User talk:ReformedArsenal/Archive 19

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

== Please comment on Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything ==

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Religion in China
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in China. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

First council citation work
Thanks for taking on this systematization work, so likely to be underappreciated! Consistency of presentation definitely is helpful though, and it does become ragged over time.

I didn't want to step in while you were deep in these edits, but want to point out a nit within your edit of 18:24 today, line 40. The Timothy Ware book "The Orthodox Church" was revised and republished in 1991, and then again in 1993 extensively. Some of the revisions in the latest edition are regarded variously ("controversial" would be much too strong), but leave some with a desire to continue use of the earlier 1991 edition, so it also has currency. As it happens, I have only the 1991 edition myself, and provided the quote and page number from that edition. I don't think it's in one of the areas of difference between the two editions, but such things as page numbers can shift between the two. Hence, it will be necessary to have a separate entry for the 1991 edition in the list, and this reference needs to be reconnected to its proper edition. Thanks again, and cheers. Evensteven (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that I had snagged a different edition. Thanks for the heads up, I restored it to the 91 edition.
 * Thanks much! Evensteven (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I restored the textual deletions you made to the Attendees section, with explanation on the talk page. But I assume you had an idea of "cleanup" in mind, and wanted to find out what that was specifically. I don't think the material necessarily needs to stay in the form it is currently in, but could be more gracefully integrated, and perhaps better condensed. What's your thinking? And do you think the reference to the Abraham and Lot passage is relevant here? Should that be kept? Evensteven (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the modern liturgical practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church are particularly relevant to this article, and the sources are not clearly WP:RS. I integrated the Archdiosese one into the paragraph, but the others (coptic and ethiopic) lack any reference at all. I tagged them with a CN and will remove them in a week or so if they are not sourced. I would like to find better attestation to the Vespers liturgy than the page that is there, since it is not a good source without attestation (anyone can put up a webpage and say it is the official page of X). I don't have time to research it, and will probably comment out the whole sentence if another source cannot be located (since the modern liturgical information isn't directly relevant anyway). ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, and it is WP:RS (see article talk page). Since we seem to be in disagreement about that, we should probably take the discussion there. But in other regards, I grant some of the original flaws. I just wanted to be sure we tried to work together for the article's sake, and if possible to defuse the adversarial footing we began with on WP.


 * Btw, I agree about the references at Eastern Orthodox Church also. I've thought of trying to address that myself. Is it your intention of going ahead with that project, or would you mind my giving it a go? Evensteven (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead with the citation clean up at EOC... I would get to it eventaully, but I have a few other whoppers in front of it. As far as the relevance of the modern liturgical info, we can talk about it over at the other talk page. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you might (have other projects). I'll see what I can do. Maybe you can look in on it from time to time? I still don't know all the WP bells and whistles. Evensteven (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Even if all you do is covert the existing notes to the citation template, that will make it much easier for me to come through later and switch it to harvard citations. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I truly think that your work on the citations themselves are a benefit to the article, but I disagree with your practice of sometimes editing out quotes that were embedded in the references. That material is basically article text, and should be identified as a different type of edit than "cleanup". Or do I have something backwards here? Evensteven (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotations within various citations are unnecessary if you are linking directly to the citation. If you have a specific instance to discuss we can do so. However, in many cases, abstracting a quote out of a text represents a form of WP:OR because it involves the editor selecting a quote and assigning it to a statement he or she feels is supported by that quote. When we simply link to the text in question, it gives the reader the whole context rather than simply a given quote. If it is substantial enough to be "article text" then it ought to be in the article, not in a foot note. Also, to head this off... long explanatory foot notes are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles, as that is a practice that is more common in essays. It involves a statement the writer wishes to make but does not wish to interrupt the flow of their argument with. Since encylopedia articles do not have an argument, this practice is out of place and nearly always constitutes WP:OR. Again, if a statement is significant enough tob e made, it needs to be made in the text of the article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's quite so clearly a matter of WP:OR or not, but your point is pretty well taken nonetheless. I haven't had time to investigate all the details. I've also noticed a places or two where the ref target does not really take one to the pages where the relevant material is, but that could well be an artifact of the poor state the original ref was in too. I do think the matters bear more looking at, and wanted to sound you out a little before making any material challenge that sounded like it was directed towards you. I don't know yet if there are any "challenges" to make, so it helps to know your basis for doing those alterations. Thanks. Mostly, I think the references, especially where they're available online, should put the reader as close as possible to the material that supports specific article text, so that the underlying source becomes well exposed. Occasionally, a short reference quote or note can be helpful. Btw, by "article text", I don't mean that those notes are equivalent in weight to the text of the article itself, but they are direct supporting material, and subject to examination under the same conditions as article text. Evensteven (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the harvard reference system (which is necessary with an article this size or you end up with a Bibliography that is longer than the article itself) is that you only get one link for the bibliographical entry. I tried to give as detailed a reference as was provided, and in some cases I even tracked down a more specific reference. Feel free to look through it and make changes if you want, if the formatting isn't right I'll come through and clean it up. It's pretty easy to maintain an article once it is formalized. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been wondering if that was an aspect of the Harvard system. The problem in this article is that we have this HUGE compendium (Schaff), and even when you break it out by volume, we've got many different references into the volume. That's part of what I was going to look into. I don't have a suggestion about what to do yet, but I do get the feeling that something needs to get the reader closer to some of that material. What Harvard gives us normally is apparently not good enough here. I'm hoping there's a reasonable and easy workaround. Evensteven (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Harvard stuff is fine for Schaff, because it gets them to the book, which has an extensive referencing system. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to think so. It gets them to a volume, which contains many books in some important cases, and especially when referencing it online, finding the source within those books is not that apparent, because page numbering doesn't really work well. The CCEL has provided an excellent way to get directly inside in a stable fashion. Especially online, the reader shouldn't be required to go hunting in a table of contents, and especially when the source section is not immediately apparent. To do that is like hiding the source away in a corner. Evensteven (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not hiding a source away any more than a page number is. Providing them with a book and chapter number will get them directly to the section in question with 3 or 4 clicks. If you want to convert them back to individual citations, you can... but it's not going to benefit anyone that much. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I don't know yet what I want to do. But the "hiding away" comment is the software engineer in me speaking. When online access is concerned, instant access is basically the expectation. It's just out there, and I can't change it either. Evensteven (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably over estimating. An extra click or two isn't going to be the end of the world. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)