Talk:List of mosques in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

what about the Mosque Foundation in Chicago Illinois -Dstfan

Deleted names

This list has no discernible criterion for listing- notability should factor in, but it does not, apparently. If notable mosques are to be mentioned, then it seems a reasonable listing, and by this measure, I've removed every listing without an article or a link. In fact, there are several listings here which don't seem to be very notable at all.

What is the purpose of this list? It certainly functions as a directory, and this is a bad thing.--C.Logan 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Untitled section

It seems to me there is extreme value in listing mosques - those with "notoriety", and those without. I say this because we are facing a world that has become very anti-Islamic, and when people do not understand that Islam is a very real part of our culture today, especially in most large cities, they will not understand how very much Islam is our neighbor. As you yourself say, there is no "criteria". Why then would you remove names that are or are not up to a non existent standard? By this list, one might well assume there are only some 20 or 30 mosques in the US. Kipruss3, --70.57.12.58 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would rather delete this article altogether. Wikipedia doesn't cater to agenda, and either way you'd be much more successful in broadcasting your message by working on an article like Islam in the United States. As the list stands, it violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, so unless some discernible criterion is laid down here, this list is utterly useless. Additionally, I hate to tell you this, but we do not list non-notable entities on Wikipedia. If you have a useful proposal for restricting the parameters on this list, or at least coming up with a solid criterion, feel free to share it. If not, this list belongs in the garbage bin, as do all other indiscriminate lists.--C.Logan 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Finding a median.

C. Logan-

How would you describe the following lists with more entries (directory) and more not-so-notable places (notoriety):

• List of cathedrals in the United States
• List of synagogues in Ottawa
• List of cathedrals in France

As an example, I feel this article is proper and in line with other articles, not discriminatory, there's a category about the type of articles on top of everything (Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures.) I'm willing to work with you to find a solution. -Sohailstyle 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would describe those lists as "not very good, no". There is a little bit of a saving grace in the cathedral lists, but ultimately such lists do not belong.

A cathedral is a very large church which most often serves as a seat for a bishop. It is essentially a headquarters from which the bishop rules over his diocese. It is not the same as a "church", or a "mosque". It is, by nature, a rare building. That being said, comparing the two is like comparing apples with extremely large and bossy oranges.

Concerning the lists you've shown, I don't believe that anyone follows a good format, and none serve as a "good example". The lists of cathedrals should reasonably only include actual cathedrals (bishopric seats), or perhaps should differentiate between the two within the article. The list of synagogues in Ottawa should be deleted; Wikipedia should not serve the same purpose as the Yellow Pages. The cathedral lists holds a little more notability, as they lists prominent buildings which have achieved a certain status, but ultimately I don't feel that those lists should exist either, as they are redundant to the category under which they are listed.

We do have a thing called "Categories" which people seem to forget about. There is a category which makes these lists redundant, and essentially pointless. Unless lists such as this begin to employ discriminatory criteria, they should most likely be deleted. If each entrant is provided with a reasonable level of detail, then the list may have some unique purpose; however, such a scope would eventually overcrowd the list and make the format rather messy and difficult to maintain. I would advise that these lists be revamped with some sort of useful arrangement, or deleted in favor of the easily-manageable categories which already exist for such listings. This article is, sadly, a magnet for agenda-driven additions. Many individuals feel the need to post their neighborhood mosque for whatever reason, and individuals like the above anon hold to such lists to prove a point- a point which would better broadcasted on a relevant article.

Do you understand the problems with this, and similar articles? There is the directory format, which is very bad, there is the redundancy to categories, which is very pointless, and there is the agenda associated with religious topics, which is very unfortunate. On the other hand, I would be welcome to know how you feel about this article and the examples you've given.--C.Logan 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I think this page needs work. It should contain more than a simple listing of Mosques in the US states. The topic itself is noteworthy because, as the previous individual wrote, there has been an explosion of Mosques across the USA and North America. However, this article says nothing about that, not a single thing. There sould be a large introduction noting the importance of this info. Otherwise, it is just a list.

I'll see what I can do to whip this thing into shape. (TS Brumwell 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Consider organizing them by state The Terminator t c 16:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of missing Masjids

I count 4 Masjids missing alone just from the town of Dearborn. This list needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.131.14 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Phone numbers

I'd like to remove all of the phone numbers listed in the remarks column. WP:NOTDIR #3 says that Wikipedia is not the yellow pages and that "contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic." gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That was  Done. --doncram 00:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)