Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Archive 1

Discussion from Project proposal page
A Great idea ... just a couple of suggestions. 1) It would make sense for this to function as a taskforce of WP:X and WP:1.0 (especially WP:CORE) rather than its own group (maybe this was your intention, based on the model of WP:WPBIO). 2) It might be a good idea to set the number of articles at the outset, otherwise the number will gradually increase as editors join the project and add their pet projects as "core". I would start too low rather than too high -- say 100. Just some ideas. Pastor David † (Review) 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I'd tend to agree with Pastor David's above comment. Lets pick 80-100 articles that are clearly core topics central to an understanding of christianity, and after making the list official, have a proposal subpage where nominees to be added to the list must be voted on depending on a specific criteria that we setup.  Nswinton\talk 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was the one who originally proposed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. My idea was that it would only include articles that every branch of Christendom was interested in; things like "Bible", "Salvation" and "Jesus" would be in, but, in my opinion, things like even "Eastern Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism" would be out, because they're irrelevant to large numbers of Christians.  The idea was so that eg. a page like "Salvation" would not be tagged by WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Calvinism, WikiProject Lutheranism, and the like; the topics on the "Core topics" list should be of interest to all these groups, so they don't feel the need for tagging.  100 articles?  I'd rather see a set of criteria specified (eg. must be of interest to all major branches of Christianity), and then use an Assessment system to limit the number of articles we work on.
 * -- TimNelson 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would say that, if we are talking core topics, it would be something to the effect of "topic is essential to any description of the history or theology of Christianity." As such, topics like "Roman Catholic Church", "East-West Schism", "Lutheranism", etc, etc, are essential to telling the story of Christianity.  I have started a list in my userpage.  Others are welcome to add to, take away from, or edit it.  However, please discuss major changes first.  Thanks  Pastor David  † 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, I'm more interested in what I suggested, but if we can keep it under 100 articles, then I'm still interested.  When CatScan is working again, I'd reccomend we consider any article tagged by 3 or more Christianity-related WikiProjects.
 * -- TimNelson 09:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of scope?
Should we reduce our scope so as not to cover the same articles as the Jesus work group?

-- TimNelson 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a possibility. I would suggest waiting to see (a) how active that group becomes, and (b) exactly what the scope of that group will be.  In other words, let's wait and cross that bridge a little later.  Pastordavid 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Layout
In setting up the layout of this work group, might I suggest using as few sub-pages as possible. Sub-pages are helpful for large projects, that have people who focus on one aspect of the project. However, for this smaller workgroup (which is already a subpage), having too many sub-pages will be distracting and will spread our efforts thinner. One page to watch and contribute to is much easier. Pastordavid 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding redundancy
The one advantage of a work group / task force, as opposed to a stand alone Project, is the ability to use the parent-project's resources. Please try to avoid re-inventing the wheel on this. We should use the WP:X banners, userboxes, and other templates -- as well as the assessment processes already in place for WP:X. Pastordavid 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restructured the WPChristianity assessment so that we can mark articles as being within the scope of the "Core topics" task force (like the WPMILHIST people do); My intention is that we use that for banners, assessment, etc. The only thing I'm not sure I agree about is the userbox.  I don't care enough to make one myself, but I don't see why we shouldn't have one (just like the MILHIST people; cf. WikiProject Military history/Outreach).
 * -- TimNelson 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul
I polished up the page. Cheers. -- SECisek 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)