User talk:Graham grove/Mormonism - Revision history

Graham grove at 21:50, 8 September 2007

2007-09-08T21:50:23Z

Ymmotrojam: Talk:Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G.) moved to User talk:Graham grove/Mormonism

2006-11-20T03:55:01Z

Talk:Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G.) moved to User talk:Graham grove/Mormonism

Ymmotrojam at 01:10, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T01:10:41Z

Graham grove at 01:01, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T01:01:50Z

Graham grove at 00:55, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T00:55:23Z

Graham grove at 00:44, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T00:44:33Z

Graham grove at 00:43, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T00:43:56Z

Graham grove: Talk:A short summary on Joseph Smith, the formation of the Mormon religion and some of its main beliefs (G.G.) moved to Talk:Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G.)

2006-07-27T00:26:43Z

Talk:A short summary on Joseph Smith, the formation of the Mormon religion and some of its main beliefs (G.G.) moved to Talk:Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G.)

Prab at 23:47, 26 July 2006

2006-07-26T23:47:54Z

Prab at 23:45, 26 July 2006

2006-07-26T23:45:58Z

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
-:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[stubs|stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it?  --[[User:Graham grove|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
+:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[stubs|stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it?  --[[User:Graham grove|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
 ::Don't get me wrong, I totally agree there should be a place to put comments. I do like the idea of not conforming to Wikipedia as well, but in another sense some things I think should be used across wikis like WikiChristian, Wikible, Wikipedia, Theopedia, etc, just for consistency, so people don't have to learn how a particular one is run... atleast in basic stuff. Actually, another thought came to me about comments, what if all comments by particular users were put in as a subpage under their user page? For example, if I wrote something about the article [[Jesus]], my comments would be in [[User:Ymmotrojam/Jesus]]. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Tom]] 18:10, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, 27 July 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[stubs\|stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[stubs\|stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	::Don't get me wrong, I totally agree there should be a place to put comments. I do like the idea of not conforming to Wikipedia as well, but in another sense some things I think should be used across wikis like WikiChristian, Wikible, Wikipedia, Theopedia, etc, just for consistency, so people don't have to learn how a particular one is run... atleast in basic stuff. Actually, another thought came to me about comments, what if all comments by particular users were put in as a subpage under their user page? For example, if I wrote something about the article [[Jesus]], my comments would be in [[User:Ymmotrojam/Jesus]]. --[[User:Ymmotrojam\|Tom]] 18:10, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 27 July 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

−	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a stub that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)	+	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[stubs\|stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 27 July 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

−	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a ~~[[Stub]]~~ that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)	+	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a stub that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 27 July 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

−	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[Stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)	+	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I partially agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[Stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:55, 20 November 2006
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 27 July 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	:Yep, the name was too long and unwieldy, I agree with you Tom. I've renamed it Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine (G.G). Is that a more appropriate name or do you still feel it should be shortened? Its just that it addresses both a little about Joseph Smith and a little about doctrine. Prab, I know what you mean, and I think you are probably in the majority, when you feel that there should be one main article instead of many small articles. I think however that perhaps that is not the best way to structure a religious wiki like this. If we do I find that the site becomes like wikipedia and becomes a pure encyclopedia. That's what I think we need to try and avoid. The ''topic (overview)'' (e.g. [[Mormonism (overview)]]) is the one main article on the topic of Mormonism; There is also space then for allowing the smaller personal opinion topics. Take a look at the [[Justification]] page to see what I mean. [[Justification]] is the contents page; [[Justification (overview)]] is the main article - or will be once it is more than a [[Stub]] that provides a more neutral and encyclopedia point of view; and then under the ''Discussion and opinion articles'' section there are three different articles, one is mine [[Grace - Justification by faith alone (G.G.)]]; another by some user called J.S. [[A look at justification by faith and good works in Luther's theology (J.S)]]; and the other by a user called Benjamen Meng [[Justification (Benjamen Meng)]]. Now the thing is, all of these three articles are talking about the topic from the authors person point of view, and in each case, a Protestant point of view - it just happens to be the point of view I agree with and the one I believe is true, however, a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox point of view is very different. So this is one reason why I do not believe that concentrating on just one main article is a mistake. For another example, take a look at [[Islam]]. You'll see there is the overview article [[Islam (overview)]], which unfortunately is still small and is stub, but hopefully will eventually grow. Now, you'll also see that there is the ''Testimonies'' heading with a personal testimony of conversion [[Al-Gharib's testimony]]. Again, if we only concentrated on one main article on [[Islam]] like wikipedia does, then where would this personal testimony fit it? --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 17:43, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:26, 27 July 2006
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 26 July 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::If it's commentary, rather than just having some random title, we could do a subpage... [[Article name/Comments]] --[[User:Ymmotrojam\|Tom]] 10:55, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		::If it's commentary, rather than just having some random title, we could do a subpage... [[Article name/Comments]] --[[User:Ymmotrojam\|Tom]] 10:55, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

−	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things, uniform, I think we should have a ~~sytem~~ where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic~~. As~~ of ~~now, we tend to have~~ many small articles ~~instead of a full pledged one on many~~ of the ~~topics~~. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)	+	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things uniform, I think we should have a system where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic instead of many small articles and name them with short titles preferably the name of the person or entity. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 26 July 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::If it's commentary, rather than just having some random title, we could do a subpage... [[Article name/Comments]] --[[User:Ymmotrojam\|Tom]] 10:55, 26 July 2006 (PDT)		::If it's commentary, rather than just having some random title, we could do a subpage... [[Article name/Comments]] --[[User:Ymmotrojam\|Tom]] 10:55, 26 July 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	I agree that this page should be titled Joseph Smith since, the short summary is, arguably temporary, as users add more content, it can become a full article. To keep things, uniform, I think we should have a sytem where we concentrate on one main article on any given topic. As of now, we tend to have many small articles instead of a full pledged one on many of the topics. --[[User:Prab\|Prab]] 16:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)