WikiChristian:Village pump/Archive 1

From WikiChristian
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is the main discussion forum for WikiChristian. Please bring up any technical or organizational topics here.

Offer of inclusion of a Wikibook "Christianity"

Hello,
A couple of days ago I set up a wikibook for Christianity under wikipedia at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Christianity
I was browsing today to see if any search engines know about it, and I stumbled across this wiki site when searching yahoo. It looks to me that you've only recently set this up. It seems that a couple of people (apart from me) have started contributing to the wikibook I set up - it's still very small however. I'm wondering if you think I should move my articles over into your wiki and redirect anyone who browses my wiki to yours. Or perhaps the wikibook I've started doesn't quite fit into what you had envisaged for this wiki, in which case, I won't make any changes.
I'm not particularly familiar with communicating in wiki, so I hope you find this message. Could you let me know if I should move my articles into this wiki site or not; let me know via my email, you'll find my email address at http://www.users.on.net/~graham_grove/contact.htm
I've written a brief summary of why I set up the wikibook "Christianity" at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/About_this_wikibook%2C_%22Christianity%22

Thanks
Graham Grove
Jaunary 15 2005

Graham
To declare an interest - I am an atheist - but I am not here to vandalise, far from it!
Why am I here then?

Though an atheist I find Christianity of great interest, as the most influential single idea of the last 2,000 years. I acknowledge the debt of all modern thinkers to the work of Christian theologists and philosophers.

Apart from contributing an article on atheism, and possibly one on arguments for the existence of God, I have a certain amount of knowledge of Christianity and can contribute to historical articles, though not on doctrinal matters such as the trinity, which passeth my (if not all) understanding. That is, I can DESCRIBE such matters but not from within, and not with the understanding that comes from faith.

I am not sure what form you intend this "wikipedia" to take. Your articles are in the 1st person. Whilst this is appropriate for a faith based largely on revalation and personal experience of God, I imagined an encylopedia of Christianity to be more like, say, the Catholic Encyclopedia, giving a more objective, 3rd person view (but still having a definite pro-Christian point of view). Of course a Christian encyclopedia will have to accomodate a wide variety of points of view so will have to, when addressing controversial issues (transubstantiation, the trinity, immaculate conception) present rival views extremely carefully. Now this could be done by having 1st person articles by those with different views - or a 3rd person article describing the rival views. --Exile 07:30, 3 Feb 2005 (PST)
Hi Exile,
I just read through your articles on atheism. Good work. Thanks for contributing. My vision of ChristianWiki is not for it to be a replica of wikipedia. I've also looked befeore at the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I don't believe that WikiChristian should follow a similar format either. For faith based issues, everyone has different opinions, so every-one should be able to write about their beliefs and opinions (1st person articles as you say). Like you say, it's also good that people write articles describing differing views. (Of course, the problem is there is always someone who is unhappy with how a particular opinion is being portrayed. But I hope instead of a person overwriting or changing another person's article [unless it is clearly trying to incite anger or is obviously factually incorrect], that the person just writes another alternative article on the same topic). I hope you don't mind, but I moved your articles into a sub-location so that other people can write articles on the same topic, without having to change yours.
OK. I see what your aim is now. In this context my article may not have been appropriate as it was more in the vein of wikipedia, trying (if not succeeding) to present an objective rather than personal view. I may be able to provide a contribution to an "existence of God" section, looking at the various arguments (ontological, intelligent design and so on). Not sure I could contribute much elsewhere as so much of Christianity is dependent on the "axiom" of the existence of a God who loves humanity. Atheists do debate such things as the historicity of Jesus etc but such a point of view probably doesn't belong here. --Exile 08:49, 4 Feb 2005 (PST)
Exile, I'm not sure that third person objective articles would be out of place here. From what I can see there is a bit of both...and I think that is good, to have both personal experience articles, as well as perhaps a main article (or at least an article somewhere) that is more objective, inclusive, etc, etc...Just my thoughts. --Cpark 10:47, 4 Feb 2005 (PST)

