User talk:Joe Rodgers
Thanks to Kevin Basil, I can be found quite often in the #orthodoxy channel on lplug.org. Talk to me there if you would like. I go by the name, WPU.
Don't know about IRC? You could learn if you want.
I don't much mind what you do with your own Talk page, but would you mind not erasing those of other articles? It's helpful to see where we've been and why we've done what we've done.
- I will gladly abide by the decision of the sysops. What is everyone else's opinion? I talked with another sysop (I won't mention their name) who seemed to agree that things get a little cluttered, cloudy, or outdated in discussion pages.
- My own thoughts are that if articles can be trimmed and made more concise, why can't talk pages? I like having an archive, but if a situation has been addressed then I personally think it makes things cluttered to keep them around. The discussion is archived in the changelog/history. My two cents. --Joe Rodgers 18:54, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Wikipedia's usual approach (not that we have to do everything they do) is to make archival subpages when the given talk page gets too long. Sorting through a history can be extremely difficult and time consuming, especially if one isn't looking for something in particular but rather simply wants to know what the discussion regarding a given article has been.
I don't think this has ever been discussed between the sysops. I'm just one of them and by no means chief among them. We can certainly put it up for discussion, though, which I've done on OrthodoxWiki:Administrators. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 19:09, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- I think one reason to keep a record of resolved issues is that others who think of similar (or the same) issues can see for themselves that it has been resolved, without having to rehash arguments, for instance when a style decision has been made. —magda 20:27, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Good point Magda. However, I think that if the style decision is explicit enough it could detail the reasons why a decision was made over another. --Joe Rodgers 20:59, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Re: Patron Saint
It's a good question, Joe. I'm not sure who that would be. Let me think about this some more. I don't think we should change the name of the site to "St. so-and-so Orthodox Encyclopedia", but I wouldn't be adverse to seeking the intercession of an appropriate patron. Do you or others have any suggestions? Fr. John
"God the..." redirects
Another comment... It strikes me that in Orthodox theology, it is not so common to refer to Jesus as "God the Son" or the Holy Spirit as "God the Holy Spirit." There is a good reason for this, too. According to Orthodox Trinitarian theology as I learnt it, "God" is not so much identified with the essence held in common by the three persons, but more properly identified with God the Father, from whom both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their divinity. This is why, e.g., in the Creed, Jesus is "God from God" and God the Father is so often refered to in our liturgy as "the unorginate Father" or "the Father without beginning" (the Son and the Holy Spirit are originate, not in time, but ontologically, albeit not in a way that makes their divinity any lesser).
My suggestion would be to remove the redirects. I don't think they're really necessary, and even if another article links to the phrase "God the..." it would be easy enough just to make the words link directly to the main page in question. - Fr. John 14:09, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
P.S. When are you becoming Orthodox? :-)
- Thank you Father. I think you make a very good point. Please feel free to remove the redirects (I don't know if I am allowed). I am building the introduction article and am looking for any suggestions you could give. I guess it would be good to eventually do a search for "God the.." and make sure the links are pointing in the right directions. Thanks for your help. Quite a question you pose there at the end. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe ( talk » inspect » chat )]] 14:16, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
My concern about the Church Life category is that it could logically end up getting used for absolutely everything, which would make it useless as a category. Ideally, every article should be in a category, but some just don't quite seem to fit into the more obvious categories (e.g., Liturgics, Church History, etc.), so the Church Life category was created.
I have read the discussion in the category Talk, but I honestly wasn't sure what was being suggested, especially because there weren't already articles already existing to put into the categories (which is what Magda seemed to be saying, too). My own philosophy WRT categories is that they should be created to include an actual group of developed articles, probably at least three.
A category for "Home Life" (as opposed to "Church Life") also seems, well, secularist—i.e., at least suggesting that what was going on at one's home was in some sense not "Church."
Church Calendar, etc.
Well, it's something (I think) I know how to do, and I like getting familiar with the saints' names. (Did I mention I love having a job with internet access and free time?) I'm glad you're enjoying my busyness. I took a break after finishing June and the first week of July, and thought it would be nice to finish July before my husband and I go on vacation. —magda 16:05, 6 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Ideally, writing a full article with quotes embedded into the text would be best. But if you just want to include some quotations, perhaps a handful in a separate section would be good. I wouldn't get too crazy with it, though—maybe no more than a half dozen. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 17:21, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)