Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith/Archive 1

about Category:Bahá'í Faith by country
FYI all articles since the first few are pretty much the work of exhausting google and a few notable online Baha'i literature sites (like bahai-library.com and a few others.) I also borrow shamelessly from any existing articles that have relevant material. SO if they are stubs or whatever it reflects a great deal of what's out there. It all started with Bahá'í Faith in Australia (which btw I intend to, or someone else could, do a major revision, at least of the citation structure.) Among the challenges I've had to make decisions on are which exact Wikipedia:Citation templates to use for which references. For example, the various Bahá'í International Community publications like BWNS - is it a newspaper?, One Country - Periodical or Magazine?, Baha'i World - Book? Periodical? Rather than bother people for an opinion I just made a guess and haven't seen anyone question the style I arrived at. But then there's going back to make sure the pattern is solid and consistent. There has been alittle discussion about using caps in some circumstances - like is it universally Local Spiritual Assembly or when exactly do you drop the caps? Anyway, this is by way of background info and a few wikipedia centric issues that have been on my mind as I was doing the articles.--Smkolins (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A thought - Pioneering (Bahá'í) is a page often referenced for obvious reasons by all the articles in this cat and beefing(tofuing?) it up to be a top notch article would be a good idea.--Smkolins (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations, etc. My guess is that well-formed citations are more important than the precise nature of the publication, so as long as you include all relevant information from reliable sources, there is hardly any opprobrium. If you've looked through Citing sources and Citation templates and you're still at a loss, I don't mind looking into it myself.
 * As far as the article on pioneering goes, that is a pretty important article and a perfect candidate for collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * About citations - its not that I was confused and couldn't make a decision. It's that there seems to be at least some level of personal taste how to do the citation and as the citations are used in variety of articles I'd assume a variety of structures would result. Not directly confusing but still something that could be ... distracting. Looking forward to the development of the pioneering article....--Smkolins (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

about Category:Bahá'ís by nationality
alittle FYI about these biographies - as there was a wave of requiring citation, one of the first large scale projects I spent time on was citations for these people, and occasionally expansion of the article when I had a screen of info that could be ref'ed. Since then they've been recat by nation, which is a good idea, but the main systematic lack is pictures. I tried uploading various promotional-sourced pictures but they all got pulled. I've wondered about some kind of campaign to get pictures of all these people but it's not born any fruit despite alittle plugging away at a few cases. The biggest hurdle seems to be the requirement most that the actual owner of the picture be the one uploading it. There is at least one editor who seems to do nothing but check if you are the owner of the picture. There's also been several cases where another contributer thought the religion was irrelevant to the article. I think most of those quieted down when citation, especially third party, was identified. However there have been a few cases where someone added someone as a Bahá'í without any citation. List of Bahá'ís often has this problem. More of fyi.--Smkolins (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

about Category:Bahá'í educational institutions
There would have been more of these but essentially I got stopped by an editor warning me about notability in a particular case, though afterwards I saw there was no consensus I could find about when a educational institution was in fact notable enough for an article.--Smkolins (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability Personally, I'm in favor of one good and thorough article rather than several stubs that are unlikely to be expanded. That may well be the case with some of these educational institutions. For instance, does there have to be a (unsourced) stub about Bahá'í inspired schools as well as Bahá'í schools? Why can't these be one article that covers the topic in detail? On the other hand, Summary style discourages bloated articles, but that is not a real concern at this point for these topics. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The school articles could perhaps be merged. THe idea was to distinguish them and it was easier to hatch a quick page for the difference. It arose because several of the schools listed one way wanted it changed - that they weren't formally sponsored or were. Some of them were making individual changes and doing a partial job on the editing. As for the idea of a general article vs each school by itself... my own view at the moment is for different articles - each of them has their own particular context.... As an example of a page that started that way - a page collecting little summaries - see Bahá'í statistics which to me needs to be redone fairly deeply. --Smkolins (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alittle followup given time. Several of the individual school sites I've noticed have been individually updated. Additionally with the Baha'i Faith in x country process, links back to individual schools are natural whereas links to a summary article would be cumbersome. So I'm in favor of individual articles.Smkolins (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment results
I understand that the assessment results were not seen, because of a naming issue. The bot has successfully picked up the WikiProject's results now three times. The relevant links are as follows: The names of these things are always confusing, because the bot uses the names of your categories to name the pages. Since your category is called "WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles" and not "Bahá'í Faith articles", all the corresponding bot output includes the word "WikiProject". You'll also see that it's listed under W, not under B.
 * Category:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles by quality
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles by quality
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles by quality statistics
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles by quality log

Yes, C-Class did get approved, and you can see it at WP:ASSESS. We're currently debating the effect of the change on other grades; the main one is to raise the standard for B-Class. Thanks for using the bot! Walkerma (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much That's very handy and I suppose I'll see if anyone else is interested in C-class and re-wording the criteria for assessment here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

another set of dangling "to do"s
See Talk:List of Bahá'ís at the bottom of people who should be added or have wiki pages.....--Smkolins (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread
Hi,

There is a thread here which could use comment from this project. Thanks! —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Smkolins (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Culling Problematic Sources
There are three sources that have crept in to the articles over the years. These are W.M. Miller, Maulana Muhammad Ali, and Fred Glaysher.

All three fail WP:V.

MMA is not an appropriate source. WP:V requires reliable sources from reliable publishers. Inclusion fails both criteria:


 * 1) Maulana Muhammad Ali is an Ahmadi apologist rendering him an unreliable source.
 * 2) The book is published, in the U.S. by an Ahmadi publishing house: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore, Inc., effectively making it self-published.

Neither is Miller an appropriate source. WP:V requires reliable sources from reliable publishers. Inclusion fails both criteria:


 * 1) William McElwee Miller is an evangelical Christian apologist rendering him an unreliable source.
 * 2) The book is published by the William Carey Library effectively making it self-published.

The only wiggle room for self-published authors is in ¶2 of WP:SELFPUB which allows for inclusion if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". No other third-party uses them as a reference.

Glaysher's site is classic failure of WP:V
 * Unreliable source
 * Self-published blog

I've tried to take a thorough pass through the articles and have gotten rid of most of the MMA and Miller refrences.

Glaysher is more difficult. I only tripped across him in "Ruth White" so he can be quite obscure indeed. He's often used as a link in the references, so you have to actually open each page to edit and then search the name.

If anybody trips across these in an article, please consider yanking it forthwith and copying the rationale from here to that article's talk page. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)