Changes

I was just thinking about something. If we call this All of Easton's Bible Dictionary...that's okay. But as we review has been uploaded, and edit and add to it (you know, do those things that make a wiki a wiki) it will eventually can be quite different from the original EBD. Maybe we should change the name to "WikiChristianaccessed through [[Easton's Bible Dictionary" and just say that it is BASED on the EBDIndex]]. That way a year or two down the road, when It would be excellent if we've edited things with it...we are still acurrate in the name. What does everyone think? Also, by linking to the external EBD we still give people a chance to see the original text of the EBDcould eventually wikify this. --[[User:CparkGraham grove|CparkGraham grove]] 0822:3910, 11 Mar 2005 22 September 2006 (PSTPDT)

----Hi Cpark. I guess this message is mainly concerned for me, I think it makes perfect sense to change the name since the idea was to develop a free wiki bible dictionary. Since we do not want to reinvent the wheelAquatiki and Kathleen, we would like to use what ever is already plus anyone else interested in the Easton's Bible Dictionary. All public domain. EBD is one of the Bible Dictionaries texts that exist in the PD but there WikiChristian or that are others also. We will change the name to be copied into WikiChristian's [[Free are being moved into the new text namespace. This includes Easton Bible Dictionary]] or in short FBDentries. Thanks This raises the question of what the naming convention should be for the excellent pointthese pages. We need to think ahead while naming our projectsAs you know, like in this situationthere was no original standard with some being named "Free Bible Dictionary:Name of Entry", so that, when the wiki evolves, it does not have to change the name. [[Userothers being named "Bible Dictionary:Prab|Prab]] 6Name of Entry" and still others being named "Easton's Bible Dictionary:45 PM, 11 Mar 2005 Name of Entry" but these were standardized to to "Name of entry (ESTEBD) Prab, I think this makes sense. I looked through the recent changes and I was like..."wow." Thanks for saving me the trouble of moving most of the stuff! One last question....do we want the FBD pages But now this needs to link be changed to be in line with the main article (ietext namespace. So, the options that I can think of include "AbrahamText:EBD:Name of Entry") or do we want them to link to the FBD page (ie "Free_Bible_DictionaryText:Easton's Bible Dictionary:AbrahamName of Entry") I know . Are there any other options that in some cases we have a great number people can think of articles written about someone (take Peter for instance. The I think my personal favourite is "Peter" article links to GrahamText:Easton's article on the papacy, a short biography Bible Dictionary:Name of Peter, and eventually it will also link to the FBD article on Peter. So, in my thinking weEntry" but I'll want the FBD index pages to just link directly to m happy with either of the FBD article and save users an extra clickabove options...but what does everyone else What do others think? --[[User:CparkGraham grove|CparkGraham grove]] 0714:0035, 12 Mar 2005 3 October 2008 (PSTPDT) *We've had many of the same issues at Theowiki (see [http://www.theowiki.com/index.php/Talk:Easton%27s_Bible_Dictionary#Relationship_to_WikiSource.3F In the interest of typing three letters versus 25 characters, I vote EBD talk page]). I think we did it well by We weren't typing 'not'Jeremiah (Easton' creating special EBD (or Free s Bible Dictionary) entry names. Since you're modifying EBD entries anyway, it's probably better to do away with the FBD altogether since WikiChristian itself but ''is'' your FBD Jeremiah (for that matter, don't bother recreating SmithEBD)'s and maybe even Hitchcock's sources). Does that make sense? '''I do recommend, though, helping to create an untouched version What other criteria can you think of EBD on [http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page:English Wikisource]''', a site I hadn't thought about using for original sources until recently; including Bibles, of which they [http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Religious_texts#Bible already have a few]! judging? --[[User:RockOfVictoryAquatiki|J. J.Aquatiki]] 0913:1402, 10 May 2005 4 October 2008 (PDT)**An issue that :: True. EBD is a lot simpler. I have been thinking about when can't think of any reason it comes to links between wikis is that it takes people shouldn'offsite' with no links bringing them backt be simply "EBD". I think this is an inherent problem Shall we go with consolidating resources in one place. that then? --[[User:MustaphileGraham grove|MustaphileGraham grove]] 1413:5138, 10 May 2005 4 October 2008 (PDT)