Theopedia talk:Community Portal

From Theopedia

Contents 1 Focusing on articles 1.1 Categories 2 Featured collaboration? 3 New Testament studies category? 4 updated the community portal... 5 Community Projects 6 Projects 6.1 Addition of project pages 6.2 Ideas for how to structure projects 7 Added project page - Creation

[edit] Focusing on articles

Is anyone interested in focusing especially on a half-dozen pages per week? -Aaronshaf 10:01, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Sure. Put up a list of what you find needs the most focus. JordanBarrett 13:50, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

I personally think we should fill in some basic gaps under God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Salvation, Christian living and Bible. -Aaronshaf 13:53, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Explain "fill in the gaps". Do you simply mean "make the articles more complete", or what? JordanBarrett 14:11, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Yes, that and to write substantial articles for the obvious stubs. -Aaronshaf 14:12, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Ok, I'll make that a main priority in my editing. While at work I don't have as many resources as when I do at home (just the internet), so edits at work may be more random. Also, the GRE is in 2 weeks, so I can't promise a ton of time between now and then. After the GRE I will have much more time, and I'll focus first on God, then Jesus, Holy Spirit, Salvation, Bible, and then Christian living. JordanBarrett 14:48, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

[edit] Categories

Since you mentioned the article on Jesus Christ, I have a question. How are we supposed to utilize "Categories"? To me a category should be obvious and simply list the associated pages -- for example, Theologians, or Baptists, or Protestant Denominations, or some such as that. If Jesus Christ is an appropriate category (and it may certainly be), I think the "category" should contain the list, but there should be a stand alone article of the same title. It seems odd to type in Jesus Christ and be taken to a category. Categories are usually listed at the bottom of a page and one goes to a Category list intentionally, not unintentionally. Thoughts? Gomarus 14:05, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Good call. Lets get that figured out. JordanBarrett 14:11, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

"Category pages exist to be a convenient cross-reference to related articles and other categories. A category page should contain a brief description of the purpose of the category. A prominent link to the most important article in the category is usually a good idea, but please avoid copying large quantities of text or images from an article to a category page." [1]

Okay, this seems like the best thing to do, althoug I don't know a good way to include easy links to the articles in the main page. The category link is at the bottom, but not an easy segway (sp?) to find. -Aaronshaf 14:21, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

We definitely don't want to list all the articles in a category... in the "see also" section of a main page, but it looks like we'll at least have to put some main-related articles under it. Thoughts? -Aaronshaf 14:29, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Here's a thought on the Jesus Christ issue. Make the Category Title = Christology. Christology can exist as a separate article (if needed) AND as a Category. After all, Christology = the study of Christ. Gomarus 14:31, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Also, if I look at Francis Turretin at the bottom of the page it shows he is in the category of Theologians. If I want to see all other listed Theologians, I click there. If I look at Hypostatic Union, I would see it is in the Category Christology -- where I could find all other articles in that category. That's all a category needs to do. Gomarus 14:35, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Another thing I've done a few times is under the "see also", put "Category:Christology", and it provides a link. That way, if newer users don't know to click "christology" below to link to the category page, it is more obvious under the "see also". From there they will hopefully get the hang of how categories work. JordanBarrett 14:41, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Sounds good to me, although I have reserverations on using "Christology" instead of "Jesus Christ". It just seems like a needless linguistical way of alienating the common laymen. Thoughts? -Aaronshaf 14:43, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Well, I see your point. However, "Christology" seems close enough for someone to recognize "Christ" in it, and if we put in the Christology Category that it refers to the study of Christ, this enables them to learn. Christology is more recognizable than say, Pneumatology, or Harmatology (sp?). JordanBarrett 14:48, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

But if we follow the pattern of using the "ology" words, won't we end up using "Harmatology"? What an awful word :) If we're going to cater to normal folks, shouldn't we just stick to "sin" and "Holy Spirit" and "Jesus Christ"? Can't entries like "Christology" have a brief description of the word, and then a link to the real page? -Aaronshaf 14:52, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

In the end I could go either way.  :) And yes, Harmatology is an awful word, what's up with those Greek speakers? Anyways, Gomarus, if you're good with "Jesus Christ" as the category name, I am too. Either way. JordanBarrett 14:56, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

On a side note, if Christology may be too much for some, I would recommend changing the title of some of the articles for the attributes of God. Or at the least, rather than list section titles as "omniscience", list it as "God knows all things" and then link it to an article called the "omniscience of God". JordanBarrett 14:51, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

That sounds stellar... I LIKE IT. -Aaronshaf 14:52, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

I mean, it doesn't sound realistic to rename articles of the attributes of God, but renaming the section titles sounds great. -Aaronshaf 14:54, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

[edit] Featured collaboration?

What is this list supposed to signify? JordanBarrett 14:53, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Articles that we'd all like to make a point to work on... as a group... articles we're all focusing on. -Aaronshaf 14:55, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

It'd be good to add a book of the Bible to the list. -Aaronshaf 14:57, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Anyone got an itch to help work on the Gospel of John (I'm assuming it implies work on various chapter articles). -Aaronshaf 14:59, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

Already added it, and that's because I'd like to work on it.  :) JordanBarrett 15:13, 1 Nov 2005 (EST)

[edit] New Testament studies category?

I know, I know. I want to categorize all the pages on Theopedia. Anyways, there are some that I can't think of specific categories for, or that won't produce pages relating to itself. For example, Gomarus' fine page "NT Text. Crit.". I doubt we'll have a ton of pages relating to this, so it may not be a good to makea "Textual Criticism" page. Is New Testament Studies too broad? It could prove to have too many articles in it, however, if we only place this category on articles that are topics in NT Studies it may in fact work. What do you guys think? JordanBarrett 13:24, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)

[edit] updated the community portal...

