Template talk:RAH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Order

Why? Why would someone revert this template so that it is not in alphabetical order? This is no apparent meaning to the order that is used instead, and alphabetical order is useful for organizing these topics. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ordered by size of the group. Christianity, followed by Islam, etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? No, it's not; there are only 55,000 Scientologists, yet it is before the Unification Church, which has between 250,000 and three million members. Which brings up the problem of how to identify members of many of these faith groups and number their adherents; it's virtually impossible. Also, it is not helpful to the reader, as it is not clear what, if any order, there is to the listing. Also, you are removing the article on Conservative Judaism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's based off Major religious groups, which states 500,000 for scientology, and doesn't mention unification church. If you want to move scientology up or down one, nobody cares. It is a much better system to put more widespread and important groups on the top, otherwise the Baha'i Faith is on the top of every alphabetized list of religions. The page about Homosexuality and Conservative Judaism is a sub-page of Homosexuality and Judaism and seems very redundant to have them both on a template that is already cluttered. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'Usability I suppose your point about Conservative Judaism is well-taken, but why is Mormonism on the template alongside Christianity? Again, since figures for many of these groups cannot be known with any accuracy, they cannot be arranged with any accuracy. Their alphabetical order is evident, though, and it makes sense to arrange them that way for the ease of use for the reader; this order is not apparent, nor does it actually reflect the rationale for its order. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)