User talk:Marauder40/marian

General comment
This is a top down approach and is a generally valid approach. In many cases, a combined approach of Top-down and bottom-up analysis will also yield good results. As in any analysis strategic planning is always needed, but tactical issues should not be ignored. What can happen at times is that the strategic discussions can not see through to the end as tactical facts get in the way. So I think it will also be a good idea to look at the details as well.

I had been thinking of these issues, and I think many problems persist in the far-flung elements, e.g. Marian Feasts and Marian Titles. I think once those lower level issues have been addressed, then the strategic discussion will become much more clear. Should these be related to the main Mary articles?

Perhaps if we did the "obvious" first, the grand discussion will become simpler. So should Feasts and Titles be separate? I have for long felt that the Marian Titles page had far too many red links in it. And almost every feast is associated with a title. So perhaps a consolidation of those would make sense. Does it?

But I would be really be against the consolidation of half-finished items with red links all over them. I think instead of all of us sitting back as architects and designing bridges that would later be built by bricklayers, all those who participate in the discussions should be encouraged to roll their sleeves up, remove red links and check the titles, feasts, etc. I really think we should clean red links and check facts as consolidation is discussed. That is the only way to achieve quality.

The article Hymns to Mary is another item that should be discussed. There is a Wikipedia user who is actually a hymn writer and back in September User_talk:Feline_Hymnic I mentioned that article since that user would have been the best person to try to convince to help out here, but that user has not been active since October 2010, so we can try and fix this ourselves. Marian litanies are closely related to hymns and also need to be considered. I have looked at, but not edited the Hymns to Mary article, and there is plenty of material that needs to be added there. Once that has been discussed and decided, and some better level of quality is achieved there, overall strategic issues will be optimized.

So rather than getting totally focused on a strategic issue, we should also consider the actual quality issues within these articles. Once the lower level tactical issues become clear, the strategic discussions will be far more clear and effective. E.g. what should work its way into Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) will become more clear once we know the situation with feasts, titles, hymns, litanies, etc.

Now, could I talk some people to actually help out on checking on hymns, litanies, feats and titles first? I was hoping that by suggesting that to the hymn-writer he would have fixed the hymns page. But now, as a good sign of cooperation: can we all cooperate to fix the hymns, feasts, litanies and titles? That type of multi-editor cooperation would also help calm down the tone of the discussions that have been taking place. In general, it is best to make decisions in a calm and cooperative environment rather than be rushed into them. With progress on a "quality and consolidation" path through calm discussions, best results may be achieved. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that what I proposed was simplified but it was just a starting place to try to get some work on something other then an AfD. Something needs to be done to stop the mass AfDs, merge requests etc. and it needs to be done at a high level.  I agree some general thought needs to be done.  Every english speaking person with a particular Our Lady of... devotion is going to want their particular page for their devotion.  Getting rid of any of them except for the smaller pages will probably cause problems in the long run.  Combining the higher level articles will probably work.  Similar discussion can take place in relationship to particular hyms and high level versions of the same discussion.  I just think we all need to agree on a place to start and get some way to remove the numerous AfDs.Marauder40 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. But let us remember that the Afds will close after 7 days. New Afds may appear, but from what we have seen in the past reason prevailed and the results were based on logic in the end. What we should not do is let the "mass Afds" force us to make decisions under pressure. And I really think a "multi-editor" cooperation on helping with quality will go a long way towards restoring calm. There no doubt that consolidation is on the way. We just need to do it right, and calmly. I think what we should do is to use the "mass Afd incident" as a reason for fixing red links, improving quality and achieving consolidation in a calm and cooperative manner. Personally, the red links in the Marian Feasts article and the fact that the table there had no references had been bothering me for a while. I think we can use the mas Afd incident to get a few editors to help out in achieving quality and calm down the tone of discussions. As the of the discussions becomes calm, best decisions will be made for overall consolidation, in a clear light. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Item 1
Topic merging Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and articles x, y, z

I think this is great signed user 1
 * I think this is horrible signed user 2

... Consensus now agrees that this should happen, discussion is closing on this topic. User 1

Discussion on Item 2
etc. etc.

Discussion on Item 3
etc, etc.