...it kind of looked all alone by itself while all the other pages were getting attention. what do ya guys think of the changes? --Tom 22:11, 19 March 2006 (EST)

I think it looks awesome! Very cool stuff. Thanks! JordanBarrett (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (EST)

Ooops. I jumped in and made some edits to internal links that may be premature. I didn't realize Jordan was creating a How to edit a page page, and changed link to the How to contribute page. Is the How to contribute page going to stay in existence? There also seems to be some overlap with these and the Writing Guide. I am starting to get confused, and perhaps a newbie would also. Let's try to get clear and distinct on these pages. Jim, Gomarus 08:05, 20 March 2006 (EST)

Also, How to contribute and How to start a page seem like redundant titles, or could perhaps be combined into one. However, don't take my comments too negatively. I think everything is being improved. I love the Portal page and think it is the ideal place to bring everything mentioned above together and given a proper context for the new contributer. Jim (Gomarus 08:12, 20 March 2006 (EST))

Go check out Help TALK:Contents. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2006 (EST)

[edit] Community Projects

Hi folks,

I'd like to suggest the following topics for "Community Projects:"

• Emergent church: not because I understand this topic, but because you guys put a lot of energy into it, and it seems (from the number of links to Theopedia on Google) to be an important world resource site on the topic.
• Spiritual Counterfeits: to recognize and broaden the work that you guys have done on Mormonism, for example, perhaps to include liberal theology, New Age, etc.
• Apologetics: because I think we should assume that people will come to this site for a "reformed" perspective on the faith in the same way that they might go to the Catholic Encyclopedia for a Catholic perspective. So I would recommend that we make apologetics a community project. My Misconceptions about Christian beliefs section was meant to be one apologetical (is that a word?) entry point.

Also, when I follow the links to some of our main "projects" (e.g. God the Father), they seem to be single pages, and not very big ones at that. Do they really rank as projects? Or should they be listed as part of a bigger projects?

Not meaning to rock the boat -- just asking!

Mike Mrd 22:28, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

[edit] Projects

[edit] Addition of project pages

Hey guys, I don't want to start coming in here and changing how you guys do everything, but I do have an observation. Having joined just last week, the first thing I wanted to do was address specific needs that Theopedia had. I finally today found the Community Portal, which was helpful in that it pointed to the articles that needed help, but the discussion pages didn't give tons of direction as to what was needed. I would love to start something like "project pages" (similar to WikiProject Christianity), that cover what needs to be done among a group of pages. (e.g., "Project Salvation" might cover salvation, atonement, redemption, soteriology, etc.) Alternatively, something simpler--an internal page, like "Theopedia:Salvation," which lists in a more structured format than discussion pages what needs to be done on that particular page.Raymond Rishty 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. A heads up too: the projects or articles listed there are very, very old. That doesn't mean they still don't need work, but I imagine it could be updated or refreshed. It seems right now that most admins are still limited with time, so we'll do our best to keep up with you guys. :) Jordan Barrett (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess my thing with this is that I'd guess there are others like me, who have joined on here, and didn't know where to start editing, and so haven't done anything. I don't know if you guys have many people join and don't do anything, but it seems that there aren't that many people editing here, and providing some direction would really help get people doing stuff. Raymond Rishty (talk)

[edit] Ideas for how to structure projects

Some ideas:

1. It seems to me that conversations (where old statements are rarely changed) generally go on the article talk page, but collaborative work (where a number of users are changing the information) generally goes on the project page.
2. Perhaps it would be good to select a focus for work. We could select such a focus in many ways (e.g. which articles are most essential, which are most visible, which most need cleanup).
3. Can we have an "Active article" category/template for articles upon which users are actively working? This way articles in flux could be identified, and we would have more collaboration. The "parameter" (or whatever you call the text after the | sign) for such a template could be the name of the user, and the template would probably be featured on the talk page for the article as opposed to the actual article.
4. Also an "Active conversation" category might be useful. Sometimes, there are conversations on talk pages which have never been closed that just sit and gather dust; frequently these become obsolete. It would be good if there were some way to find the conversations which are still waiting for input.
5. Perhaps there should be a distinction between a general project page (Theopedia:God) and the page detailing work just for the article God. One suggestion I have is that we could put pages representing collaboration on an actual article in the "subdirectory" - e.g. Theopedia:God/God. I think it could become cumbersome to list all the information for work on an article in the project page. Perhaps we should only list a brief summary of the status of the article on the project page. I'm not terribly familiar to how other sites do this.

--Alex Woehr 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added project page - Creation

I just added Theopedia:Creation. This probably should be absorbed into a Theopedia:Providence page or a Theopedia:Decrees of God page or something like that - I don't think either of those specific suggestions would probably work. Creation is very important to God's relation to His creation (this is a section stub); maybe we should construct a page called God's relation to His creation. --Alex Woehr 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think all of those other articles fall under Creation (it could even be argued that creation falls under the doctrine of God). Anyways, I think articles like providence, God's relation to the world, etc. should fall under the creation article. Then again, I keep thinking that creation is part of divine action which tells us something of who God is. Perhaps it could work like this...

God

Creation

Providence

God's relation to the world

Creation is then a sub-doctrine (for lack of better words - I'm up for other ones) of God, and yet providence - being related to who God is - still falls under creation yet is in the big picture still under the doctrine of God. Just some thoughts. Jordan Barrett (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)