Talk:Priesthood (LDS)/archive 1

Could this article be moved out of a subpage and into the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page? -- Zoe

You mean wiser? No, there is much more to be said in regards to LDS Priesthood. In general, many of the points on the main page should be moved to their own subpages as well. There is much much more to be added to those points too.

I have no idea what you mean by "wiser". I didn't say anything about wiser in my comment. All I said was that it should be moved out. If not, perhaps moved to [Priesthood of the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints]? -- Zoe

By "wiser" I meant "wiser to be moved". Could it be, yes? Should it be (that is, is it wiser, better, etc) to be moved? no. (And you did not at first say "should"...you said "could"...a great difference there.) No, it shouldn't be moved. The main page has a long way to go. There is a lot more to be added to it and its subtopics. What makes the most sense is to put a line or two about the subtopic (so that the page is not unmanageably long) on the main page with a link to a subpage with a fuller treatment on that subtopic as was done with this subpage. This model will also facilitate treatment of where this church parallels/contrasts with other (christian) religions on the same topic--a short description with a link from some main page to an LDS subpage for fuller treatment of the subject. Rather than making more main pages related to the LDS church, it will make more sense to have subpages for the subtopics related to the main page. I plan on doing extensive work on the main page and its subpages and that is the model I intend to follow.

Have we reached agreement on the use of subpages? Pro or con? -- Zoe

Moved. There is no reason to have / titles sine the software doesn't give them any special functions anymore. --mav

Bzzzzz. wrong answer, mav. Unless you can point me to a wiki policy re: subpages I'm going with my preferences on any LDS-church related topics and pages. Who cares if they serve no "special function". As a model for ordering information, subpages are a superior model. You didn't even bother fixing links to the page that you moved.... BoNoMoJo 22:35 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

There's no need to fix links when you do a move. They're automatically taken care of. -- Zoe 01:03 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

You're right. When I double checked it redirects. Still learning here. BoNoMoJo 04:44 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Bzzzz. No reason to be combative. Much discussion has taken place about this very subject. Here is just one thread: m:Get_rid_of_subpages_entirely. Human readable and natural titles are the best. --mav

Combative? Who is railroading the change? BoNoMoJo 05:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

More. m:Why I am suspicious of subpages, m:The case against subpages --mav

There is also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). What is common about the / title? --mav

Clarify your question please. BoNoMoJo

Yet more: [1] (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-January/001202.html) Follow the whole thread if you like. --mav

Thanks for the links. My earlier searches on this topic were fruitless, but now I've got a good idea of other's arguments pro and con. I am unconvinced that the elimination of subpages is for the best and I didn't see any policy forbidding this usage. At this point, I can't really tell who is an authority (especially with Larry's transition) although you two (mav and Ed) are obviously prominent figures. As it appears, the usage is preferential, I'm sticking with subpages. BoNoMoJo 05:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

We don't like slashes around here. call it a reaction to slashdot if you will, but it just works out better not to use them. Besides, Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is such as nifty title! --Ed Poor

I don't think it's nifty, nor necessarily a "Human readable and natural title" (whatever that is supposed to mean)...your comment is also patronizing. Aren't we starting off on good foot here? BoNoMoJo 05:31 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate title would be "Priesthood (LDS)". If there are no strong objections, I'll move the page later. BoNoMoJo 16:06 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

My only other thought on the format may be to title the subtopics as "Priesthood (LDS/Mormons)" since some folks will not connect LDS and Mormons, but I'm not sure about the usage of / in parens. Guidance here would be helpful. Thanks. BoNoMoJo

You asked about the / page policy. I provided documentation for it. Now please stop moving pages back to / titles. --mav

Mav, that's just BS. Your links merely point to threads of arguments for and against and I will follow my preference until you show me a policy decision otherwise. BoNoMoJo 05:54 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Now it won't let me move them back. Did you have something to do with that or is it some glitch? or? BoNoMoJo

I dunno. The page isn't protected. --mav

Just look at all the work that has been done moving articles from / pages to "History of...", "Grography of..." ect. Also look at the history for Star Wars, Star Trek and Middle-earth associated articles. They were all in / page format but have since been moved. --mav

De facto policy by a bullying group? Congratulations! Let's make every one conform! Any idea when the software will keep contributors from / pages if ever? BoNoMoJo

Much of what we do here is de facto policy that is later codifed. Thus the common name naming convention. / pages are valid for some titles such as GNU/Linux. --mav

BTW read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). What is common about the / title? --mav

You've already linked this once. I've already read it, and you still haven't replied to my request: clarify your question please? BoNoMoJo

Mav, you still haven't clarified. So, let me be more precise. What do you mean by "What is common about the / title?" BoNoMoJo

Reply above. If you've read it then you already know about our naming convention on this very topic so please follow it. --mav

Mav, there is currently not a single reference to the use of subpaging in the main page of the link, and the talk page merely links to the same threads of argumentation... BoNoMoJo

Common and simple names = no artificial / pages. --mav

From [2] (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-January/001202.html):

We had a rather lengthy discussion about the subpages, 
which ended in Larry deciding to get rid of them.

Yes, mav, it was one of the first pages I read. It is not determinative of the issue. It's interesting how you read into or at least present a piece as meaning a particular thing. BoNoMoJo

There has been no change in the policy since. And the title of the thread starts with "No-subpage policy", hence there is a policy. Please follow it. --mav

Non-sequitur, friend. The title of the thread is ambiguous to its meaning. Regardless, I've decided to eat Green Eggs and Ham for now. If after using the current, more common naming convention I just can't seem to get by without subpages, I'll make a stink then. BoNoMoJo 15:34 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

BoNoMoJo, I assure you that subpages have been eliminated. The software doesn't even handle them anymore. Any subpages that you may see around Wikipedia are either relics that haven't been refactored yet, or those created by newcomers who are unaware that they are no longer used. Consider the reasons you want to use a subpage, and then ask yourself: if a topic is big enough for a subpage, why shouldn't it have its own article? -- Stephen Gilbert 12:43 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Stephen, I've never disagreed that subpages have been eliminated. It appears to a newcomer like me that this convention has been enforced by some dogmatic bullies to become the de facto norm. At this point I've decided not to fight it. I've added a paragraph at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) to state more straightforwardly that subpages should not be used. BoNoMoJo 15:34 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

---

It might help if you say why you want subpages. Is it so that all the articles show up together in an alphabetical index? Do you, perhaps, want a way that interested readers can find ALL articles relating to the church?

I'm not going to make a case for my preference since I've decided to go with the convention that is being enforced. If it just doesn't work, I'll make my case then. Hey, you guys are very responsive. I like that. BoNoMoJo

Is there an abbreviation or nickname that can be used, such as 'Mormon' or 'LDS'? Then we could entitle articles as follows:

• Mormon priesthood or priesthood (Mormons)
• Mormon Temples or Temples (Mormons)
• Mormon Standard Works or Standard Works (Mormons)

Let's all work together, instead of butting heads. We're not goats: we are reasonable people, working toward a common goal. --Ed Poor

I just made my suggestion above on a format without subpages for LDS-church related subtopics....with possibly at least one exception--History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--since the common usage seems to be "History of X". BoNoMoJo 16:06 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)