Talk:Chick tract

Gutted

@Mruanova, along with removing the maintenance tags you have removed every instance of a chick.com reference. We were using those! They are the primary sources referenced in telling the themes and plots of the comics themselves. It seems inadvisable to remove them when they were serving a purpose. Primary sources are better than no sources at all. Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please go ahead and revert my changes. I apologize. Sorry. Mruanova (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I added the primary sources tag and did some cleanup as well earlier in the month but if at this point the use of them is largely valid, please feel free to remove it. It is likely better to only tag specific instances where their use is problematic rather a broad tag at the article level anyway. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mruanova: Regarding recent edits, primary sources are OK for statements that are either attribution or facts that are not controversial in nature and are essentially attributed statements about themselves. That appears to be the case here, and although I don't necessarily agree with using a citation to a primary source to identify that it simply exists, the solution isn't to ham-handedly remove them all and put them as ELs (which is actually probably worse that what we already have). Perhaps a list of publications or something would be more appropriate? I'm not certain the exact solution as I don't like everything about what is here now, but I'm less OK with the most recent edit of the ELs. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Butlerblog, the removals of all instances is not the solution and certainly not bloating the EL section as that is against the purpose of an EL section. I have removed the tag because perhaps it was causing more confusion than really resolving anything. S0091 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Chick Publications

Seeing

" Chick Publications produces and markets the Chick tracts, along with other comic books, books, and posters. "

should there be new wiki pages for the Chick Publications, separate from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_tract

page?

That way the Chick_tract wiki page can focus on the tracks, the Chick_Publications wiki page can focus on that company, and more pages if needed can also be made for the comic books, videos, posters, audio books, art prints and any other products of this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Cody (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to suppress your enthusiasm, but we don't create articles simply because something exists. There must be enough notability for something to have an article (see WP:GNG). Beyond that, there must be enough content to warrant a separate article. At this point, that's not the case (see WP:SPLITTING). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

NFL

The National Football League has the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nfl for information listing some information about the National Football League and a separate page for it's controversies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_controversies Should Chick Publications also have 2 pages to separate the information about the tracts and any controversies like the National Football League has? Maybe this can help keep the article well sorted.

Sorry about my indentation, I do not yet know how to use these talk pages very well. Other Cody (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Other Cody: No - see also my note below - we split articles based on size and notability of the subject of the article. Splitting is based on size (an article becoming too large) and the new article must meet WP:GNG on its own as well as the content left behind for the original - they both must meet GNG after the split. Refer to WP:SPLIT. I'm not sure at this point what the point of a split would be. Your proposal for splitting would have to be based on Wiki guidelines, not organization (i.e. "keep the article well sorted"). TBH, most of the notability of Chick is the controversies. (Unrelated: if you use the visual editor, it will usually handle indentation for you. In wikimarkup, use a colon ":" for each indent - see WP:INDENT). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At present, your efforts would be better suited towards expanding the non-controversy sections and applying reliable sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Butlerblog: for the help about Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Splitting guidelines.

I think I may have by mistake not have seen the note about splitting articles.

And thank you for the information about proper indentation in Wikipedia:Indentation and information about expanding sections and applying reliable sources.

Other Cody (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

@Dimadick: I have a lot of respect for your work, which is the reason for adding this discussion after my change of your reassessment to B-class. I don't see this article as meeting those criteria, first based on the {{More citations needed}} tag coupled with the primary reason for that tag is that a huge chunk of the current sources are simply primary sources. And some of those primary sources are questionable in their application (meaning, some of them don't even cite anything other than the existence of said tract). That's my reasoning on the change, but I'm open to discussion and also open to changing my opinion. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

My change was based on the rating of WikiProject Creationism, not my own assessment. Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)