Template talk:Categorybrowsebar

From Theopedia

Contemporary issues removed

Contemporary issues is not getting worked on at all, however, I think it'd be much better to work on such articles as the church and have our bases covered. I realize I've said "we should work on this and that..." and so I don't mean to try and stretch ourselves too thin. But I do want to bring attention to "needy" articles (e.g. church among others). JordanBarrett (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2006 (PDT)

Also, I meant to mention that I think the article on the church should have the front page, so I chose to give up contemporary issues. JordanBarrett (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2006 (PDT)

User-friendly revisions

Regardless of whether or not we choose articles or categories for the main topics here, I would recommend changing the italicized line(s)—why is the second italicized line not in this template? I think we are missing some major categories—and we're including some topics that are too narrow. Please consider these humble suggestions!

(1) To begin with, the italicized line should probably have a link to the "root" categories page, which we should probably develop! I would model this after Wikipedia's Categories.

[You can add comments to each paragraph, if you like.]

(2) "Church History" should be within "Church"; we don't need both. The italicized "Biographies" and "Online Theological Journals" would probably go under one of these two topics instead of being listed here, as well.

I would object to this, only because, to me, Church History and Ecclesiology are two different topics. We used "church" because ecclesiology is a $10 word to some people. JordanBarrett (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(3) I think we do need a Contemporary issues area (nothing links to it right now). Either that or include the standard "Current events" link in the main nav menu (under "Community portal").

(4) Do we really need "Copyright", "Disclaimers", and "Privacy policy"? I would think that we could just use the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom for all three. By the way, the GNU link in the footer needs to be fixed.

(5) "How to Contribute" and "Writing Guide" are also redundant.

I agree. They need to somehow be integrated together, yet not make the page look over-bearing. JordanBarrett (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(6) I've mentioned the possibility of moving to a local "Village pump" instead of the external /forum. If we did make this change, we could remove the forum link, or use something like [[Theopedia:Village pump|Forum]] instead; the Forum link in the main nav box on the left could probably be removed in this case, as well.

I must admit that I'd like to keep the forum (and thus link to it still) so that theological debates can be taken up on those pages rather than on discussion pages. JordanBarrett (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As an example of the failings of the current template, I recently attempted to categorize The Gospel According to John (film). "Christian Living" or the removed "Contemporary issues" were the closest places I could find to link to it. How do visitors find books, music, and other entertainment topics? --J. J. 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion - not representing the overall view of Theopedians - I don't think Theopedia is the place to come for entertainment based articles. We seem to be primarily theological, historical (that is, church history), and biographical, and again, as this all relates to theology and Scripture. Perhaps this is where having other Christian wikis comes into play. JordanBarrett (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, shoot. You're just changing your mind on everything ;-) I would like to hear others' opinions since Theopedia is "a comprehensive encyclopedia on all things Christian." While entertainment-based articles may not be theological, they're a good draw for site visitors and a big part of most Christians' lives to begin with. --J. J. 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Either we need to start encompassing a broader selection of articles, or we need to change our subtitle to be clear that it is primarily theology and the christian life that we are concerned with here. JordanBarrett (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)