OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza/Archive 2< OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza
This is an archive of past discussions. Please use the main Trapeza page to resurrect any of these topics.
This Questions page is the place to post and answer general questions regarding the work here on OrthodoxWiki. We hope we can help! For general reference/research questions. please see OrthodoxWiki:Reference desk
I don't know about y'all, but I liked the default skin without the boxes rounded off at the corners. Any chance that could be an option for the default skin? —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 12:57, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- Sure, I could put it in as an option, just for you :-). Give me a little time on this though! Fr. John
What to do?
Someone (Fr John?) contacted me at Wikipedia and asked me to help out here, but I'm not sure where to start. I've worked on Wikipedia for several years off and one, and it's easy to find things there that need help, but the quality of work I'm seeing here looks much higher, at least at a glance. Is there a ToDo list somewhere, or anything of that sort? Theophan 22:20, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)
- Hi Theophan, I'm sorry for the delay in finding this message, but I'm glad to see that others took up the ball on this one. Fr. John
Is there a reason that all the timestamps show as CST, even though preferences are set to another time zone? - magda 10:14, 18 Mar 2005 (CST)
- Hmm... Server time is set to CST, as well as the wiki default (since I'm in Chicago). Maybe to keep all the timestamps in order, they go for the default instead of you local preferences??? Fr. John 14:29, 18 Mar 2005 (CST)
I was reading an article about the recent synod in Turkey, and came across the word diptych. I asked my husband about it and he said this usage refers to the commemoration of the Patriarchs, who usually co-commemorate each other (as each local church commemorates the bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, etc.). Any idea why this is called a diptych? --magda 11:53, 25 May 2005 (CDT)
- Hi magda, the Wikipedia article says "A diptych is any object with two flat plates attached at a hinge. These objects were quite popular in the ancient world, since they could record notes and measure time and direction." I assume this was just the commonest medium upon which the names of those commemorated were written.
- As a side note, this page seems to be for OrthodoxWiki related questions. Maybe we should move it to a general Orthodoxy q and A page, kind of like Google Answers? Any more ideas on how to best structure this? Fr. John
Troparia and other prayers for Saints' entries?
Given that this Wiki is unabashedly Orthodox, would it be acceptable to try to have appropriate liturgical prayers in each Saint's entry?
- Oops, that was from me Dogface 23:02, December 4, 2005 (CST)
- Certainly! We wouldn't want to put the whole akolouthia in, though, just perhaps the troparion and kontakion, along with a brief excerpt from some other major text from the feast. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 06:30, December 5, 2005 (CST)
Calendar of Saints
I made a couple of entries on Saints, however I don't know how to put links to the articles in the calendar. How should I do this? - Silentchapel
"You have new messages" flag
The new messages flag keeps displaying even after I've read the new message on my talk page. It keeps displaying even after I've logged out and logged back in. And it keeps displaying even when I log in later on on my other computer. Normally, the message flag should go off once the new message has been retrieved for the first time. That's certainly how it happens on other sites that use the same wikisoftware, e.g., Wikipedia. --Aquarius Rising 17:49, April 26, 2006 (CDT)
- Not sure what's happening here. I haven't seen problems like this before. Have you clicked the "View new messages" link directly yet? Have you tried to refresh your browser? Not sure what else to say! Fr. John 22:38, April 26, 2006 (CDT)
- I have logged in after several days absence, and there is still a new messages flag regarding those earlier, already read messages. And I did click the view new messages link directly. It's weird. I have never experienced this glitch on Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia or any other wiki site that uses the same software. --Aquarius Rising 08:46, May 4, 2006 (CDT)
- Not sure what to say about this. Has there been any resolution? Fr. John 11:48, August 11, 2006 (CDT)
Um, is there any way I can delete an article? I missnamed a couple, so their deletation would be appreciated. Silentchapel
Hmm, I've been having repeated problems with making pictures I've uploaded into stubs in my articles. Please see Edict of Milan, and then tell me what the heck I'm doing wrong! Thanks so much. Gabriela 11 May, 2006, 12:46 (CST)
- Try "thumb" instead. :) Again, good work on the article! (Don't worry. The wiki syntax takes a little while to get used to.) —magda (talk) 12:51, May 11, 2006 (CDT)
- Hmm, that deserves a "duh" response. Don't I feel like a complete idiot! Ah, well, it's good for my sense of humility. Thanks again. I see you also did some minor but quite useful editing. I'm learning. Gabriela 15:02, May 11, 2006 (CST)
Sorry if someone already asked this, but I wouldn't it be more logical for calendar entries only to contain links for actual Saint entries, as opposed to Saints and a large number of links that tend to lead to Saint titles article? For example, if someone wanted to read on St. Theodore the Sanctified, the entry looks like this: Saint Theodore the Sanctified, the disciple of Venerable Pachomius the Great. Depending on where the person clicks (on name or title) it will lead to two different articles, and somoene who isn't proficient at using OrthodoxWiki probably wouldn't know that seemingly one link leads to two different articles. Silentchapel
- Well, when we were starting to put the calendar pages together, we had more pages for the title kinds of things than for the hagiographical articles. Also, many of the titles themselves may provoke curiosity, for instance "venerable": I found out why some saints are called that when I was working on the calendar. Because the calendar templates are viewed on the main page, it seemed that they should be accessible to the broadest number of people, including those who do not know what a saint is. I tried to make sure that the titles were only linked once per day. Perhaps there should be another way of emphasizing the names of the saints of the day? —magda (talk) 07:36, May 18, 2006 (CDT)
