*[[Special:Listusers]]
==New disciplinary policyOrthodoxSource==All sysops should read and familiarize themselves with the new official In case you haven't been over to [[OrthodoxWikiosource:Disciplinary policyMain page|disciplinary policyOrthodoxSource]] lately, we can now login there with our OW logins. A category structure needs to be worked on, as well as approved by [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] some basic documents to get things up and running well there, based primarily on existing category structures here on May 29, 2008OrthodoxWiki. Relevant templates for enforcement: [[Template:Warning]]Obviously, not everything will map the same, [[Template:Warning2]] and [[Template:Banned]]but we don't want to reinvent the wheel any more than need be. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 2002:4351, May 29June 19, 2008 (UTC)
==Calendar days interwiki?==
Is interwiki-ing the calendar days an undone task or a bad idea? —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 20:24, April 11, 2008 (UTC)
: ==Category Sitemap==In case anyone's interested in the category structure, I honestly don't see how it would help very much. Do illumine me. —put up a [[User:ASDamickMagda/Category Sitemap|<font size="3sitemap]] of the categories on the English-language wiki. I find it exceedingly helpful, when trying to interwiki between languages, to have a common category structure.5 I think some of what we currently have could be improved (like the Orthodoxy by country, which includes " color=Western Europe"greenand " face=Asia"Adobe Garamond Proas well as countries in those regions). I would rather provoke discussion (this means you, Fr. Andrew) on the topic before making any sudden moves. And, Garamondno, GeorgiaI have no idea ''why'' I went through the whole thing, Times New Roman">Frbut there are a whole lot of categories. Andrew</font>]] <sup>—[[User_talkUser:ASDamickMagda|<font color="red"b>talkmagda</fontb>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[UserUser_talk:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophyMagda|THINK!talk]]''')</font></small> 2219:2716, April 11June 4, 2008 (UTC)
==Uncategorized pagesNew disciplinary policy==There are only two entries on All sysops should read and familiarize themselves with the new official [[SpecialOrthodoxWiki:UncategorizedpagesDisciplinary policy|list of uncategorized pagesdisciplinary policy]]: the main page and wikinode. However, currently as approved by [[Diocese of AlaverdiUser:FrJohn|FrJohn]] is not categorizedon May 29, 2008. (This is one of those articles which appears to have gone blank following some weird character, Comments and the history adjustments are of the article avails us notcourse welcome.) I find it a little troubling that we do not have an accurate list of uncategorized pages. Relevant templates for enforcement: For one thing[[Template:Warning]], it would be easier to find those partially blanked articles[[Template:Warning2]] and [[Template:Banned]]. Is there a known remedy for this? ——[[User:MagdaASDamick|<bfont size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">magdaFr. Andrew</bfont>]] (<sup>[[User_talk:MagdaASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 13</font></small> 20:1043, March 31May 29, 2008 (PDTUTC)
:The strange thing is that [[Diocese of Alaverdi]] is in the [[:Category:Dioceses]] even though the ending of the article is lost. - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 06:38, April 1, 2008 (PDT)
==Suggestion: Eliminate Eliminating directory articles==
I'm of the opinion that we ought to eliminate all the directory articles. Here's my rationale:
Hmm... I agree that strictly this isn't in line with OWiki's mission... BUT I also see Magda's point that these are both pan-Orthodox and easily updatable, unlike any other directory I'm aware of , and I note that these have been popular "articles" over the years. Maybe we can wait a little bit on this? I dunno. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk]) 18:20, April 2, 2008 (PDT)
: Having waited a couple months without any major objections being raised, I'm beginning deletion. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 14:00, June 14, 2008 (UTC)
:: Reminder: With the deletion of each parish listing article, we will need to delete the title of the removed articles from the Churches Category pages. Currently, the titles for the deleted articles still appear in the Churches Categories but which lead to blank pages![[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 18:09, June 14, 2008 (UTC)
::: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you link to what you're referring to? —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 18:56, June 14, 2008 (UTC)
::Click on the Category 'Churches' on the main page. All the lists are still listed on Category [[Churches]] page.[[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 20:21, June 14, 2008 (UTC)
:::There are lists of other parish directories in [[:Category:Churches]], but not the USA directories, that I see. I haven't come across any category page which gives links to articles which no longer exist. Try refreshing the page or clearing your browser cache, perhaps. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 20:29, June 14, 2008 (UTC
:: Thanks. I notice that it is all cleared, now. Earlier when I noted a list was deleted and I clicked on the Category 'Churches', I still could get the listed page, but with a note that none existed as if one were starting a new page. I may have just caught the deletion process in 'midstream'. Sorry for my 'alarm'. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 20:40, June 14, 2008 (UTC)
==Wikimedia Commons==
Don't forget the mention of barnraising on the [[OrthodoxWiki:Community Portal]].
