User talk:Graham grove/Mormonism

I think this article is an example of the naming convention problems that the WikiChristian community still needs to talk about. --Tom 05:31, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

Maybe. But why? This isn't the main article on Mormonism and nor is the overview at Mormonism (overview). It is instead an opinion (Template:Opinions article and so can have whatever name the author chooses. That's my view on it anyway. How would you name it allowing for the fact that it isn't either the contents page or the main overview article? --Graham grove 08:54, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

If it's "A short summary on Joseph Smith...", I would just call it Joseph Smith, then have organized sections inside that article, rather than having five different articles about the same or similar things. --Tom 10:53, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

If it's commentary, rather than just having some random title, we could do a subpage... Article name/Comments --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 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. --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? --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. --Tom 18:10, 26 July 2006 (PDT)