Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/polls

Express your opinion here by participating in the following polls. Visit the archive of old polls to see polls that have been closed.

Please use these poll guidelines.

Polls
Talk:Mormon (society) &mdash; Should we require that articles with links to sites unfriendly to Mormonism (such as the section Opposing Views at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) be accompanied by links to sites that make counter-claims (such as the section LDS apologetics and responses to critics at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)? Please comment. Cookiecaper 23:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Move Irrelevant Links), (19 Jan 2005)
Put all LDS and Anti-Mormon links in the article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Anti-Mormon. Then in other articles where they are duplicative, we refer the reader to these pages for more official links or opposing links that are not specifically related to the specific article. Some thing like "for links to opposing views visit Anti-Mormon" and "for links to official sites of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, visit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," or "for apologetic responses, visit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" This will remove duplicative links and provide a good resource where they can still get more information.


 * Support Tom H. 05:41, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -Visorstuff 23:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Val42 02:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I think these massive lists of external links are distracting and don't have much to do with the point of an open source encyclopedia.  I'm in favor of either quarantining them in a single place or pruning them back to the handful of links that are most relevant to the particular topic of the article. --John Hamer 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Book of Abraham, for example, should contain links which are directly relevant to the Book of Abraham, whether people consider them favorable or unfavorable to Mormonism as a whole. Traveling from Book of Abraham to a long list of links and then finding the correct link is a pain, compared to finding the links at the end of the list.  However, most of the links should be at the end, where they won't in the way of reading the article.  And remember   the request to Please cite your sources so others can check your work. If it adds to the article, cite.  Otherwise, don't. Nereocystis 18:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a similar message on your talk page - we are referring ONLY to the massive amounts of "lds.org"-related and "helpingmormons.com"-related links that deal very little with the topic on the said page. For example, there are scores of links at Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that are duplicative pointing people to LDS.org, BYU or some anti-site. The "official" church links should be at the Church page, not at Mormon. See what we're saying? If there is specific Book of Abraham links, of course they should be at that page, but www.BYU.com or www.ihatemormons.com should not be on those pages. What you are thinking is the recommendation below that is has opposing votes. -Visorstuff 21:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support What John said.  Let's have them as consolidated, localised, and relevant as possible.  Alai 22:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is not a repository of links - Links should be limited to specific topic and best resources should be only ones presented. Trödel| talk 02:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support in principle: I don't think there should be any kind of rule, but I think it's a good idea for some pages that have a lot of largely-irrelevant links, on a case-by-case basis. CO GDEN  23:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with keep the links as closely aligned with the subject matter as possible. Storm Rider

(Summarize External Links), (19 Jan 2005)
Put a summary of sites somewhere and then refer to them. Then on a specific topic the links should be directly on topic and not included. Something like. For additonal resources see: [[somewhere#Links|LDS Resources]. The question is where to put them and how to address the different Churches that are part of the Latter Day Saint movement.


 * Oppose Unfortunately, I believe Wikipedia should not contain pages of links to outside resources. Wikipedia is not a link farm. -Visorstuff
 * Oppose For same reasons given by Visorstuff. Tom Haws 16:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain - I don't understand what you mean by this, so I'm not voting right now. Val42 02:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hedge I think pages of only links is contra-guidelines, yes, so I'd Oppose that.  But if we end up with Every Possible LDS Link on the LDS Church page (as for example seems to already be the case), then rather than duplicating them elsewhere, it'd be preferable to have an LDS Church pointer rather than elaborate the same list in numerous places.  (Or to be less hypothetical:  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)  I'd cautiously Support that, used in moderation.  Alai 22:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any page that would contain a collection of so many links would (justifiably) risk being slated for deletion. Trödel| talk 02:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose CO GDEN  23:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hedge I am torn between the need for those who feel the need to put every anti-mormon site available up on the board.  I feel they need an outlet, but oppose having them feel the need to post anti-mormon links on every page that addresses a Mormon topic. Storm Rider

one could make WIKILINK.org, that in essense would be a search engine for links on certain subjects. although, if the search results are not filtered well, it would just be a wiki form of google.