==Talk page archives==
What do y'all think about what to do when an article's Talk page becomes unwieldy? My own opinion is that we should follow Wikipedia's lead on this and create archival subpages (see [[User Talk:ASDamick|my Talk page]] or [[Wikipedia:Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI|this Wikipedia page]] for an example), though [[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] prefers that we instead erase Talk pages whose issues have been dealt with, that the history of the Talk page should serve as an archive.
The reason I'd like to see them archived instead of erased is that it is useful to see what relevant discussion has occurred regarding an article, which would be extremely tedious to try to track by attempting to sort through the changes in the history. Additionally, having the archives available makes it possible for precedents in our work to be searched for and made use of.
What do you think? —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 19:09, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
:I'm the sort of person who keeps everything, so I'm voting archival before erasure. What are the marks of a talk page which needs to be archived? One person might have a different sense of "how full is too full" than another. —[[User:Magda|magda]] 20:23, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
:I agree, FWIW, that a record would be good to keep. I vote for archiving over erasing. —{{User:Dcndavid/sig}} 17:00, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)
:Regarding the size of a talk page, what seems to be a consensus as to a good guide before archival is necessary? The two that I've archived recently have been because of being over 32kb (and has a warning at the top of the edit page), but (thankfully!) this won't happen very often; anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 17:07, March 20, 2008 (PDT)
==Blank articles==
I've been searching about for blank articles and turning them into links in existing articles, basically just to keep things tidier. It seems to me that having articles with no content at all (not even an external link) ends up skewing our results in Google and can be frustrating to a user who clicks on a supposedly filled link and finds nothing at all. I'm of the opinion that the best way to keep outlines of potential growth areas is to keep them as links until there's actual content to offer.
I can of course go and undelete the articles I've deleted if there's a consensus that we should have these blank articles, but it seems to me that a link serves just as well as a placeholder and eliminates the problems I mention above. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 08:26, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT)
::Most of these are my fault - sorry! I think what you're saying makes sense! [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
==Appointing Sysops==
So far, I've been pretty liberal in knighting sysops -- at this point we can use all the help we can get, and it seems to me to be a good thing to empower a robust band of trustworthy members to help manage the site. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 21:58, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)
==Spam Battleplan==I notice we've been getting hit by spambots lately. Sadly, I doubt this problem will resolve itself. If it stays at this level, I think we can handle it, but if it increases substantially we'll have to take some preventative measures. What I would ''like'' to be able to do is implement a captcha system for anonymous posters. I was searching over at meta.mediawiki.org today and found only a teeny bit of discussion about this. The more radical solution would be to disable edits by anonymous users altogther. I don't think it's the best solution, but at least we can know that this would be the worst case scenario. [[Category:OrthodoxWiki]]
