Talk:List of direct disciples of Yogananda

List inclusion criteria

There are, I think, exactly two possible choices of list inclusion criteria here:

1) every person who was a direct disciple of Yogananda, however minor: the list would be very long, more or less impossible to research, and extremely uninteresting in large part, with many entries guaranteed to be insignificant with inadequate sourcing ("not notable").

2) every person with a Wikipedia article who was a direct disciple of Yogananda. The list will be short (currently 5 entries, though this could grow as people add properly cited articles), and every entry will be reliably sourced (see WP:LISTPEOPLE).

I suggest number 2.

WP:LISTPEOPLE states among other things "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

   The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
   The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."

Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are many other ways to organize the list. I am giving it some thought and will get back to you shortly. Some were on the Board of Directors, some wrote books, some were Center Leaders, most on this list were monastics whose sole purpose was to serve his teachings and not all direct disciples were.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. A structure with sections for Directors, Center Leaders, Monastics, Authors, ... would be a great improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to start with separating into years - 1920s, 1930s, 1940s - I'll try that see what you think - Also I find it hard to read and think that making the names bold would help greatly. All the words blend together. Bolding each name would give much needed structure to the list. If not bolding then putting a space between each entry would help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting by decade is a bit arbitrary (why would 31 Dec 1930 be specially significant in the history?). Grouping by role seems far more natural and you quite rightly thought of that first. Bolding and spacing are non-standard, but section headings would be fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason I chose by year is because it is going to be impossible to separate them accurately by role. Some were Board members, lecturers and ministers and authors. Some were temple leaders, authors. Many lived in the ashram as monastics and served the work their whole life and some of those were author or lecturers that were recorded in CD & DVD. Some never lived as monastics but were householders and were lecturer and authors and served the work their whole life. Some left the ashram and started their own teachings, were authors, and a one served as a Board member for a few years etc... Impossible to break it down that way and it is not necessary. Showing the history of when these Direct Disciples met Yogananda with a short description is the most significant. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Very well. It was, I recall, your own suggestion, but never mind, the list is less of a mess than it was, so let's leave it like that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok sounds good Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)