Difference between revisions of "Talk:SHeDAISY"

Revision as of 23:23, 7 June 2009

External Links

What do the first 3 external links have to do with SHeDAISY? Are these on every article or something? Would it make sense to delete them? --Willswords 12:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion that 3 ones can be deleted, but ^{I've changed my opinion after Gboyd talks.} let's wait for 2 or 3 more opinions (one more don't make sense, 'cause that one will have no chance to try a major, whatever, one more do nothing just now, 2 opinions can tie it, 3 more opinions are better).

Escuse me my bad english. Franklin Kerber ^{(talk: en, pt)} 19:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

These types of links are in these articles (about popular personalities) for a good reason. A person can read about SheDAISY's music and bios anywhere online. However, the personal standards and convictions of these personalities are among their most defining traits, and they aren't usually discussed on other sites. Membership in the Mormon Church helps define standards of morality and ethics that are generally more conservative than usual, especially among entertainers. Investigators of the Church, or people curious about the influence the Church has on someone's standards, can link to explanations of belief from these articles. Gboyd 03:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK! That's right! I agree Gboyd, keep it there. Franklin Kerber ^{(talk: en, pt)} 11:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Willswords on this one. My first reaction when reading the page was that the links in question seemed out of place. I came here to make mention of it and found that I wasn't the only one who felt this way. I know that sharing our religion is important, but if we're going to strive to make these kinds of connections, we should work on building up a better transition, or provide a better context for them.

A person can read about SheDAISY's music and bios anywhere online. However, the personal standards and convictions of these personalities are among their most defining traits, and they aren't usually discussed on other sites. (Gboyd)

While I agree that such standards are good things to highlight, if none of the sites are making mention of them, then upon what basis do we make the assertion that these are their standards? Looking around, I can't find any implication that this connection can be substantiated. It certainly isn't clear in the article. (If it were, the links would seem more contextually relevant than they do.)

Furthermore, none of these women really qualify as "youth" as we commonly use the term in the church. Kelsi is married and has given birth to twins. Kristyn divorced in 2002. Last I can find record of, Kassidy was engaged. They may be YSA/Young Marrieds, and they may be young, but parading out the youth standards seems a little borderline odd under the circumstances.

The fact of the matter is, if the lives of the people we are documenting support the standards we are trying to promote, there will be no need to pound people on the head with blatant plugs. If their lives don't provide many such opportunities, even still, we can mention the Church. The point is, that this kind of awkward plug-based promotional style is not a winning strategy. People actually find it irritating and disrespectful to a degree. The wiki environment, rather, is King when it comes to advertising, because it allows us to provide contextually relevant links, which Google notices, and which provide people with information in a natural way that caters to their actual interests, and suggests interests in a relevant and meaningful way.

Anyhow, vote no on context insensitive linking.

--Seanmcox 05:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)