... started initially with (32) entries. Smee 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
This looks to me like undue weight to put the names of members or ex-members or people whose parents were members in the template. So I removed those sections. -- Justanother 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed several POV and barely connected links from the template. Please discuss here the relevance of such links before restoring them. Sfacets 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I question the inclusion of a number of names in this template, specifically those of individuals who: (1) do not have Wikipedia articles; or (2) whose articles do not indicate that they self-identified with COG/TFI or that their past affiliation with COG/TFI is relevant to their notability.
The first group includes Christopher Owens, Juliana Buhring, Celeste Jones and Kristina Jones. The purpose of navigation templates is to help readers navigate between related articles, so what is the rationale for listing individuals who do not have articles to which readers could navigate?
The second group includes Susan Justice, Rose McGowan, Joaquin Phoenix, Rain Phoenix, River Phoenix and Summer Phoenix. Per WP:BLPCAT, whose principles apply to navigation templates as well:
Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." (emphasis added)
The edit summary restoring the names ( here) indicated that "[a]ll of these people have self-identified themselves as affiliated (past/present) with this group". Where, in each article, are these two criteria—self-identification and relevance to notable activities—satisfied? I checked each article prior to removing the names and found content confirming that the individuals' parents were members of COG/TFI, but little else. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No members belong in the template. It is simply not possible to provide the necessary details and citations in the template. It doesn't matter whether they are current or former members. Imagine including membership lists in templates for any other organization, it would be a nightmare. Would we put a list of members of the Catholic Church is a template about the Catholic Church? Lutherans in a Lutheran Church template? If the members held some sort of official position or role, then yes. Born into the group or simply joined it? Not! Yworo ( talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
... started initially with (32) entries. Smee 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
This looks to me like undue weight to put the names of members or ex-members or people whose parents were members in the template. So I removed those sections. -- Justanother 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed several POV and barely connected links from the template. Please discuss here the relevance of such links before restoring them. Sfacets 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I question the inclusion of a number of names in this template, specifically those of individuals who: (1) do not have Wikipedia articles; or (2) whose articles do not indicate that they self-identified with COG/TFI or that their past affiliation with COG/TFI is relevant to their notability.
The first group includes Christopher Owens, Juliana Buhring, Celeste Jones and Kristina Jones. The purpose of navigation templates is to help readers navigate between related articles, so what is the rationale for listing individuals who do not have articles to which readers could navigate?
The second group includes Susan Justice, Rose McGowan, Joaquin Phoenix, Rain Phoenix, River Phoenix and Summer Phoenix. Per WP:BLPCAT, whose principles apply to navigation templates as well:
Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." (emphasis added)
The edit summary restoring the names ( here) indicated that "[a]ll of these people have self-identified themselves as affiliated (past/present) with this group". Where, in each article, are these two criteria—self-identification and relevance to notable activities—satisfied? I checked each article prior to removing the names and found content confirming that the individuals' parents were members of COG/TFI, but little else. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No members belong in the template. It is simply not possible to provide the necessary details and citations in the template. It doesn't matter whether they are current or former members. Imagine including membership lists in templates for any other organization, it would be a nightmare. Would we put a list of members of the Catholic Church is a template about the Catholic Church? Lutherans in a Lutheran Church template? If the members held some sort of official position or role, then yes. Born into the group or simply joined it? Not! Yworo ( talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)