MediaWiki 1.5.4 is available

Just a note to the website administrator, as of this comment, MediaWiki 1.5.4 is available. I would highly recommend the upgrade, especially since the site is still running on 1.3.9. Have a merry Christmas! --Ymmotrojam 03:23, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)

The previous logo, a sunflower, looked rather pagan to me. So I was pleasantly surprised to see a more relevant logo. Nevertheless, I would have considered it more appropriate had the Holy Bible be shown as an open' rather than a closed book... 05:24, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

WikiChristian in addition to Wikipedia Christian articles?

I have previously expressed that I consider it a mistake to have a separate WikiChristian. Logically this calls for the setting up of WikiJudaism, WikiIslam etc (I have not checked, maybe work on them is already under way). It seems to me to go against the aim of the founder of Wikipedia which I understand is to have one centralised encyclopedic source for all knowledge. At present the Christian articles in Wikipedia have sub-chapters presenting divergent teachings of various Christian denominations as well as non-Christian religions on the same subject. This is one of Wikipedia's finest achievements. Or is going to be, I hope, once it is all finished. Right now I am by no means always happy with the quality of what I see on my occasional visits to Wikipedia; but I commend the format and appreciate the enormous effort that goes into bringing the material together in this way, and protecting it subsequently, and have high hopes for the final result.

Furthermore, to be practical, many a qualified contributor will not have the time to contribute to two sources on the same subjects and then to watch over them what someone less qualified perhaps makes of them. This is a problem already in Wikipedia, for example, when there is one article on a book, another on its author, a third on his fan club, to generalise the issue. Since Wikipedia insists that the articles need to be self-contained, so to speak, because they may be freely quoted elsewhere where the cross-referencing does not work, this means that already a contributor says much the same in more than one place. Now, to do the same in a separate WikiChristian? Will it not lower the standard? I have done some useful brushing up of some material where I know what I am saying and then had a tough time repairing subsequent edits by others whose do-gooding was not matched by an equal amount of specialist knowledge. I most certainly would not want to go through the same process in two encyclopedias. Life is too short; and I do have a life, and very much so. In fact, having burnt much midnight oil and used up vast quantities of elbow grease contributing sound edits and then endlessly defending them, especially against editors with a different agenda, this modus operandi finally caused me to give up the idea of contributing articles or even just major edits to Wikipedia. Occasionally, over a sandwich or cup of coffee, I still pay a brief visit to Wikipedia and either am appalled by the result of some big-headed ignorance or bias that I find, or delighted at efforts attributable to brave soldiering on; but I no longer think it feasible for me to try to help to pull the cart out of the mud, if that's where it is at that moment of my visit. (If I am alone with this reaction, then I would like to hear the secret of where others find the necessary time.) I suggest that the present Wikipedia articles on Christian subjects show that, with suitable sub-headings, even the intended aim of WikiChristian can be incorporated. And that of Judaism, Islam, and indeed any religion that feels they have something to contribute, e.g. Hinduism on the Trinity (Trimurti). But let all Wiki efforts be inclusive rather than divisive. The great point of Wikipedia is that the contributors are asked to agree to disagree (NPOV) so that its readers can make up their own mind. Dividing the efforts means placing the intended effectiveness of Wikipedia in jeopardy. Rally round Wikipedia to achieve its founder's aim! 05:24, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