(Hidden Link-removal Notice), (19 Jan 2005)
Leave a hidden note in the editing section for future editors of these pages to remove link-spamming


 * Support -Visorstuff 23:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Wise move in pesky cases. Tom Haws 16:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Val42 02:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support As Tom says, in demonstratedly pesky cases.   Alai 22:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support especially for cases where link spamming is frequent Trödel| talk 02:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support in egregious cases CO GDEN  23:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support it would assist in reducing the amount of link spamming. Storm Rider

(Capitalization), (21 Feb 2005)
The/the Church/church

To comply with Wikipedia policy, all references to "the Church" or "The Church" shall be replaced with either "the LDS Church" (if that is the church in question), "the church", or an appropriately more specific term (the church leadership, the church members, the church organization, the church president).


 * Support. Tom Haws 20:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think "the/The Church" is specific enough to be considered an abbreviated title, to justify capitalising it as a proper noun, and if it's a descriptive reference, it ought to be uncapitalised.  (And, added "the Church" to the poll-text, which is the more common usage on the pages at present with NPOV issues.)  Alai 22:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Reference should be to LDS Church in most a cases after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is in the first reference. If clear (like same paragraph) the church would be preferrable. Trödel| talk  02:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposal is more in keeping with scholarly norms and the NPOV tone of an encyclopedia.  I think the usage "the Church" implies a tone of insider authorship. --John Hamer 14:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. CO GDEN  23:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain -Visorstuff 00:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Passed unanimously, then, unless anyone wants to hold the polls open longer than a week? Any volunteers to take first crack at Naming conventions (Mormonism)? Alai 23:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Move Women ...), (25 Feb 2005)
Page Move: Women and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Move Women and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Women and Mormonism, and broaden scope to include other denominations.
 * Support. This follows the project trend we have lately established. Also, it will be more enlightening to see the progression of women's issues in the various LDS branches.  I hope to see (perhaps I will add or invite contributions from others I know) something on the FLDS and modern polygamists. Tom Haws 15:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I can see the advantages, in terms of simplifying the structure of Mormonism pages. However, I want to make sure the article isn't 99% CoJCoLDS, with the remaining 1% being a short statement about the Community of Christ's ordination of women. Personally, I don't know much about feminism from a CoC perspective. CO GDEN  23:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems a legitimate concern, certainly. OTOH, if that's the result in the short term, perhaps it at least makes clear there's a need for expansion (along the lines Tom's suggestions, for example), where at present that material has no place to go at all, unless one were to start very short individual articles.  Alai 17:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Since there is no opposition, I went ahead and made this change. Hopefully someone can fill-out the CoC and Fundamentalist sections. CO GDEN  19:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Proposition
This is in response to comments made on the dissusion page. I propose the adding the following statement (or similar statement) to the Scope section:

"Individuals included in the WikiProject should be notable for reasons related to the LDS movement or have had an influence on the general LDS culture. The simple fact that they are LDS (of whatever kind) is not enough of a reason for inclusion in the wikiproject."

Then the removal of individuals from this work project who don't meet that statement. (example Jake Garn). This project has enough work to do without those people who are not notable for being LDS and who have had no influence on the general LDS culture. Unless they meet this criteria I think they should not be included. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Votes
For



Against



Other



Comments

Is this really a problem? If an article notes that the individual is LDS, there seems to be at least a colorable connection to the movement, and I'm not sure that the project template means anything more than that. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it has been a problem (but that may just be me) or I wouldn't list this here. There are so many people in this project (with more added everyday) that you wouldn't know were LDS (of any kind) that those who are known for being LDS are lost in the crowd.  This projects scope is "Latter Day Saint history, doctrine, practices, and other cultural effects inspired by Joseph Smith, Jr..", not a list of LDS people.  Please note Talk--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines
Write concise reasons for your vote, or refer to comments you have placed in the comments section.

Use the following format for polls. Before you create a poll, visit the talk page to suggest the poll.

Proposition
Proposal ...

~

Votes
For


 * 1)  Reason ...

Against


 * 1)  Reason ...

Other


 * 1)  Reason ...

Comments