Template talk:Civil Rights Memorial

Civil Rights Memorial

Moved from Talk:Civil Rights Memorial § Civil Rights Memorial

– Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Please post the Wikipedia policy you are relying upon for the assertion "We don't include unlinked text in navbox".

As for "Article only mentions 41 names anyway" the article is a start-class article. According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment the definition of a start-class article in the Grades section is, "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources."

As for reliable sources, please see:

Newspapers
- Mitchell, Jerry (February 4, 2007). "Civil Rights-era Killers Escape Justice". USA Today. Clarion-Ledger. Retrieved 18 May 2016.
- Shapiro, Joseph (May 3, 2013). "Old Newspaper Clipping Spurs Cold Case Investigation". NPR. Retrieved 18 May 2016.
Government
- Senate (February 8, 2007). "STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS". Congressional Record. 153 (3). Government Printing Office: 3516. For complete test, then see S1789
Website
- "Civil Rights Memorial Center Celebrates 10th Anniversary". The Civil Rights Memorial Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center. October 29, 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2016.

Mitchumch (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAVBOX: "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". The individuals mentioned in non-linked text do not have articles. By all means, include the individuals (sourced, obviously) at the article Civil Rights Memorial, but they don't belong in a navigational aid, where there are no articles to navigate to. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Then change the text into "dead links". The policy you cited further states, "Each link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general text colors should be consistent with Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. However, specific navbox guidelines for color of text and background other than the defaults are available." Mitchumch (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point. The whole section would be unlinked, and as such offers no navigational benefit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unlinked names should stay on this template, the Memorial is a list of people who were killed during the movement, each name being equal in death. Including the names may eventually generate content, but leaving them out is, in this case, selective and breaks the intent of the Memorial and the template. Randy Kryn 11:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, we're talking about an additional tier of names, which as far as I can see are not on the memorial, but are listed elsewhere in the center. This seems to explain it. They are not mentioned at the memorial article, and not one of them has an article, so there's no point including them here. If they should be included anywhere it is at the memorial article. As far as content generation goes, it seems unlikely that they are individually notable, so unlikely they will ever have articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: so there's no point including them here

Those names are related to the Civil Rights Memorial. The website link you mentioned states,

"The Memorial, dedicated in 1989, includes the names of 40 civil rights martyrs who were slain during that era. The names below were not inscribed on the Memorial because there was insufficient information about their deaths at the time the Memorial was created. They are, however, identified in a display at the Civil Rights Memorial Center as "The Forgotten.""

Also, they are not mentioned at the Civil Rights Memorial article because that article is a start-class article as I stated above time stampted 15:47, 18 May 2016. Not because they are not relevant to the article. At some point in the future, their names will be in the memorial article.

it seems unlikely that they are individually notable, so unlikely they will ever have articles

The absence of individual articles does not lead to their removal from the template. I have referenced from Wikipedia:NAVBOX above that redlinks are acceptable in navboxes. Also, WP:EXISTING states,

"Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first."

Also, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES are the determinant for what will have an article on Wikipedia.

Your edits also removed more than names that should have had redlinks. You removed the center Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) the memorial was located at, Maya Lin the designer of the memorial, the formatting of the names, and Jimmy Powell, a name listed in "The Forgotten" section of the template. Powell's death was the catalyst for the Harlem riot of 1964. A Google book search for Powell displayed numerous results. Why did you delete this material and coding? Mitchumch (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we don't have whole sections in navboxes that are all redlinked. A Navbox is a navigational aid. Including vast swathes of redlinks does not aid navigation. What benefit is there in including a list of names in a navbox when there is nothing to navigate between? They should be included at the article, not here. A navbox is not a substitute for good article content. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: I've stated the Wikipedia policy that supports the presence of redlinks in the navbox. Wikipedia policy is the only condition an editor has to satisfy to add content. Mitchumch (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's a guideline, not a policy. Also, you're cherry-picking. You've picked the part that discusses what colour links should be and you're trying to use it to justify an entire section of redlinks. If you read the rest of the guideline, you'll understand the spirit of the navbox, which is to aid navigation, not substitute a list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as far as your other points go, Civil Rights Memorial would belong on navboxes for {{Maya Lin}} or {{Southern Poverty Law Center}} but not really the other way around. See points #3 and #5 at WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize some of the names weren't on the Memorial, and all of those then probably not needed. The artists name should be on the thing, just silly not to include that, maybe in a section 'Artist'. Since we're here I have a good memory of seeing this for the only time, when I drove with James Bevel from Selma to Montgomery on the 40th anniversary of 'Bloody Sunday' in 2005 so he could pick up a copy of a recent documentary film from the Law Center. I walked to the Memorial, looking at the inscriptions, and, of course, realized that Bevel, who I saw crossing the street from my viewpoint, initiated and organized many if not most of the events carved into it, a nice juxtaposition. Randy Kryn 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: The purpose of the memorial is to remember lives lost related to the movement. If we remove those names, then are we going to create another template for them? The center has called them "The Forgotten" and deliberately linked their names with the "Martyrs". Mitchumch (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the purpose of the memorial, but the purpose of the navigation template is to navigate between articles. If you created a separate navbox for these it would be deleted straight away as there is nothing to navigate between. Include the "forgotten" in the article, that's a good place for this information, but a navbox isn't a substitute for that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Are you referring to:

3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

I don't follow how these two points answer my question. Mitchumch (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've added the links back in at the bottom, in the spirit of compromise. But my point being, it is unlikely that you would want to include Maya Lin in the "See also" section of Viola Liuzzo, and that neither of these articles would refer to each other, etc, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing Mai Lin, the porno actress, on the template. May be a little tangent, but will sure make the readers happier! (and yes, maybe another section for these 'forgottens', I don't know enough about them to know the circumstances but if they are related to the template it makes sense, and, of course, it will bring them closer to Ms. Lin). (hee hee) Randy Kryn 15:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. What an idiot! You know, I meant to check that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Civil Rights Memorial#"The_Forgotten". Hopefully, now we have this, we can forget about adding them to this navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Coffee I'm confused. Why did you remove Maya Lin and add Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Harry T. Moore, and Harriette Moore? Mitchumch (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchumch: Sorry, meant to remove Maya Lin from the bottom since she's a human not an organization (I've fixed that error, and have replaced her name in the list of human names), Harry and Harriette's mystery can be solved by reading Murder of Harry and Harriette Moore. And the SNCC just seemed relevant as the SPLC etc, so why not add them. Hope that clears things up!

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Okay, I understand. Maya Lin is the designer of the Civil Rights Memorial. And SPLC is the sponsor of the memorial. That's why they were the only names listed at the bottom. The names within the template are only the individuals that are listed on granite fountain that serves as part of the memorial. Mitchumch (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchumch: Aha, I had not realized that entirely. Based on that I made these changes. Hope you like them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: I hate to say this, but Harry and Harriet Moore are not listed on the granite fountain. The start date for the names on the fountain is 1954. See Civil Rights Martyrs which reads, "On the Civil Rights Memorial are inscribed the names of individuals who lost their lives in the struggle for freedom during the modern Civil Rights Movement - 1954 to 1968." If it's any constellation, I agree with the spirit of your edit. Mitchumch (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchumch: Think this is a decent compromise? (Why on earth their names weren't listed by Lin baffles me...) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: It's good. I agree, they should have been included. Especially, when it is often stated the Moore's are the first martyrs of the CRM. Maybe they're story wasn't well known in 1989 when the memorial was established. Or, at that time the CRM timeline was widely believed by the academic community and the general public to be only between 1954-68. Don't know. Mitchumch (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]