Template talk:Unification Church/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Unification Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Created template...
... with initial start of (60) entries. Smee 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, make that 62. Smee 05:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
Support?
If there is a section for critics, shouldn't there also be a section for supporters? Redddogg (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you're thinking of defenders and apologists (i.e., Richard Rubenstein). Put notable support in the controversy section. -Exucmember (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do that and see how it works out. Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Rename?
What do people think of the idea of renaming this template to "Unification Church" since most of the articles are about church members and activities, not Rev. Moon directly? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do it. Kidlittle (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll let other people weigh in first. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- No objections here. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll let other people weigh in first. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirects
It might be an idea to prune out the links that are mere redirects out of the template. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Officials
"Prominent members" is a subjective term, whereas "officials" is an objective term (either someone was or was not at one point an official in an organization related to Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon). I suppose one could create a separate group on the template, for those Unificationists who are or were "prominent members", but never held a role in an official capacity in one of the related groups. Cirt (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Moon's family
Is such a long section needed on Moon's family, when most have only very short articles?Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- The first two sections could be combined.Borock (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. These should be separate sections, they are treated quite differently by sources as well as internally within the organization. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- How about taking out some of the links to stubs, and maybe putting in some to longer articles?Borock (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would rather cast a wide net, keeping them all. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are some longer articles on church members that are not now included, while some very short articles are. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which longer articles are not yet included? Cirt (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I added a few. Borock (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which longer articles are not yet included? Cirt (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are some longer articles on church members that are not now included, while some very short articles are. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would rather cast a wide net, keeping them all. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- How about taking out some of the links to stubs, and maybe putting in some to longer articles?Borock (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. These should be separate sections, they are treated quite differently by sources as well as internally within the organization. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)