You can rollback an article by clicking on "diffs" from the Recent Changes page and then "rollback," or clicking "history" on that page, then "compare," then "rollback." Note that anonymous edits can never be marked as "minor" so they'll always show up on "Recent changes." If the spam bots ravage the site too seriously, we can restore backup of the entire site from the previous day or week, and then lockout anonymous users from editing. So, let's keep on the watch against spam! Besides exhorting you, I just wanted you all to know that there is a plan and spam won't destroy us! (''the crowd cheers and runs exuberantly from the stadium''). ::[[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 18:00, 11 Feb 2005 (CST) '''Updateel:''' See [[OrthodoxWiki:Vandalism]] for further discussion of this. - [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 16:55, 30 October 2005 (CST) ==Featured Article==What do y'all think about changing the [[Template:Featured|Featured Article]] on a weekly basis? Also, how do we choose? Perhaps we could rotate the choice between sysops who would like to participate. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 09:04, 8 Feb 2005 (CST) It might be a good idea to "watch" the [[Template talk:Featured]] page. Should we each try to come up with a possibility for a featured article once a month or something (at least when we only have one left in the queue)? {{User:Magda/sig}} 09:29, November 11, 2005 (CST) ==Standard Welcome==Methinks a useful practice for us to begin would be to have a standard welcome that gets added to every new user's Talk page as soon as a sysop notices his registration. Included could be links to the Community Portal, the Style Manual, help pages, etc. This is what the one on Wikipedia looks like: [[Wikipedia:Template:Welcome]] Perhaps the best way for us to do this would be to have a template with the welcome in it ([[Template:Welcome]], perhaps, which is what Wikipedia does, too), so that we could just post '''<nowiki>{{welcome}} --~~~~</nowiki>''' in the new user's Talk page and not have to update each Talk page every time we want to include something new in the welcome message—we could just update the template. Thoughts? --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 12:33, 2 Feb 2005 (CST) :Okay. Sorry to ask basic questions, but I can't find the answer elsewhere. How do you know when a new user registers? Is there a log that can be "watched?" I noticed a new name show up on the Recent changes page, but could not tell whether or not he had been lurking for a while in the background. Fr. John sent him the welcome message, so I guess he's new. And then Rdr Andrew sent the Welcome message to a User that hasn't shown up recently in Recent Changes. How did you know if he was new? --[[User:Dcndavid|DcnDavid]] 22:53, 1 Mar 2005 (CST) :: What I do is scan [[Special:Recentchanges]] and [[Special:Listusers]] regularly. If I see a name I don't recognize, I send them the welcome. Eventually, I'll probably just scan [[Special:Recentchanges]] for such checking as our user base grows and my memory starts to fail. :) --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 11:09, 2 Mar 2005 (CST) :::See whether the [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodoxwiki/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1 Database table] I've made at the Yahoo Group would be of any use. We could appoint a day/schedule/person to update it periodically, but this might prove useful in making sure we're "noticing" new people, not people who don't use their accounts as often. --[[User:Magda|magda]] 13:32, 2 Mar 2005 (CST)::::(Just thought I'd post this here for documentation now) I think the best way to find new entries, is the new user log, [[Special:Log/newusers]], with a red <font color="red">talk</font> link. - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 12:07, March 4, 2008 (PST)::::I have question about new users who create accounts on [http://commons.orthodoxwiki.org/Special:Log/newusers commons.orthodoxwiki] (and [http://orthodoxsource.org/Special:Log/newusers orthodoxsource])? Is there a welcome message for them? - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 13:11, March 13, 2008 (PDT):::Commons needs a lot of work... feel free to chip in. It might be awhile before I have time to properly tackle it... — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk]) ==[[:Template:Independent]]==What are the situations when this template should be added and removed? {{User:Magda/sig}} 14:06, November 29, 2005 (CST) ::Hi Magda, I think we should add it to a user's page whenever they advertise their independent group in any way. This would mean if they use an ecclesiastical title in their user name, or if they provide links to their group's homepages. We'll let them do this (where appropriate), but should make sure their identity is clear so nobody gets confused (and also so that no one thinks we're endorsing their views, which would hurt our credibility considerably). I'm trying to make this into a formal policy at [[OrthodoxWiki:User_guidelines]]. {{User:FrJohn/sig}} [[Category:OrthodoxWikiΔιαχειριστές]]
