Site talk:Best after 1 year

Target audience: Is 1 Ne 1:1-5 too long/technical?

I really like all the analysis on the 1 Ne 1:1-5 page—in fact this is the page I voted for to win. However, I had the following concerns:

First, I think the page might be a bit overwhelming for new users to read. Inasmuch as we're trying to attract new users, I worry that using 1 Ne 1:1-5 in its current format, esp. as a showcase piece, may discourage potential new users who are not interested in this level of technical analysis.

Second, I worry more generally that putting too much information on one page gets in the way of the usefulness of this site as a reference resource. Perhaps it is worth thinking about a policy statement or stated objective for the site regarding this issue. Personally, I envision the site as mainly a resource tool that can be used to get a reasonably quick overview of different issues regarding how to read particular passages, with extensive links to more detailed information, opinions, thoughts, etc. I think the hyperlinking capability of electronic information is something that makes it far superior to books in terms of organizing material for easy reference and convenient overviews. I think this is one reason Wikipedia is so useful and popular.

So I would vote to summarize some of the material on the 1 Ne 1:1-5 page and move it to a subpage (perhaps a Joe Spencer user-subpage or perhaps a new site-subpage or set of site-subpages such as "1 Ne 1:1-3 Structure"). I think this would help address both concerns above. Again, I really like all the work Joe has done, I just think it'll ultimately find a wider audience with a bit of reorganization.

Obviously, this is all just my opinion—what do others think? Coming to a reasonable concensus on this issue should help us pull in the same direction regarding the 1 Ne 1:1-5 page and help clarify overall site objectives.

--RobertC 00:55, 27 Apr 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I think it would be interesting to see some experimentation with possible ways to reorganize the page to make it more accessible. I may try to do this on a subpage. --Matthew Faulconer 04:53, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I echo these same sentiments. I, of course, have struggled with how to format on a simple wiki page so much information. However, I think that any action ought to be somewhat delayed until reactions from other users come in. Since an e-mail will go out to invite all to work on that page, its development over the next few months should be interesting, perhaps hotly debated. That the page won suggests that there is some interest in its depth, and hopefully the next little while will probe this issue well. Perhaps these comments ought to be posted to the discussion at that site?--Joe Spencer 17:22, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't make sense to make drastic changes to the page until giving people a chance to comment. I worked a bit on a possible outline for restructuring the page with the hope of provoking such comments. I haven't received any yet but I just put it out there yesterday. All others who are interested in this topic should feel free to look at that, edit it and comment on it. Here is the link to that: User talk:Matthewfaulconer/1 Ne 1:1-5 sandbox. Also, anyone who wants to propose something entirely different can start their own possible sub-page and provide a link from here so others see it and comment.

Also, I will go ahead and add to the Talk:1 Ne 1:1-5 page a link back to this discussion.

--Matthew Faulconer 00:12, 29 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't rush any changes, though I do think it makes sense to "put our best foot forward" before sending out another mass email—that is, I think we should make whatever changes we think are best before sending out the mass email, but also link to a page that archives the current version of the page and discussion about changes we've made, thought about and proposed.

I've put a different way of structuring the page here: User:RobertC/1 Ne 1:1-5 v1. (I explain my reasoning on the discussion page.) --RobertC 14:11, 29 Apr 2006 (UTC)