Talk:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

message: So why is SPCK the main article... and the long name redirected here? I don't think OUP is the main article. --Merzul 03:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess because that's what everyone calls it. People say SPCK stands for... but OUP would be an abbreviation that people mainly familiar with it would use, while others would say Oxford University Press... I guess it's the most-used name. Look at their website for example. Drmaik 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that the policy at WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations, viz. 'unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form' applies here, so the page should remain SPCK. Drmaik 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the front page of their website says "Welcome to SPCK ...the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge." And the logo uses both the acronym and the spelled-out name. So they aren't known almost exclusively by their abbreviation. — coelacan talk — 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at NATO's website. They also spell out the abbreviation, and they are one of those that WP:NAME says should be listed under their abbreviation. So I feel that your argument doesn't work. I suppose how one reads the function of the acronym and spelled-out name depends on the preexisting context one has. Mine is British Christianity, familiarity with the 'brand', and no-one (at least in my experience), would ever say I'm going to 'Society for Promoting...', but SPCK, and many if not most of the clients would not know what it stood for. But they spell it out for your interest or something. If someone did spell it out, people would go 'oh, you mean SPCK'... That's my take anyway. If any others familiar with SPCK would like to comment? Drmaik 05:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I have no familiarity with the topic whatsoever and so it really throws me to reach an article cryptically titled "SPCK". I think the current title is confusing, and I think that the title should be inviting to readers who do not know what the organization is (most readers). But you may be right; so to get a full discussion I'll take it to WP:RM. — coelacan talk — 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this the main article? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as nom. — coelacan talk — 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nom. — coelacan talk — 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose I accept Merzul's criterion; but think SPCK is more familiar, to those who know the organization at all, than the full name; it will in any case redirect here. A test for those who would support: Look away from the page, and answer: Does P stand for Promoting or Propagating? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: #Neutral Having been opposed in the discussion above, I will not now oppose, as long as something to the effect of 'more commonly known as SPCK' is in the lead. I can see how the title doesn't tell those unaware of SPCK very much at all. Drmaik 09:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - neutral to the move

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article states that the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge was the "Scottish wing" (sic) of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Do we have reliable external references to support such a bold statement and (arguably) unlikely scenario? If not, that has to go. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's over four years since this comment was posted, with no response from anyone else - so I've been bold ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think only the 'Scottish wing' bit was disputed. I can produce something sourced that covers the rest, but the SSPCK was a separate organisation with its own charter, so does it really belong in here as a sub-section?--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPCK web site makes no mention of the SSPCK, its history or activities as far as I can tell and the SSPCK notes the SPCK as "its bigger and older sister" and has a link for those who "want to know more about the SPCK, our English cousins". It also seems implausible that, however sympathetic and amicable, an organisation founded by and largely associated with the presbyterian Church of Scotland would subordinate itself to an organisation founded by and largely associated with the anglican Church of England. There is no indication that the SSPCK is a wing of the SPCK and they should be dealt with separately. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish "wing"? 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZBYcQ5mnr34C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Publications 

message: I have read a couple of 19th century publications that say they were published under authority of the "Tract Committee". If this is the SPCK should there be a re-direct from "Tract Committee"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.74.7 (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Tract Committee