User talk:Snide034

Snide034, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Snide034! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pagename issue

Annie, did you see my response at WP:HD? Just curious, since there I answered your question about "congregations" v. "faith communities".

The article needs to be at Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota because we need to follow our naming conventions: all ECUSA dioceses are at "Episcopal Diocese of PLACE", just like dioceses of other polities, e.g. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis or Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Readers need to be able to assume a page's location after finding other pages on the same topic; it's quite confusing to find that the diocese articles are "Episcopal Diocese of Ohio", "Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio", "Episcopal Diocese of Wyoming", "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" — the reader will be left wondering why it's not a diocese, for example. "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" also conflicts with our naming conventions for topics in geographic areas; it sounds like a discussion of all Episcopalians in Minnesota. Since the diocese embraces the whole state, that's fine here, but it wouldn't be fine for places like Pennsylvania, where there are several dioceses. Since that's the official name, Episcopal Church in Minnesota is a redirect; people looking for the official name will be able to find it without difficulty. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that in an encyclopedia the primary goals of assigning an article title are to ensure that the content be findable and that the title convey the right information. When we have a bunch of articles on a group of related subjects, and when all of them have the same name format, changing the name of just one of the articles will necessarily create confusion. It's like how we name geographic locations, CITYNAME, STATENEME versus FEATURENAME (STATENAME) — for example, Turtle River, Minnesota versus Red Lake (Minnesota). Readers will know from the article's name that Turtle River is a city and that Red Lake is a lake. In the same way, readers can know that "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota" is about a specific diocese and that "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" talks about the presence and activities of the ECUSA within the state of Minnesota. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snide034. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Basically, in requested moves, the discussion on the topic is open for at least 7 days, although, in this case, considering that it is the holiday season, possibly longer. The discussion is ultimately closed by an administrator, who also generally enacts the move if that is what he determines the consensus of the discussion to support. The number of such discussions currently open compared to the number of administrators who work on requested mvoes is, honestly, often the biggest reason for the discussion not being closed quickly. There are times when a discussion is relisted because the first didn't get enough attention, but I do not think that this would necessarily be one of the instances when that is required. It is of course possible for others to request moves again later, and sometimes, when names change, like when women get married, that happens more than once. But, in general, if there is enough reasonable cause for one name option to be clearly preferable over another, that doesn't happen very often. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Snide034, and Merry Christmas. As an experienced editor who works on many Minnesota topics, I'd like to welcome you and offer assistance if you would like it. I've done a lot of work on churches in Minnesota, especially those on the National Register. Regards. Jonathunder (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. I would certainly welcome any advice you may have on the proposal to move our name that can be seen on the talk page of Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota. We recently moved the name to "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" because that is the name we have used for several years now in internal and external communications, we removed Diocese from our name long ago. Shortly after the name was moved, someone changed it back and it is a bit confusing and baffling to me. I understand where people are coming from, but at the same time, I don't quite understand how they can change the name of our organization in a Wikipedia article just because it "fits" better. I am trying to avoid any "conflict of interest" issues as well. Thank you again. Snide034 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any sources or content you would like to add relating to bishops of the diocese, or notable church structures, or church social services, or ministers, or whatever, please feel free to maybe start a few drafts in userspace and/or drop me e-mail with indications of reliable sources I might access, or that you have access to, and I can help build any content of that type. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]