Talk:The Travelling Church

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 9 January 2017 by reviewer Smmurphy (talk · contribs).

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Kentucky Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).

Members of the 1781-1782 immigration

A link has been added from the name "Bowman" in the list of members of the Travelling Church to a distillery page related to a family from northern Virginia of that name. There were an Abraham Bowman and his brother John Bowman who were pioneers from Virginia to Kentucky before the Travelling Church. Although the latter is said to have sold some land to Travelling Church patriarch, Toliver Craig Sr., both brothers are said by some to have already been residing in Kentucky since before the migration of the Church. Still, it is possible that either or both brother(s) could have travelled along with the Travelling Church even though there is no definite link with the Bowmans recorded as members of the Travelling Church migration of 1781-1782.

However, the Wiki page of Abraham Bowman (which could be wrong) says that he led the final charge at the Battle of Yorktown (Fall 1781), which means that he could not have been with the Travelling Church who was approaching the Cumberland Gap at that time. So I would like to know of any support linking the Bowmans on the Distillery page with the Bowman who participated in the Travelling Church? If the link identifying the Travelling Church Bowmans with the Distillery Page is not supported, I think it should be removed as misleading, but there may be a case for linking to John and/or Abraham Bowman pages as possible but unproven connections with the Bowman individuals of the Travelling Church. --Olorin3k (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style used in this article

"As a general practice, the first major contributor [here Olorin3k] gets to choose the referencing system for that article" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners). Olorin3k (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article conforms to the style as found in Billie J. Collins, Bob Buller, and John F. Kutsko, eds., The SBL Handbook of Style for Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (2d ed.; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), which derives from The Chicago Manual of Style. Wiki has no mandatory style for all articles, and SBL/CMS is just as acceptable as any other, so please do not attempt to conform it to another personal preference. "Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style). "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: 'Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike'" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#WP:CITEVAR). Olorin3k (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to scrape against WP:AGF and WP:OWN here, but MOS/technical cleanups tend to not change referencing styles as such. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have already been editing changes specifically fitting the forbidden practice to "edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style," so you may "scrape" all you want, but there are going to be even more people coming in and corrupting the continuity of the citation style simply to make it conform to their own preference, and that may be forestalled to some degree by making clear the fact that there is a consistent style. That is better than chaos or continual restoration of broken stylistic continuity, even if you accuse it of different policy infringements, Stevieman. Try to be more informed and tolerant by referring to the material I link above. Olorin3k (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that will work. In my opinion, you are coming on too strong with this. No article is our own perfect little snowflake that can't be corrupted. If a strong consensus of other editors comes along, they can decide something different. But I doubt that will happen. Lighten up please. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your exclamation point is heavy. Please discern that the article's corruption is your misinterpretation of my statement re corruption of the integrity of the citation style, which is required in Wiki. I need not lighten up meeting the required consistency of notation style. Read more carefully please. Olorin3k (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a previous reviewer

(Below are comments copied from a discussion of the article at User talk:Onel5969.)

Hello. I just resubmitted Draft:The Travelling Church for WP:AfC review. I think that the WP:NPOV issue that you were concerned about has been adequately addressed. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof - I agree that the NPOV issue is gone, although there is still an informal tone to the article (but I wouldn't decline it for that). I'm not going to offer an official review at the moment, because there are still some significant issues with it. First, there are a couple of issues with your reference style. Please take a look at WP:CIT to see how to properly format citations/footnotes. You'll need to convert any raw links (hyperlinks inserted as simple web addresses) into the body of the article, into proper footnotes. Get rid of stuff like "see Marker 25 in situ at", simply create a footnote. Second, any fact which is not sourced should be removed. I didn't check the sources, but at a glance it looks like you included information but didn't source it. Anytime you include a quote, like from Dames of Kentucky, that must be footnoted. A road marker is not really a reliable source. It's sort of like using Find a Grave, also not a reliable source. Third, take a look at MOS:LAYOUT to see how to properly format your article, you need a lead, and then to break it into sections.

I think this is a great start, and you definitely have an article that will be moved to the mainspace, it just needs some work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your service to the community by reviewing this draft article (both times) – probably only one of countless many times you have provided such help. I'm not actually the primary author of the article – I was just trying to help clean it up, since I think it is a notable topic and not a bad start on describing it. I don't think I really added anything to the article – just moved things around a bit – except perhaps bringing in a couple of details from other related articles. I agree that the article would still benefit from improvement, and your comments are good, although I think the article is good enough to move it to mainspace and let the improvement take place afterwards. I hope you will not mind if I copy your above comments to the Talk page of the article, so they will be seen by others who may help to improve the article. The primary author seems to have strong opinions about stylistic issues, and especially about citation style, and has already reverted a couple of my attempted improvements in that area. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no worries about you putting this on the talk page of the article, and you can add this: reference style is not an issue of opinion. While there are a few different citation styles which are acceptable, the references must conform to one of those styles - this article sorely lacks that conformity. You also might point the article creator to WP:OWN - once it gets moved to the mainspace, the community will decide by consensus style issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear one15969, I hope you see this and are able to clarify your strong opinion of sorely lacking conformity to an accepted citation style. Are you familiar with the Chicago Manual of Style, or do you perhaps fail to recognize that it is acceptable citation style to Wiki? Is it alright in your opinion if I use Chicago Manual of Style as incarnated in its derivative SBL Manual of Style? Pray tell, where is a list of, as you say, the "few different citation styles which are acceptable," and why does Wiki hide this type of info so very well when it allegedly proves my style so very wrong (especially considering the 2006 ruling I cite above that says Wiki does not mandate citation style, which you apparently contradict so forcefully)? Olorin3k (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and encouragement, BarrelProof. Frankly, the article when I first submitted it was not lacking as the person who rejected it thought. And over the last many months I have occasionally added things in and changed them around, so the article as you first saw it was much less ready for submission than was the first one that should have been accepted--ha! So thanks for getting me over the hurdle of trying to figure out who the controlling critics are and what they want (since it is not made very evident of objective). Once it passes the retentive gatekeepers, then the article can flourish as intended, so thanks again! I look forward to working with you in future. Olorin3k (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on writing an informative article that has now passed through the AfC process! I don't think I really did much – I guess the draft was just languishing for a while without being watched for progress. In my view, this place isn't really full of "retentive gatekeepers", but it does take some effort to get used to the environment. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and advice. I saw how necessary the article was from its absence in articles of related content. After my various researches, interviews, expositions, and physically retracing of their pilgrimage from VA, I am one of the leading current scholars of this topic and am thus responsible to spread the knowledge. I guess I'll accept your experienced opinion and not dread further inexplicable rejection by gatekeepers. Olorin3k (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]