I think the issue of NPOV on Wikipedia is a contentious one for editors of religious based articles. Christians do have a point of view that is not shared by all. To present a subject from a Christian point of view is exactly what this wiki does, without having to cater to the ideological/semantic concerns of those who have a differing POV outside of Christianity. Wikipedia has its own set of goals and concerns that are not really related to the goals and concerns of WikiChristian. WikiChristian will host articles that would never even be considered by Wikipedia. Additionally it will categorise articles in ways that are more relevant to Christian content. I strongly doubt that the existence of WikiChristian is in anyway a threat to the Wikipedia nor will it place in jeopardy the religious based articles on Wikipedia. In terms of comparing the scale of Wikipedia to the scale of WikiChristian, we are talking about comparing a mountain to a mole hill. Wikipedia is a huge and complex endeavour, with thousands of editors. WikiChristian by comparison is a minnow amongst wikis. There really is no comparison to be made. --Mustaphile 08:01, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)

Question on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiChristian

Collaborative Project (First Samuel)

I've kick started a collaborative project with a fairly simple and easily attainable goal. The completion of First Samuel in the Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible article. Please see the Community Portal Collaborative Projects notice for further information. --Mustaphile 14:11, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

Welcome Stranger

Someone may be impersonating User:Mustaphile. Totally uncharacteristic. Athrash | {Talk) 00:04, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, they signed up with my nickname, but substituted a capital 'i' for the lowercase 'l' in my nickname. The way the fonts look on the screen its barely noticeable. :) --Mustaphile 02:42, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

Wikichristian Editing Permissions

I see that we are facing significant amount of spam in the wiki. One of dealing with is to restrict unlogged user's ability to edit pages. While it does restrict unregistered users to edit pages, it does prevent spam bots and other not so serious spammers. Please leave your comments about this idea on this page.

--69.136.74.78 16:48, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

I think it would be a worthwile move to limit editing to registered users only. --Mustaphile 00:41, 13 May 2006 (PDT)


I went ahead and made the required change so that only logged in users can edit pages. We will see how this works for awhile. If we decide latter to change this setting, we can always do so. Please leave your comments here.

--Prab 01:42, 13 May 2006 (PDT)

moving should only be for sysops

I would highly suggest that moving pages be restricted to sysops and higher only. We've been getting a lot of mass-moving-vandalism lately, and it isn't important enough for regular users to have that ability with what has been happening. my two cents --Tom 22:17, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I think its a good point. I didn't know it was possible myself. The current activity in terms of editing is not of such a high quantity that sysops couldn't keep up with move requests. We could make a special move request page and handle those ourselves. If at some stage in the future the volume of moves requested grows, perhaps we could look at renabling users to move pages. --Mustaphile 22:54, 19 May 2006 (PDT)
to whoever has access to the server, you would need to add this to the LocalSettings.php file in order to turn off moving for regular users...
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['move'] = false;
--Tom 23:01, 19 May 2006 (PDT)
Thanks for that, Tom. Perhaps you could give Prab a heads up on his talk page concerning this message. --Mustaphile 23:03, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Images

Hi Prab,

I've noticed that there seems to be problems with pictures. Thumbnails and resizing images do not seem to work. Is ImageMagick installed? Is there something else that needs to be done? --Graham grove 18:29, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

Side-bar

Although the side-bar at the left with all the links can be useful, I think it is too large and cumbersome, and makes the "Search" function difficult to reach. I suggest that we minimise the links on the left hand side. Thoughts? --Graham grove 09:08, 28 July 2006 (PDT)

I say we should just take it back to the default, and then decide what should be there. If no one disagrees, I'll make the change at 1:30pm eastern time. --Tom 09:41, 28 July 2006 (PDT)
Excellent. That would be great. --Graham grove 09:47, 28 July 2006 (PDT)
PS - By the way, if you know how to do that, then maybe you know how to get it so we can upload images and resize them and use thumbnails - none of these features seem to be working. --Graham grove 09:47, 28 July 2006 (PDT)
That would require Prab, but anyone that is a sysop can edit the sidebar by going to MediaWiki:Sidebar --Tom 09:49, 28 July 2006 (PDT)
Much better. --Graham grove 10:06, 28 July 2006 (PDT)

