Talk:Civic crowdfunding

See also - tax choice

Rich removed tax choice from the "See also" section with the following explanation "remove SAs without apparent relevance to article (perhaps if they had short notations which explained?)".

According to WP:ALSO...

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Rich, what's the difference between the two concepts? --Xerographica (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that link might be appropriate, if tax choice were developed to the point that it were a useful article (which means removing any remaining "passages", and adding explanations.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Two comments - You shouldn't overdo the See alsos - the normal article will only have 2-3. Maybe a couple more on a big long article - but this one is nowhere near that stage. The individual projects are obvious ones to pull out, either incorporate them into the main text or junk them, there's no need to have links to every possible related article, that's not how Wikipedia works. The other thing - should this article exist at all? It seems to be just a gimmicky modern name for something with a history going back hundreds of years - public subscription. A quick search turns up >700 examples on Wikipedia - just looking at that first page there's a South African hospital, Russian chapel, two British parks, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition and a multitutde of statues/monuments. The Statue of Libery is a not-very-remarkable, fairly recent example of this long tradition, and the fact that this article feels the need to use the SoL to help bulk it out points to the weakness of the notability. AIUI, the distinctive feature of the jargon word "crowdfunding" is the use of the Internet - which is clearly a nonsense for the SoL. I suggest this article is moved to public subscription leaving a redirect behind, and the article developed mostly on the Victorian heyday of public subscription, with recent versions using the internet as something of a footnote.Le Deluge (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't overdo "See alsos" because...? Whether civic crowdfunding merits its own article or not depends on reliable sources. Having researched the topic, I found more than enough reliable sources to establish the notability of this concept...so I created this article. But how does the existence of this article prevent you from creating an article on public subscription? Just be bold and create the article. What's the worst thing that could happen? Some editor could come along and challenge the notability of the concept? So what? Who cares? As long as you have sufficient reliable sources to substantiate the notability then you should be fine. --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Crowd funding vs. crowdfunding

So how is "civic crowdfunding" any different than "crowd funding"? Or how is "crowdfunding" different than "crowd funding"? (And is there non-civic or uncivic crowdfunding/crowd funding?) This article should be merged to crowdfunding. That article can distinguish between philanthropic, non-profit, for-profit, or other descriptions of crowd funding goals. Crowd funding/crowdfunding itself is the method by which funds are raised. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, seriously? Are you really asking how "civic crowdfunding" is different from "crowdfunding"? Is this a joke? Or do you genuinely not understand what the word "civic" means? --Xerographica (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs a separate article. As is obvious, an example of "civic crowdfunding" is an example of "crowd funding". Furthermore, unless there is a reason for "crowdfunding" vs. "crowd funding", the first one used on Wikipedia should be in all Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In order not to violate good faith, I'll just have to assume that you've actually read all the reliable sources that I added to this article. Therefore, if you don't believe that they substantiate the notability of this concept, then either propose that this article be merged or nominate it for deletion. Until then, either make the effort to improve this article or make the effort to improve other articles. --Xerographica (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't even provide a meaningful definition of its subject. It sounds as if the Red Cross or the United Way could be called civic crowdfunding. Moreover, all the examples have a common feature -- the leadership of a powerful or prominent sponsor -- which is more typical of conventional fundraising than of crowd funding. In its current form, the article is confusing and offers no significant content. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposed. I'll post rationale for same later today on the target talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Rationale for merger now posted. – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)