifiability guidelines, the following divisions and subdivisions have been employed." Ignoring the minor grammar error ("have meet"), this sentence seems overly self-referential; readers should not have to click on a Wikipedia-space link to understand it. Perhaps something along the lines of "for churches mentioned in reliable sources..."
This was a recent and new addition in an attempt to prevent new unverifiable sect from getting posted from time to time. I have changed it per your input.
  • "Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called "Brighamite" or "Mormon," tracing their leadership or influence through Brigham Young: " Shouldn't it be "Sometimes called "Brighamites" or "Mormons"?
Changed
  • Sentence fragments should not have sentence-ending punctuation (e.g. "Branches which have originated independently of any Rocky Mountain or Prairie Saint organization."). This applies to both the factional breakdown and the table.
Forgive me but English isn't me strong subject. I changed the item you listed and noticed it matches the others. However, are you saying that the sentences like "By far the largest and best known Latter Day Saint church, often called the "LDS Church" or "Mormon church"." should not have punctuation also?
Fixed this myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Pre-schism dissenting bodies table, why is there a dash before Hoton?
The existence of this sect is verifiable, but the first name of the founder is not known.
Can you add a explanatory footnote for this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put this information in the "notes" column and cited it into the reference section. I thought that this was the best way to make this information available.
  • Why the unnecessary markup in the third-level headings? (e.g. "Church of Christ"). It could cause accessibility problems. If you want to title the tables you can add their titles after the |+.
Fixed
I'm not sure about this one. I have never been a part of the creation of the Template:Latter Day Saint movement, so I'm not sure if it belongs. I put this question in the discussion on that template.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the gallery necessary?
Images have been requested numerous times in both the Peer Review and the FL process. The issue of where and how to put the image in has been discuses a number of time. Putting them in as they are has been the best anyone can come up with. See and see
I'm still undecided about this, and have asked for more opinions at WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your not the only one who has said this. Several of the major editors have attempted to figure out a better way. I even worked up a mock (on my own sandbox page) of what might have been a better way to do it, only to be convinced I was wrong. If you have a better idea, please by all means let us know. We would be happy to implement it
Please see Talk:List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Image_Gallery_III. I have made another attempt to remove the gallery, but I'm not so sure about it. I would like your input.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of galleries, but given your well-reasoned arguments and the consensus among other editors who have opined on the issue, I will not let this issue prevent this list from receiving its well-deserved FL star (cross-posting this on FLC). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/archive1&oldid=1064588931"