Staying up to date with MediaWiki

If WikiChristian is going to survive in the fast paced world today, it really needs to stay up to date with the latest Wiki technology. Currently it is two MediaWiki version branches behind the latest stable version. I also realize that the server does not have the latest versions of MySQL and PHP which are required by the latest MediaWiki, which may be the reason WikiChristian has not been upgraded yet, but I think we should make this a priority! --Tom 12:38, 28 July 2006 (PDT)

Fixing bugs

It has been mentioned previously (scroll up to the comment about images), but we should really try to nail down the bugs with the server. There's nothing worse than a website that anyone can edit, but no one can edit it because of internal bugs. I could probably fix them in 30 minutes if I had access to the server, but I don't. I'll start a to-do list of bugs that need fixing, feel free to add to it. --Tom 12:46, 28 July 2006 (PDT)

  • Images (we should be able to upload and resize without errors)
  • Spam (really, this could be a thing of the past)
    There's captchas, registration blacklists, user creation logs, and keyword blacklists avilable that could be implemented to pretty much stop all spam
    Yes, there are many things people propose that are intended to reduce spam -- but too many of them are more hassle than they are worth. There's a long discussion at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiSpamSolutions unsigned comment by DavidCary (talkcontribs)
  • Possibly many are more hassle, but they can also be configured to be the same protection, but less of a hassle. For example, on Wikible, you have to enter a captcha (code in a image), if you are an anonymous user, and you add a link to an external website. Registered users don't have to deal with this, and it's only when they add a link. They can easily add other content without being bothered by it. That's one example where it can be highly effective, not too obtrusive, and give somewhat of an incentive to register. --Tom 08:47, 29 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Search results reveal a blank page! --J. J. 18:13, 31 July 2006 (PDT)
  • I'd really like to see the index.php removed from the URL, too.[1] Prab, get in here and help us out! --J. J. 18:13, 31 July 2006 (PDT)

moving text from other wiki

If no one objects, I plan to move text from http://wikiindex.com/Category:Christians to Christian, leaving behind a link to http://wikichristian.org/index.php/Christian . (See http://wikiindex.com/Category_talk:Christians ).

Is there a standard policy on moving stuff from other wiki into WikiChristian, or from WikiChristian to some other wiki?

--DavidCary 08:00, 29 July 2006 (PDT)

basically it's cite your source, and be sure that it is released in the public domain, there are no conflicts with any TOS, or that it is released under the GFDL :-) --Tom 08:40, 29 July 2006 (PDT)
Doesn't the GFDL allow copying from one GFDL to another without needed to cite? It may make sense to mention that it's from Wikipedia, etc., but not required, right? EDIT: Scratch that. I just read up on the GFDL a little more; see this Wikipedia policy for the licensing in layman's terms. --J. J. 20:03, 31 July 2006 (PDT)

Some major changes NEED to happen

If this wiki is going to surive, some big organizational things need to happen. I've heard the discussion on that WikiChristian doesn't want to be a copy of Wikipedia, but that just doesn't work and is creating chaos. Here are my suggestions. Please comment within a few days whether you like them or not, otherwise I will just start doing it myself.

  • Delete everything that isn't editable (carm articles for example, because of copyright)
  • Either delete or source the images and media with a LINK
  • Create root category page
  • Delete articles directly copied from other sources (they should/can be merged into one wikichristian article later, but there shouldn't be multiple articles for the same topic)
  • Standardize the templates. There's a working system of templates over at Wikipedia, and we should work off of theirs, rather than reinvent the wheel.
  • User pages shouldn't be in the main namespace
  • There should be one article, we shouldn't be having all this overview mess. Most of the articles aren't large enough to be worth an "overview"
  • We need to just get rid of all the Bible dictionary/encyclopedia stuff. The way WikiChristian is doing it is just causing more work and chaos than necessary, plus it really isn't that useful. People can go to the original source to find it. Besides the fact that other Christian wikis are doing better at this.
  • The main page is just disgusting and needs to be totally done away with
  • All the Bible text pages like... Genesis 1:1 (WEB)... just need to be deleted. There's a better way, and other wikis are using that better way.

