Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thelema
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for WikiProject Thelema
For the articles listed under "Cleanup," what sorts of actions are needed - general editing, adding cites and references, or both? Does the answer vary by article? If so then a more detailed list would be very helpful.Psuliin 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Rose Kelly article, made a few cosmetic fixes, and put a "to do" list on the discussion page listing the improvements I thought of. Perhaps that would be a good way to handle these?Psuliin 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] RELIGIOUS movement??
Did I miss something? In my expirience Thelema is quite the opposite of religion. I'd suggest to replace "religious" by "spiritual" or whatever you think suites the topic. Or has Thelema really become a religion? (leael93 on de.wikipedia.org)
[edit] Paraphysics article in danger
there is currently a big discussion going on at the paraphysics sections wether its going to be deleted or not. if this article is to be deleted, it would be a shame, and a great loss to paranormal, occult and spiritual research. i suggest, and hope, that you vote for its continuing. and maybe even write a few sentences about the subject if you know about it, as it is currently very messy, and not much has been written about it yet.
details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paraphysics
thank you. user:openforbusiness
[edit] 93 -> thelema
The {{93}} was changed to {{thelema}}... seems kinda arbitrary. Was there a reason?---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thelemite vs Thelemic
We have this Category:Thelemite texts. My understanding is that "Who calls us Thelemites does no wrong" which is to say, Thelemites are people. The adjectival form which should modify "texts" would be "Thelemic", no? I'd be happy to do the work involved if there is consensus to correct this to Category:Thelemic texts. Looks like it should only require the page-move and 21 minor edits. --Geoff Capp 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Thelema WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OTO Bodies
Anyone feel that individual OTO bodies could use a wiki page? I just joined the project, and would love to help out. This isn't necessarily my strong suit (although back issues of Agape provide great sources), but would love to hear other opinions.
[edit] New transparent Unicursal Hexagram
I've created and uploaded a new transparent Unicursal Hexagram
I'm going to replace all instances of the old jpeg one with this one, unless the jpeg version fits better within it's context (black background, etc).
Maybe a notice should be put on the front page? — zorkmid EA 16:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's fair use? It seems fairly likely to me it was created before modern copyrights... in any case, it's showing as having a grey background to me, but that might be an IE problem? ---J.S (t|c) 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OTO vs. the OTO
It seems like this project should have a standard for which usage should be preferred. There seems to be inconsistency over people referring to the Ordo Templi Orientis as "OTO" or "the OTO". I used to use mainly "OTO", but now looking at the 1917 constitution I'm going to switch over to the OTO. Then again, in the COTO's history page they seem to use only "OTO". --Jackhorkheimer 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Religious leaders
The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
