Talk:Community of Christ membership and field organization

Breadth
The amount of material in the Community of Christ article would be too great if all matters were consolidated into a single article. This probably belongs in an article a little broader? "Community of Christ membership and field organization" Glenn4pr 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just think that a whole article of statistics doesn't look great - maybe the main article needs cutting into separate ones. Or if these stats are available on another website then why not just reference them on the main article where you link to this one (...reports nearly 200,000 members in 50 nations.). ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the statistics are online. They are in print as cited. Please have paticence as the article will expand. The Community of Christ category has over 25 articles, the various subfields and topics are too extensive to be merged. Glenn4pr 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge to CofC proposal

 * Merge main data only, then delete This article is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. It is just so much "inside baseball" that is not relevant to the needs of an unaffiliated person wanting to find out something about the church. Overall membership or domestic/international totals would be OK to put in the main CofC article, then this one should be deleted. --Blainster 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge main data only, then delete - I completely agree with the above. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - There are several reasons. 1. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedic reference." Part of what makes it great is that one can find depth and breadth of information not found in any other encyclopedia. 2. These statistics were requested in previous discussion by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piewalker on the main CofC article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Community_of_Christ&section=13#Demographics.2FStatistics Membership distribution and statistics have been a matter of comment and interest by others as well. 3. The information on membership and field organization is germane to understanding the uniqueness of the denomination. What is "inside baseball" to one reader is perfectly germane to the next. 4. Merging would put too much detailed information in the main article. 5. The Wikipedia About page states: "In every article, links will guide you to associated articles, often with additional information. You are welcome to add further information, cross-references, or citations, so long as you do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. "  The information meets the basic tests: NPOV, not original content, supported by citation to original sources, does not infringe copyrights, etc.  Anyway, since the article branches off of the main CofC article and does not detract from it, I think it deserves the benefit of the doubt until it can be developed into a form where it can be more fully appreciated. 5. The merge operation should be reserved for articles that have primarily duplicate content, which is not the case here at all. --- By the way, I would vote to put this tag at the bottom of the CofC article and not at the top. I find these tags distracting to readability. Editors, who have serious interest in the article will have the patience to scroll down and see tags on things like merge. Glenn4pr 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)