--Tom 09:14, 9 October 2006 (EST)

I disagree with most of your points.
  • I don't think we should delete things that aren't editable. There is a place for them because (1) they can still be wikified and (2) if they are an opinion, it is fair that they remain unchanged - see also Talk:CARM
  • I disagree that we should use the same templates as wikipedia. Why is their wheel the right one for us?
  • It is perfectly reasonable for there to be multiple articles on a topic. I agree that there should be one neutral point of view encyclopedia article, but why can't we have opinion articles. For example, I like the article Church, with its encyclopedia page Church (overview) (which I agree needs more work) and its opinion articles What is the Church? (G.G.) and The Church (justforcatholics.org) and Talk:Church/discussion.
  • I think the Bible dictionary type stuff is useful, and I think it is best to keep it in its original text but wikify it. I disagree with you and do not think we should remove it.
  • There may be a better way than Genesis 1:1 (WEB), but I don't think the other wikis have found it. With this system, it will be possible to have an unlimited number of translations - you could have Genesis 1:1 (KJV) for King James, Genesis 1:1 (Vulgate) for Latin, Genesis 1:1 (Hebrew) for Hebrew and so on. Then under Genesis 1:1 there could be links to all of those, as well as opinion articles and sermons and related topics specific to Genesis 1:1
  • Maybe the main page is disgusting and needs to be redone. But if it is redone in the fashion of wikipedia, wikible, or theopedia then I disagree completely - I do not think that is the best style for this sort of wiki. The main page could certainly be improved and completely changed, so please, show an alternative. But I think making it like wikipedia would be a big mistake. Firstly, I believe it needs to be easy to navigate from the main page to the main topics. Secondly, lets not have "Todays featured article" etc. because, lets face it, we don't have the resources to change articles often.
Tom, it seems you and I have very different ideas on how to make this wiki open to growth and open to differing views of different Christians from different denominational backgrounds. There is no right way or wrong way. I happen to think your suggestions however will not make WikiChristian open to growth, but will ultimately stifle growth. --Graham grove 00:59, 10 October 2006 (EST)

More thoughts...

  • Copyrighted material: The only reason I say that is because it seems wikifying it really isn't that big of a benefit to be worth the time and effort of inserting it here. We should focus on stuff that really makes a difference, not linking articles. If we can't edit them, it's not that big in my opinion.
  • Templates: Of course everything won't be the same, and I'm not advocating that, but surely there are some administrative styled templates that can be duplicated, that are just common every-day wiki stuff. Although I think WikiChristian's idea of distancing itself with Wikipedia is good, I think it's going to an extreme that makes it harder.
  • Commentary: Personally I'd prefer for user-written commentary to be in the user namespace. It looks very unprofessional to come across an article that is in the main namespace, which most opinion pieces I've seen aren't very well formatted or cited. I agree we need them.
  • Bible dictionary: I kind of think it's pointless to have a Bible dictionary article that explains something, than have other separate articles that also explain it. Why not just one? Combine the dictionary and the article together.
  • Verse pages: I would say that a few other wikis have found a better way. At Wikible we're working on a Verse Management System based on ideas gained from BibleWiki. Also there's a ReformedWord wiki that is also using similar techniques. Some of these things WikiChristian isn't even capable of technically (yet). Read more about it on Wikible http://wikible.org/en/Wikible:Scripture.
  • Main Page: I agree with you on the main page. A balance between functionality and beauty is a struggle. Yes, it should be unique and reflect WikiChristian's goals, but it shouldn't look bad. No we can't do dailys, but we can do monthly, that's not really that hard. And I'm not advocating that we have featured anything, just that it looks better ;-).

