Religion: Interfaith / New religious movements Template‑class Mid‑importance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This template is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This template is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Recently entries were deleted because they were redlinks, and so to make a claim that they were opposed to NRMs would be against WP:BLP. However, each of these names is categorized under the anti-cult organization to which they belong. So what's the issue with adding the names to the template? Zambelo; talk 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether or not BLP prevents adding these links, the purpose of a NavBox is navigation. Having unlinked or redlinked entries does not aid (and in fact hinders) navigation. Additionally, the guidelines say that each linked article should mention the topic of the navbox - a redlinked (or unlinked) list entry cannot achieve that either. Tgeairn (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed individuals linked to the organisations in question aid in the navigation in this case. There are no redlinked entries. Zambelo; talk 11:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, you really should at least preview things before blindly reverting. Contrary to your statement, there is a redlink (William Chambers) in the material you restored. Second, please explain how a list of unlinked names aids in navigation. This is a navigation template. Did you review the links provided in my edit summary (namely WP:CLN and WP:NAV) before reverting? Lastly, adding names to a list and associating those names with a group - without citation or verifiability - is distinctly a BLP issue. Tgeairn (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps editors such as yourself should consider not making massive changes to articles without first discussing. It makes spotting any eventual issue difficult. Navigation is more than just a collection of links. Understanding how the organisations and individuals are inter-connected is a large art of finding one's way around the anti-cult movement. Maybe you should consider citing specifically where in WP:CLN and WP:NAV it is mentioned that unlinked names are not permitted, instead of gratuitously linking to policy pages. Zambelo; talk 04:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel like I'm just getting trolled now, but fine.

WP:CLN says "Navigation templates are grouping of links to related articles". Almost the entirety of WP:NAVBOX is about how the items listed in the navbox should refer to each other and how the "subject of the template should be mentioned in every article". The obvious implication of WP:NAVBOX is that a Navigation Template is for Navigation, and that the items in the Navigation Template should be articles that refer to each other and the subject of the template. Redlinks and unlinked entries cannot ever meet those requirements - there's no article there.

The first line of WP:NAV says "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." It goes on to suggest:

• "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template"
• "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template"
• "Unlinked text should be avoided."
• "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them."

Again, all of this ignores the significant BLP issue. Tgeairn (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Navigation templates are meant to assist readers with navigation, not to display "how the organizations and individuals are inter-connected." Re-adding unlinked and redlinked names is not helpful and, should you choose to continue doing it, would become disruptive. Please stop doing so. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• According to whom? Again, no real reason not to add the content. Zambelo; talk 05:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, there is a reason: that's not what nav templates are for. They are for aiding people in navigating the project. Unlinked and redlinked names do not assist in that. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• But they do. By displaying the names one can see exactly where they sit in relation to the different groups they belong to, and allow readers to click to related groups. Zambelo; talk 05:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the flagicons from this navigation template as they a) do not aid navigation (how do links to France and Belgium aid us?), b) visually detract from the template, and c) imply that the names listed are somehow associated specifically with that country (only two claim to be). My removal was reverted. There does not appear to be direct guidance on the use of flagicon in navigation templates, and I can envision cases where it may be useful. I do not see how their use here aids anything, and it appears that their inclusion actually detracts from the functionality of the template. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree, and support removal of such. Nav templates are all about functionality, and including these flagicons does not aid in the template's functionality. It adds unnecessary clutter, in my opinion, and could actually cause confusion. The only exception might be the two that actually seem to be part of the official government structure of the countries. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The flags show, at a glance, to which countries the organisations belong. These are state-affiliated organisations. Zambelo; talk 05:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And yet, the source you are using in another article explicitly says "...the non-governmental organisations UNADFI and CCMM...". That makes it pretty clear that these are NGOs. Tgeairn (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• CCMM, you are correct is - shouldn't have a flag - UNADFI on the other hand is "a public utility association". Zambelo; talk 15:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A public utility association is not a national association, that is just EU nomenclature for a non-profit. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's actually a French law definition for an organization that benefits from greater advantages and bestows legitimacy upon it. These organizations report to the government directly. UNADFI falls under this category and is financed by the French State. Zambelo; talk 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are wrong "public utility associations" in Europe are equivalent to non-profit charitable organizations in the US. UNADFI is sponsored by the French government but it is not an official arm of France. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it answers to a govermental agency, then it is an official arm. Zambelo; talk 04:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Why so some names have multiple entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark777 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm working on the article now. If no one objects I will consolidate the lists of persons.Skylark777 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I removed the duplicated entries for names and added a few items. I wanted to do more but was limited by my WP programming skills. :)Skylark777 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It looks pretty good now. Skylark777 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't there also be a section for people and groups defending NRM's? Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not so many people are known for mainly that.Skylark777 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]