User talk:Sharktacos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Atonement category?
How would you like to create an Atonement category, and add the different Atonement articles to that category?
-- TimNelson 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim, can you elaborate? --Sharktacos 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I only just saw your response now. It seems (now that I've learned more about what Wikipedia wants its categories to be) that this isn't such a good idea. Sorry I mentioned it, but good to have you at WikiProject Calvinism anyway :). What might be more useful is if you created an Infobox for Atonement. If you go to Template:Atonement Navigation, and add in the following text:
<div style="border: 1px solid silver; background: #EFEFEF; float:right"> <div style="background: silver; padding: 5px"><big>'''[[Atonement]]'''</big></div> * here *here </div>
-
- ...Then you'll be able to include that text on *every* page about the atonement, just by writing {{Atonement Naviagtion}} (with the curly braces), and it will all happen automatically. My thought was that you could change the "here" parts to be links to all the different Atonement pages around, making it easy for people to find the one(s) that they want, and if they've found the wrong one, to find the right one.
-
- You've probably already noticed the WikiProject Calvinism markers at the top of the Atonement pages that are related to Calvinism. You may also want to help by assessing these articles according to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/Assessment. That's quite a long page, but really, the only parts you need to read are the first two columns of the "Quality Scale" and "Importance assessment". These markers are useful because they help us to focus on the articles we're best suited to. For example, if the article is a stub, then lots of people might be able to improve it, whereas if the article is a B-Class article, then people who specialise in correcting speeling and grammer, or checking verification, and the like, might be more interested. Likewise, the importance scale will help determine what the Collaboration of the Month for WikiProject Calvinism is going to be. Once you've done the reading, the assessment should only take a minute or two.
-
- Anyway, I'm not going to lay any of this work on you to do, but if you're interested, it's available. I'm willing to help if you need any assistance in understanding what I'm talking about, but you could probably get a faster response at my talk page than by posting here.
-
- -- TimNelson 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Calvinism
We need more input on what should be in the Template for Calvinism. Please share your thoughts in the sections of the talk page starting with Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Calvinism news
Hi. I'm recommending to all participants in WikiProject Calvinism that they keep up with at least the News page ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/News}}) for this project. The methods I'd recommend for doing this are any or all of:
- Add the abovementioned page to your watchlist
- Include the page on another page you look at regularly; in my case, this is my user page, since I keep my personal "todo" list there. That would look something like:
Last change: 2008/4/07
All the Calvinism-related news that is news from across the encyclopedia
[edit] Update
We have updated the look of the project and corrected some things like the collaboration to reflect the reality on the ground. Check it out and get involved!
[edit] Collaboration
- The current collaboration is Calvinism
- Nominate or vote for your favourite articles so that they can be the next collaboration; see Collaboration page for details.
[edit] Most important tasks
- Collaborate on this month's Collaboration article.
-- TimNelson 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Systems psychology
Thanks for you imput on the Talk:Systemic psychology page. Now I started the Systems psychology article a week ago after that discussion. I wonder if you could take a look at that article and give me some feed back. Thanks -- 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)