Yes, I do have very different ideas, which are probably more a branch off of the shoulders of other wikis, but I think we can definitely keep the goals of WikiChristian by learning from what others have done. Will my ideas stifle growth? Maybe, but that depends on whether you think it's growing now with its current methods. I guess if I were to summarize my thoughts and personality, I'm more of a throw away what I don't use kinda guy, which can have its benefits and drawbacks. I say that alienating yourself too much form other wikis will and has hurt, but also there needs to be a way to define the differences. --Tom 14:45, 10 October 2006 (EST)

I'm having similar discussions with other ChristianWikis about this as well. The problem that exists is that there are people that like to copy in a lot of content and then organize later, but then there are people that would rather organize it as it is being inserted. In this case with WikiChristian, we simply have a LOT of text to deal with (4,106 articles in fact), some of which may have not have any sources, etc, and it has gotten kind of crazy. If it was organized along the way, there wouldn't be this problem. --Tom 14:55, 10 October 2006 (EST)
Okay. I'm happy to agree to disagree. Let's wait and see what the few other users think. --Graham grove 17:07, 10 October 2006 (EST)

Unique Identity

I think it is important to have a unique identity at the same time as having a good looking website. I agree that the mainpage needs to be totally revamped. It just does not represent what all wikichristian has inside and is un-inspiring! We need to have some action on the main page that keeps changing everyday like the wikipedia's featured articles. We can do project of the week, featured passage, featured article etc. as part of the main page.

I disagree that we need to delete what ever content we have including the bible verses. We spent so much time on it and I think they do help in terms of users finding the information via search engines better.

As far as the overview is concerned, I agree it kind of is a bit too many articles and there is no main article that is large enough. However, changing all the existing pages may be a huge task and I am not sure if we want to spend that much time on that. We may, however, want to change the format to something better - like wikipedia, where there is a single article with inline links and not so much at the bottom.

Whatever we decide, let us make sure we do not let this go anywhere near a wiki war! Let us agree to disagree on some topics while agreeing to work together on others. --Prab 14:32, 17 October 2006 (EST)

agreed --Tom 20:32, 18 October 2006 (EST)

additional thoughts

Okay, so deleting the stuff was a little too much as I now see ;-). Although I think some content here serves very little to helping WikiChristian, it would be an enormous task. Also, there are probably better things that can be done rather than just deletion. Anyways, in the very least, I think we should come up with a list of things (Wikichristian:To do list) that need to be done in order to get this site back to where it should be. We will need to do some serious consensus-styled planning in order to make a system that is efficient and does not create duplicate unnecessary articles. I will be in and out over the next few weeks writing some ideas and analyzing the wiki some more. I apologize if I offended anyone in the process of making my comments. I know a lot of work has been put into this project, but that doesn't mean it has been organized in the best way possible. I also would have to admit that for the other wikis that I participate in. Not all my or others ideas are correct either, and sometimes the best thing for me to do is just go along with what has been established ;-).

As it says in Proverbs 23:10 "Do not move the ancient boundary..." --Tom 21:03, 18 October 2006 (EST)

Thanks Tom. You've made some excellent points. I look forward to reading more of your ideas and appreciate all the hard work you have put into the various Christian wikis, this one included. I think ultimately, we need to keep the content coming. Organization and ideas only go so far. So long as we all keep adding content and the site grows in actual real content, then the site will become more useful. I agree with you that the statistics are misleading. Perhaps we should remove them from the front page. A to do list is very important - in fact there is one already - Wikichristian:To-do list. Also, there is the Wikichristian:Priority Pages section which directs people to some of the more important pages that need work done. Please, add some pages into this section that feel need work. --Graham grove 22:36, 21 October 2006 (EST)

statistics are misleading

What can we do about the statistics? Honestly I think they are misleading to the amount of actual content that is on WikiChristian. For example, there are thousands of articles, that all they have on them is a verse. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but it makes it look like all those numbers are actual content... --Tom 14:30, 21 October 2006 (EST)

Agreed. We can remove the statistics. --Graham grove 22:10, 21 October 2006 (EST)

Front page

Well, recently Tom and Prab have mentioned that they would like a new front page. Let's work together and design a new one then. I'll put my two cents worth in:

I'd like to hear other people's ideas

Perhaps we could create a new page at Main Page: Future

--Graham grove 22:27, 21 October 2006 (EST)


How to edit page subjects?

