User talk:Dogcatmousecheese

Welcome / New Jerusalem Bible
Welcome to Wikipedia! Every article has an associated talk page. Just click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. To start a new discussion, click on the "+" tab at the top of the discussion page. When leaving a comment or question on a talk page, put your dated signature at the end by typing ~. (Don't put questions and comments in the article itself.)

I've added the information you asked about to the New Jerusalem Bible article. Yes, the NJB does include the deuterocanonical books (in their natural order, not as an appendix). I have no idea why catholic.org omits these, but I did some searching and apparently there is no online source for the NJB translation of the deuterocanonical books. Wareh 17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the information I asked about. I really appreciate it.

I noticed that you typed, or I think you typed, or Wikipedia may have automatically generated, "questions and discussions belong on talk page, not in the article". I understand that it's probably Wikipedia's policy to not type questions on the article and to type questions on the talk page, but I think that it would be better to type questions directly on the article. That way, everyone in the world who has access to the internet would be able to immediately see the question on the article, and whoever knows the answer to the question would be able to answer it immediately. Even people unfamiliar with using Wikipedia would be able to see the question, figure out how to click Edit if they knew the answer to the question (probably having a desire to answer the question), and answer the question.

I think that's why Wikipedia is so successful: it's so simple and easy for anyone to use.

I didn't even know about the talk page until you mentioned it. In fact, I don't think that I would have ever looked at the talk page unless you told me about it. And when I looked at it, it was so long that I didn't even want to read it. Therefore, I think that more people look just at the article and don't read the talk page and aren't interested in the talk page. Now if people aren't allowed to type questions directly on the article, more people who might know the answer will not see the question because the question is on the talk page. Therefore, more likely, the question will be unanswered, or a person with the answer, a better answer, or even the best answer would not have seen the question because it was on the talk page and not on the article.

Furthermore, people on Wikipedia would be discouraged to ask questions because they don't want to deal with learning how to use the talk page and/or they are afraid that no one will notice their question, or if someone does notice their question, it will not be the best answer, or it would take a long time and be inefficient, which would lower the quality of Wikipedia.

Therefore, people's curiosity will remain.

And isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia: for us to learn and know about things we don't know about?

What are your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.224.196 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have answered your question, and fixed the article, just as quickly if you had posted your question in the correct place. The page is part of my watchlist, so any new posting to the talk page appears on my watchlist.  (Now that you're a registered user, click the "watch" tab on an article to start keeping track of changes made to it or discussion about it.)  I understand your point, but clicking a tab at the top of every article marked "discussion" is not really as complicated as you suggest.  You complain that, "it was so long that I didn't even want to read it," but you would not have to read the whole page, just add a new question.  You found and interpreted the meaning of the "edit" tab&mdash;what is more difficult about finding & interpreting the meaning of the "discussion" tab right next to it?  The real answer to your suggestion is simply that, if everyone were allowed to add questions and answers into the articles, then the articles would be full of as much discussion as information, and &mdash;you guessed it!&mdash;you would "not even want to read" the article, because of the need to wade through a bunch of discussion.  You can't have it both ways&mdash;either you are interested in asking questions about the articles, in which case you are interested in talk pages, or you aren't.  As you continue to use Wikipedia, I'm sure you'll notice that many of the articles are actually decent encyclopedia articles, and in fact some are highly polished and correct articles.  You can easily see that adding miscellaneous chatter would reduce the quality of such articles.  Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm sure now that you've noticed that talk pages exist, you'll find it a lot easier than you think.  Wareh 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading what I typed, and thanks for replying.

I think that you're right that clicking a tab at the top of every article marked "discussion" is easy. But I don't think that people are out there seeking to click discussion. I think most people just want to read about a particular subject, not really seeking to contribute to Wikipedia.

I also liked your answer that there would be too much discussion. But the answerer could delete the question and just type the answer, just like what you did to my question, which I thought was perfect. And Wikipedia would still have the question documented under 'history', so the question would not be lost.

I meant to add the following before you replied:

You might not have even answered my question if I posted it on the talk page instead of on the article. The reason I think you answered my question so quickly and efficiently is because I posted the question on the article. And I'm glad that you answered my question. Your answer was very direct and precise.

Thanks for reading all of this.

I'm sure both of us want Wikipedia to be the best that it can be. I know that I really like Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is awesome. I was just sharing my ideas about how I thought that Wikipedia could be improved. I hope that you are not angry or upset at me. I hope that there is no hostility. I hope that we are just having a constructive discussion. And I hope that we can work and are working cooperatively as friends.

One thing that I thought about that I did think was beneficial about having a separate talk page is that the questions will be documented and not erased. But Wikipedia saves the questions anyway, even after they are deleted under 'history'.

I was happy when I found out that you kindly answered my question.

To add on to your answer, I was going to type the question, "Why does catholic.org omit the deuterocanonical books of the New Jerusalem Bible on their website?" on the article, but then I was discouraged from doing so, so I never did. And I'm sure that if I did type that question, it would have been answered in a matter of minutes. But I was afraid I would upset someone by not following the rules.

And I was just thinking that there are probably more people out there just wanting to read Wikipedia rather than wanting to type on Wikipedia. So if more people out there are wanting to read Wikipedia and happen to come across a question that they know the answer to, they will immediately type it.

From glancing at your page, you seem like a very experienced and scholarly Wikipedia user. But not everyone is as experienced and scholarly as you. What I'm saying is that there are probably more people are out there to receive information than to give information. And if someone, using Wikipedia with the attitude of learning and receiving information, comes across a question they know the answer to, they can immediately type it.

Those are my thoughts. Again, thanks for considering them.


 * No hard feelings at all! You obviously care about Wikipedia and how it can best do its job.  I only want to repeat one part of what I said before.  You say, "The reason I think you answered my question so quickly and efficiently is because I posted the question on the article."  But reread what I say about a watchlist above&mdash;the response from involved Wikipedia editors will be just as fast to a question on a discussion page.  At the end of the day, Wikipedia is set up the way it is, and the rules are the rules, whether they're ideal in every respect or not.  There is a place&mdash;the village pump&mdash;for suggestions to change the rules.  But this talk-page concept is so basic to how Wikipedia works that I don't think the larger community will show any interest in changing the practice as radically as you suggest.  I'm glad you're learning how Wikipedia works!  Wareh 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia rule that says "Do not type questions on the article." or "Only type questions on the discussion page." The closest thing I could find was "Each article has a Talk page... for questions..." under "Asking questions or making comments" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Questions. The fact that each article has a Talk page for questions does not necessarily prohibit anyone from asking questions on the article.

In fact, under "Safe behaviours" found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset, number 12 states "Ignore all rules - Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. When a rule seems wrong, and it prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, ignore it."

The rule to not type questions on the article and only type questions on the discussion page seems wrong. It prevents me and others from improving Wikipedia. For instance, I would have asked on the article why catholic.org does not include the deuterocanonical books, which would have improved Wikipedia by providing more complete information, but I didn't because of the rule. Therefore, according to the policies of Wikipedia, I should ignore the rule.

After doing research, it is not Wikipedia's policy to not type questions on the article and to type questions on the talk page. It is okay to type questions on the talk page, however.

Anyway, I've spent a lot of time on this; too much time, I think. Again, I do appreciate your answering my question, reading my entries, and replying to my entries in a courteous and professional manner. I've enjoyed having this discussion with you. Take care.