Site talk:Feedback

Ben, re: request to add a page of links to other resources.

I added several pages. You can find links to them on the community portal. Is that what you had in mind? I haven't added much content yet, if you have anything in mind, please add.

I wasn't really sure where to link to these pages from. It didn't seem like there was any natural place on teh site. Feel free to create a link to them from somewhere else if you think that would be better. --Matthewfaulconer 15:16, 15 Mar 2005 (CET)

Help icons

Hi All, I am considering adding help icons to each section of the commentary page. I did this to one page (see Alma 13:1-5) so people could see how it could work. Clearly my help text isn't very good at this point. If anyone wants to help make it better that would be great. In any case the question at hand is whether people like these help icons or no. If I don't hear any feedback to the contrary within a week, I will assume that people like the new help icons and will go forward and change the rest of the site to match. --Matthew Faulconer 08:40, 2 May 2005 (CEST)

I certainly do not have any strong preference for or against the new help icons. I do wonder if it would be possible to link the help text to the heading? Then one could click on the heading-- Questions-- for help on that topic. One draw back of this approach is that it does not signal that it is the place for an explination as well as the current red question marks. I'm sure there are other drawbacks. In my mind one benefit of this approach is that it maintains the visual simplicity of the site. Again, not a strong preference, just a thought. MJ 19:01, 6 May 2005 (CEST)

MJ, thanks for the feedback. Links on the name are would work. I agree it would look better. I'm not sure if someone didn't know how to use the site if they would know to click on the heading as a link. Maybe I could find a help icon that doesn't look so obtrusive. --Matthew Faulconer 06:01, 7 May 2005 (CEST)

Viewing an entire chapter

I'd like to help make 'entire chapter' views. The easiest way I can think of doing this is to transclude each of the verse pages. If someone can think of a better way to do it, I'm all ears. Here is an example of what a page might look like. Matthew, if you like this idea, can you give permissions to create such pages (e.g. the page "1_Ne._1_all")? Or does someone know a way to automate this task?--RobertC 14:53, 18 Aug 2005 (CEST)

On the face it seems like a good idea. I haven't played around with it much so I think we should try it a little first. How about initially we create a couple of "chapter" pages manually and see how people like them. Then if they seem to work well we can automatically create these chapter pages everwhere. Automatically creating them shouldn't be too hard. Plus it has the advantage of providing consistency.

Also, I wonder if there is a way of using transclusion here without having to use the headings.

--Matthew Faulconer 16:47, 18 Aug 2005 (CEST)

I think that the current practice of using headings is more convenient, esp. since you can edit just that section. Using transclusions entails a couple steps before you can start editing--you have to create the page to be transcluded (which entails having such permission) and insert the transclusion on the parent page. But transclusions seem to be a great way for site administrators to organize pages with several sections, esp. ones that start off being quite sparse (like the help and instructional, as well as commentary pages on this site; possibly even the list of users page...).--RobertC 18:16, 18 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Robert, feel free to request any new pages on Site:Requests for new pages. As you have already included the reason above, you don't need to rewrite it there. --Matthew Faulconer 17:04, 19 Aug 2005 (CEST)

I guess chapter pages already exist. For 1 Ne 1 I just deleted the redirect command and put the transclusion on that page, and I changed the link on the 1 Ne chapters page. A few other issues that I lack knowledge on how to pursue farther:

• I don't know how to get the BOM text on the page like on the commentary pages.
• I don't know how to automate the creation of these pages. If there's not a way to do this, I'm happy to make the changes as I go along (working through the BOM first...).
• I don't know how to add an 'entire chapter' link next the the 'previous' and 'next' links you already have on each commentary page--what do the curly braces and pipes do in terms of formatting?

--RobertC 18:00, 19 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Hi Robert, I like the idea of using transclusions. I'm not sure how best to do it. I think this one would be easier to work out over the phone. Please send me an e-mail and we can coordinate talking sometime. --Matthew Faulconer 08:12, 20 Aug 2005 (CEST) PS if there are others who have some thoughts on this please speak up.

scripture window broken

Hi all,

The scripture window is broken again. It seems that the http://scriptures.lds.org site has reverted to their previous code so that the old links work but the new links that we changed to no longer work.

The good news is I think we have a way now of formulating the links so that they will work with both code sets. Keep your fingers crossed. Hopefully then when they re-upgrade the scripture window will continue to work.

Here is the status of the issue:

• This change requires a code-change. That means Gabriel must fix it. I have made that request to him.

thanks, Matthew

ok, it looks like it is fixed now. Thanks Gabriel. --Matthew Faulconer 22:15, 11 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Facsimiles?

I haven't come across pages for commentary on the three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. Is there any way to fix this? It seems to me that these would be a rich source of commentary on this site. --Joe Spencer 17:12, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)

done. --Matthew Faulconer 06:26, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Links to TOC

All,

I worked a bit on some code to add the Table of Contents links to each commentary page. To see what I mean look at : Gen 1:1-5 & Gen 1:6-10. ON those pages note the new section that looks like this:

The Old Testament > Genesis > Chapter 1

This is at the top and the bottom of the page. Before going ahead and doing all the commentary pages on the site like this, I want to give people a chance to make recommendations. Let me know if you have any suggestions or concerns. I plan on making the changes later this weekend or next week.