Hmm, I'm trying to use an icon from skete.com, but they have the site locked so that you can't right click on the images and pull up a menu to save it to the hard drive. Basically, I can't put it on my computer, so I can't upload it and post it here. What am I missing about how everyone else managed to upload the skete images? Gabriela 10:38, 23 May, 2006 (CDT)
- Ok, update. I managed to circumvent the skete site (though I'm still giving them credit in the image license) by searching on google and finding the same icon on religiousmall.com, which wasn't locked so you couldn't put it on your hard drive. Still, I'm sure there's an easier way. Gabriela 10:52, 23 May, 2006 (CDT)
- I look at the page's source (ctrl-U on Firefox; not sure about your browser) and search for "jpg". It's usually the 2nd hit or so, often with an "alt" tag with the saint's name. I then use the text from the "src" field, add it to the end of http://www.skete.com/ and, hey, presto! you have the image's URL. You can then right-click and save to your heart's content. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 17:58, May 23, 2006 (CDT)
Just wondering if any of ya'll have given thought on creating an IRC channel for Orthodoxwiki. I was considering it, but I thought it best to ask my fellow Orthodoxwikians before taking on the endeavor myself. Does anyone have suggestions? Server locations? Does this sound like a good idea? Mike 17:40, 2 June, 2006 (CDT)
Sorry, but I'm still bad with this copyright bureaucracy stuff. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), if I'm using an icon from htm or skete, then all I need to do is add the skete.com/htm tag, not the limited one. But if I want to use an image from Wikimedia commons, I believe I'm supposed to use both the commons tag and whatever other tag the page has (GNU, public domain, creative commons, etc.). Is this correct? Gabriela 16:04, June 3, 2006 (CDT)
OW discussions need consolidation
I think we've got a few too many "Discussion pages" on OrthodoxWiki. Every article has a discussion page, so shouldn't we just focus on one or two "first stop" discussion pages and then point to the others from there? Otherwise, the community gets splintered and there's no central meeting place. Wikipedia has a Village pump for it's central meeting place. We could convert one of the existing discussion pages here (e.g. OrthodoxWiki:Questions) into a central pump that everyone can get used to visiting regularly to check up on the pulse of the wiki. The intro on the page can read something like
Please use this as a jumping-off point for any question or point you'd like to raise. It is recommended that you start a discussion on a page relating to your question first; then link to it from here if you're not getting enough participation.
In the future, we may want to break up the "pump" into the currently divided pages, but for now, I don't think we've got a big enough crowd to warrant that many different "Discussion pages". Instead, I would be glad to go ahead and do some massive archiving and page merges to centralize the discussion (including merging most of the content from Talk:Main Page); I'll go into details on that if I end up getting some positive feedback on this topic. Another idea is to have an additional page that periodically consolidates any "Ongoing issues" that haven't been resolved on the main "pump"; this is how we do it at Wikible.
This is related to the OrthodoxWiki:Categories discussion you're having, too. That page is an example of a topic that doesn't need it's own "Discussion page" linked from the Community Portal. Just create something like Category:Categories (the root category at Wikipedia) and use its discussion page. I would be glad to help structure a nice OrthodoxWiki category tree.
While I'm here, let me just say a big thanks to everyone's efforts at OrthodoxWiki. It's exciting to be working with people who have both the skills and commitment to make such a great website to the glory of Jesus Christ! --J. J. 10:05, August 11, 2006 (CDT)
- I think this is a great idea, especially for the more general (non-article specific) discussions. Many of the regulars, I expect, keep up with all the various discussions via RSS or the Recent Changes page, but a more centralized system would be helpful. I'm not yet convinced about the need for a detailed category tree, although I'm definitely open to the idea. We already have Special:Categories, for example, and the Main Page functions as a kind of root-level for a category tree. I'd love to hear from some of the other sysops on this (and anyone else who wants to chime in). Finally, thanks for your kind words about OrthodoxWiki! Fr. John
- P.S. Hope you don't mind that I quoted your comment here.
- Hehe, I saw that quote. If I had the foresight, I would have come up with something more intellectual to say; too late now ;-) I've never been a fan of Special:Categories since there is no taxonomy associated with it (other than being in alphabetical order, of course). --J. J. 12:31, August 11, 2006 (CDT)
- We honestly don't really use these discussion pages all that much, probably because the admins have the listserv. Consolidation here is fine with me, though not if we're talking about the individual talk pages for articles. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 14:20, August 11, 2006 (CDT)
- Against. What kind of consolidation are we talking about? ISTM that talk pages for specific article pages are so because they are about that specific article. Combining this with the unfortunate fact that people often don't know the OW standard for talk pages (tabs, sigs), and for the foreseeable future this will continue to be the case, article talk pages seem to be the best way to go.
- That being said, consolidating the smaller talk pages, considering that most of the issues raised have been sorted, would avoid this problem. However, either way it's a lot of effort, and I honestly don't think it's worth it: there are no security issues, no space issues; in short, it's all about aesthetics, and it's a lot of work by someone for little benefit and what will amount to being inconvenient consolidation archiving. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 17:13, August 11, 2006 (CDT)