I'm back for the first time in a while and have just added pages for a few Christian rock/metal bands, since music is one of my passions, but I didn't think to uppercase the subject header when I first typed it in the search box, and now the page header for Barren Cross has a lowercase "c" that I can't figure out how to change. I didn't see what looked like any options on the template for changing subject headers. --Jesusfreakdotcom 12:57, 21 November 2006 (EST)


Graphics/banners to link to this site?

I'd like to add a Wikichristian link on my website, but think a graphic would probably be more noticeable than just a text link. I tried copying the Wikichristian image on the upper-left corner of the page templates, but that doesn't seem to work. Is there a place where I can grab a graphic, or a URL for a graphic that I can link to?--Jesusfreakdotcom 01:44, 22 November 2006 (EST)

You might have to be creative ;-) --Tom 07:53, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Recent entries appear severely truncated

I just noticed that several of the entries about Christian bands that I've posted the past couple of days have been cut to little more than a bare-bones description and no details. Is this an automated truncation? Who or what is Muser? It appears that Muser was the last person or program to edit my files.

--Jesusfreakdotcom 13:04, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Sorry for the swift action. I truncated them because they looked like they were directly cut and paste from wikipedia, with all the links, categories and non-existant pictures left in, without any editing or changes. Because we're not an exact replica of wikipedia, I truncated them so they could have a more independent life of their own. --Muser 15:46, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Problem: Disappearing recent changes

I notice that all the changes made from November 23 to November 25, of which there were quite a few that I made, and possibly changes that others made, have not appeared in the "Recent changes" section. Why would this be? --Graham grove 05:07, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Well, at least this change appeared in "Recent changes". So perhaps, whatever the problem was has been fixed. --Graham grove 05:09, 27 November 2006 (EST)

New Post

Bible references: How should these be cited? Wikipedia has templates for bibleref and bibleverse. What exists here? Can multiple translations (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc.) be used? -- Ssot

I don't know if we have a reference system in place. Does anyone know if we do? -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 14:34, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Just put the passage in, for example John 3:16, Mark 2 or Genesis. That will hopefully link to the correct passage. Most of the Bible is uploaded so far (WEB version; and there is room for any other version to also be uploaded or added later). --Graham grove 03:00, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Featured Content

The current featured content (Old Testament (overview) has been up now for more than a week. Shouldn't we change it? -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:45, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Acceptable Content

Has anybody noticed the contributions that Cfunk has made? His latest have been to the RciaSmmSchedule. Are these pages acceptable content on WikiChristian, or not? -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:13, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Yes, I've noticed. I think that his content is fine. If he is using WikiChristian to put up a roster and timetable for his particular church then that's good. It would be nice if he would create a page for his church and a link to the roster, but ultimately, what he's putting up is fine I think. --Graham grove 03:07, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Move Vandalism

We just recently got hit with two major "move" vandalism incidents. I had a hard time cleaning up the second (I actually double reverted a few times). We should really consider restricting the move ability to sysops only. I think the time we spend reverting these vandals isn't worth leaving the feature open to the public. Just a suggestion. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:29, 28 November 2006 (EST)

P.S. -- I took the liberty to "move protect" every administrator's user page, since they've been the main target for vandals. -- 20:36, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Thanks for your work Justin. I agree with you that we should restrict moving to administrators. I don't know how to do that though. If you do, go ahead and do so, otherwise we'll ask Tom or Prab. --Graham grove 03:04, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Problems with images

I seem to be unable to upload images. This has been happening for a while now. I get an error message saying

Could not copy file "/tmp/phpu9H8lS" to "/var/www/vhosts/wikichristian.org/httpdocs/images/temp/0/0d/20061202023409!Christmas_tree.jpg".

