Talk:Mother's Day U.S.

I think my mother would like it pointed out that Mother's Day is celebrated elsewhere. (We had lunch, it was nice.) -Derek Hodges 19:40, 8 May 2011 (CDT)

Derek I titled the article Mother's Day U.S. as it is an article about how the US celebrates its holiday. I know other countries celebrate Mother's Day but I chose to write about the US version. Feel free to write about other celebrations, if you like. Mary Ash 22:06, 8 May 2011 (CDT)

I think the article's name should be "Mother's Day in the U.S." or "Mother's Day (U.S.)." (Chunbum Park 22:47, 8 May 2011 (CDT))

Derek, you are quite right.

The question we should ask when starting any article is, is this article really necessary?

If we look at this article, we see it is called Mother's Day U.S., and we ask, what is so unique about the relationship between the U.S. and Mother's Day that it needs a separate article from Mother's Day itself?

Is CZ to have an article on Mother's Day U.K., and Moederdag N.L., and another article for every country? What is encyclopedically unique about Mother's Day U.S. as opposed to that in Britain or the Netherlands or any of the many other countries who celebrate the occasion?

The proof of the pudding is in the content - either this article is developed into an article unique from Mother's Day or this article will certainly end up as a section of Mother's Day. David Finn 01:27, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

We shall start with this is a wiki. A wiki is a collaboration between writers which means anyone can add or expand an article. As to the specificity, I actually went to Wikipedia and searched for Mother's Day. The articles about Mother's Day are broken down by U.S. and other countries. See: [1] for the Mother's Day U.S. same title as the one I started here. As we can not directly import Wikipedia articles based on the Editorial Council ruling, I can not do this. I can use the references though to write an article here and that's I've done. If you wish to expand the article go for it. Mary Ash 13:16, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

Derek I wish I could take my Mother to lunch. It's been almost two years since she passed away. Instead I take flowers to her grave and remember how much she loved me. I am glad you are able to remember your Mother and I hope you continue to do so. Once your Mother's gone there is a big hole left in your heart. Mary Ash 13:16, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

Mary, you say that you used the references from Wikipedia to create an article here, but what I see is four lines of text and a picture, with no references. My comment to Derek was that the proof of the pudding is in the content - Wikipedia has multiple articles on Mothers Days because they have very many authors there who found enough content to write articles about every one. So far this article doesn't amount to a full article - if it is your intention to make this a full article then that is great, maybe someone else will take the initiative and write a top-level article for Mother's Day, but if this article stays at four lines and a picture then eventually someone will rename the article Mother's Day instead of Mother's Day U.S. and make your contribution a paragraph of that article.

Wikipedia also has exactly the same structure - they started with an article on Mother's Day. When that article got too big they split it up into parts. Probably one of the first parts was Mother's Day U.S., because they have very many American contributors. At that point some other people took the initiative and reasearched Mother's Day in oter countries and wrote articles about those. That is how a collaborative wiki works. I am not suggesting you shouldn't write about Mother's Day in the U.S., far from it. I am simply pointing out that it is the amount and uniqueness of content that determines whether an article gets its own space or exists as part of a larger article.

My comment to Derek was in answer to his question, not in anticipation of your actions. I have no insight into how much work will be done on this particular article nor have I any interest in modifying any of the current text - my response was about the nature of article-naming, which is purely procedural, not a comment on the quality of the articles content or your work. David Finn 15:37, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

A rose by any other name

Sometimes naming is clear, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes naming at CZ has sparked battles royal.

At some point, almost everyone will ask for a renaming, move, combining, deleting.

If a writer believes she has something to say, I don't think the question should be 'is this article really necessary?' Rather, I would ask, 'have I thought about the best name for, and placement of this article'? Have I considered what the scope of it might be? It's limitations?

Understanding that other people may have different opinions, knowledge exceeding yours that may change your opinions, that these decisions are not static, or even that you might wake up the next morning and go, duh!, makes for a successful project and a pleasant working environment.

Aleta Curry 00:48, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Accuracy

According to WP, the article here is a reliable source. Due to some failure of proof reading the day of celebration is referred to as the "second Sunday", omitting the month. John R. Brews 14:01, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

The article is a stub which means it's not fully written. To claim an incomplete or a WIP article is inaccurate. Rather being negative, one could follow this statement plainly given on all unimproved articles at Citizenium: This is a draft article, under development and not meant to be cited; you can help to improve it. These unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer. Notice the words you can help to improve it. Finally, as I have written before none of us our paid here and this is not a job. When we have time we contribute as volunteers.Mary Ash 14:32, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Mary: I just wanted to give you a heads up, and indicate a source you could use. Don't want to intrude. John R. Brews 15:00, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Mary, he was saying the source was in part poorly proofread, and you haven't used the source, so John said nothing about your work or this article. You might want to read what he wrote again before re-evaluating your comments. He was trying to be helpful. And John, thanks. David Finn 16:32, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

There's no doubt in my mind that John was trying to be helpful. Thanks, John.

It's perfectly reasonable that an author who has absolutely no interest in writing or maintaining the particular article might nevertheless want to suggest edits, material or an idea. It's just as understandable that the object of the suggestions might react with a sofixit yourself. That doesn't mean the suggester has to comply, or that the original author has to take up all the suggestions.

It's one of those inherent conflicts that individuals just have to work out. Assume good faith.

Aleta Curry 17:41, 10 May 2011 (CDT)