Does anyone know how to fix it? --Graham grove 21:36, 1 December 2006 (EST)

OUTSTANDING. the work on teshuqa from lessons 16-18, is simply outstanding. thank you. outstanding.

Recent page additions appear to have been greatly shortened

I was just browsing the Recent Changes link and noticed that several of the profile pages I'd created for various Christian musicians have been seriously trimmed down by Muser. Is this an automated process, or is it just temporary? Have there been syntax or other errors with the pages I've been creating that are causing this to happen? --jesusfreakdotcom 06:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I've shortened them because they appeared to be cut and pastes directly from wikipedia full of pictures that don't exist in wikichristian, full of templates that aren't in wikichristian and full of links that have no need to exist in wikichristian. You also overwrote some pages that already existed. I apologise for not giving you some warning, and I apologise if I am wrong and they were not direct cuts from wikipedia. If you want to pull an article from wikipedia that's fine, but it's only worth doing it if you don't copy everything exactly as it is with links to non-existant images and templates etc. If you really want the pages exactly as you had them, they can all be reverted back to the form you originally had them very easily. My opinion is that it is better though to start with simpler, less cluttered articles though. --Muser 05:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Sorry about that. I guess I'm still a relative newbie with this. I'll go back and repost and majorly trim the bad template code from the entries I'd posted recently so the information will be there but all of the random stuff will be cut. I guess I'm just a little over-eager to help. :-) --jesusfreakdotcom 02:50, 12 March 2007 (EST)

For reasons unknown to me, I see no logo in the upper left-hand corner of all pages. It's just white space that's clickable.

This is under Windows XP SP2, IE 6.

It could be an issue with the company proxy server.

I'm using the standard XP and the logo appears fine on my browser; I've noticed the same problem on at least one other wiki though, so I guess it just has something to do with the server. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:09, 21 June 2007 (EST)

I am using Windows XP home edition and IE 6 and I am able to see the Logo fine. If it were the server, it will affect every OS and browser, so I suspect it is the browser. Let me know if you find more on the issue! --Prab 18:16, 21 June 2007 (EST)

Images problem

Uploading images is working fine. Thanks for fixing it. However, resizing new images - making thumbnails - doesn't seem to be working. To see what I mean take a look at Church history. Does anyone know how to fix it? --Graham grove 22:16, 21 June 2007 (EST)

Church Directory Pages - US States

I am having a little bit of trouble with the way that the US state pages in the Church directory are organized. First of all there is duplicated content between the synopsis and the main article, in most cases, it is the only content, but I think there is a lot of other unnecessary information in there, such as county lists, city lists, and particularly, denomination lists.

Regarding the city and county lists, each page should have some sort of relevance to Christianity or the church and I don't think that we need to have lists of cities and states, unless we are going to combine that with the church directory aspect and also list the churches or organizations in those cities.

Regarding the denomination list, it is a little bit of overkill and overwork to have to create a list of all the denominations which may be in a particular state. I am not opposed to a simple list or expository description on the state page, i.e. that there is a prevalence of this denominiation or that denomination, and a quick list of some of the majority denominations.

--Matt B-man 11:12, 4 August 2007 (EST)

Famous Christians

I also posted this on the discussion page of the Famous Christians index, but I think that there should be a separation between famous deceased and/or historical christians and influential Christian leaders of today.

Along the same lines, I don't think that Ravi Zacharias needs a page and an overview page.

--Matt B-man 11:16, 4 August 2007 (EST)

Bible Changes and WikiChristian:Beliefs

Please see Bible Changes and WikiChristian:Beliefs



Return to Wikichristian:Village pump