--Matthew Faulconer 07:24, 16 Sep 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great addition Matthew that dramatically improves the navigational usability of the site. If I were to nit-pick, I would say the "next" and "last" links look a bit less natural now, but I don't have any great ideas how to change that. I've also been wondering if information pertaining to an overall book or overall chapter is more appropriate on the commentary page for the verse relevant verse, or on one of book page or chapter page (e.g. should've I put the link to Julie's Pentateuch-outline for Matthew on the Matt 1:1 page instead of on the Matthew page? the new links you're proposing tilt the scale slightly to the Matthew page in my mind, though I know under site policy I probably should've put it at the Matt 1:1 page...). --RobertC 14:57, 16 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that if one has something that pertains to a whole book it does sort of make sense to put it on the page that I created originally intending it to be a TOC only. And I agree that the new links argue for that more. The only down-side of this approach is that it is a solution that only works well for stuff of the same scope as TOC page. For example, what do we do if someone wants to outline chapters Alma 36-39? --Matthew Faulconer 23:17, 16 Sep 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to put an outline of Alma 36-39 on the Alma 36 page and then reference it on the other pages (as it became a topic of discussion). On the other hand, I'm probably more likely to notice such outlines and meta-discussions if they're on a proper commentary page. I definitely don't have strong feelings about this (like with most things, I'm too ambivalent!). --RobertC 03:18, 17 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Well you all know I'm not ambivalent on anything, so here's my thought. By the way, more to the original topic, first: I love the changes; I think they are most helpful. I also agree that this points the way toward making pages for whole books, etc. I wonder if it wouldn't be profitable to make those pages, and then to subsume any blocked chapters into those pages themselves, or to allow users to make subpages (my express enemy usually) from those pages concerning those. Lest that comment be too awkwardly phrased, here's an example to elucidate: It would be worth having an "Alma" page, and then, on that page, there might be sections of Alma worked out at some length (a heading of "Alma 36-39"); or, conversely, there might be a series of links at the bottom of any such given page to a subpage that deals with such an excerpted series of chapters. I prefer the former, but I recognize how complex that might get (complex, as opposed to lengthy--everyone is probably well aware of how much I appreciate the length and depth of posted material). Links, in these cases, could be added, where relavant, on the individual five-verse commentary pages as well.

Anyway, I think there would be some fruitful discussion to be had along these lines, particularly as regards the Book of Mormon (the discussion that is getting underway on the Book of Mosiah is a case in point). For there to be a place where this work might be done would be very helpful. Would it be possible (am I asking too much here?) to have the newly added TOC link link to such the page for the whole book, so that every commentary page in Mosiah would link directly to the page for the whole book? That would be wonderful too, especially if there were some explanation of the point on the home page, since users might utilize the contextualization possible there. To be honest, this opens some rather rich possibilities, some I had never thought of, and I think there is reason to hash out these possibilities, because the present approach can become, sometimes, too narrow (just to be taken at the verse level).

I hope, in the end, that these comments sound too unfinished. This simple change seems rather pregnant to me (the change, I mean, that you have already done), and I wonder if we should do some midwifery and see what comes (at least in this think-tank for now) of it all. My several cents. --Joe Spencer 23:28, 17 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and Joe for the comments. I do intend to add the TOC links to every commentary page. So, for example, every page in Mosiah will point to the Mosiah page. I'm still working out exactly how to do this, but I hope to finish it soon. As for adding commentary to TOC pages or creating subpages for several chapters or whatever, I don't think it hurts to experiment. At some point we may want to say, it will be easier for everyone if we pick a single convention and stick with it around how to put commentary that applies to a broad set of scriptures. But for now, I don't think it hurts to experiment. Joe, feel free to edit the home page as well. --Matthew Faulconer 02:41, 18 Sep 2006 (UTC)

I love the TOC links and use them pretty frequently—great work Matthew! --RobertC 13:29, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Companion blog?

Here's a(nother) explicit request for some sort of blog-like feature to be incorporated into the wiki. I think in terms of building a community, a companion blog or something might be a really good way to attract interest. Two immediate technical questions I have are: (1) Is there a way to incorporate some (filtered, ideally) recent changes from the wiki onto a blog. (2) Is there a way to incorporate comments/posts from a blog onto the recent changes page. If not, a companion blog might still be a good idea to help promote the name and goals of the site or something, but I think it might run the risk of detracting from eventually developing the commentary pages. I guess a third question I have is: (3) Is it possible to start a blog that allows anyone to start a new post on the blog? By "anyone" I have in mind an automated and relatively painless way (e.g. type in one of the pictorial codes that prevents spambots) to allow someone new to post a new thread. Even if this isn't possible (or is difficult to implement), perhaps it would be sufficient to always have a thread open that takes requests for topics or something.

Here's my thinking: at the minimum, having a companion blog would make it easier for others who do have blogs that sometimes post on scriptural topics but do not want to learn the ins-and-outs of the wiki to alert the Feast (and the larger bloggernacle community) about such posts. I think it would also make a for a very natural and useful gathering point for those who want to discuss Sunday school lessons and what not. I'm guessing no one here really has the interest or energy to devote to starting such a blog, but maybe I'll put a feeler out at the T&S thread to see if anyone is interested in helping start such a blog.... --RobertC 13:29, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I have the same sort of mixed feelings you are expressing here, Robert. I like the idea, but I am concerned (like you) that focus will shift from actual commentary. I think the need for a blog on teaching is obvious, and I would be interested in being a part of that as well (not to start it--that's way beyond my computer know-how--but to participate), but I don't know how closely connected it would be with something like the wiki. Perhaps the best route is to start up a blog along those lines, see where it goes, and then, if it looks like it will be a promising project, it might be worked into the larger feast project (feastupontheblog.org?). I don't know. --Joe Spencer 14:16, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the possible problems; having thought through them should help us avoid them. This blog idea keeps popping up. How about we just do it. It should take all of 15 minutes to set it up. If it doesn't work out, it should only take about 5 minutes to take it down. --Matthew Faulconer 04:35, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I like Joe's idea to focus on how to teach certain lessons and passages--I see that as something that' not really part of the scope of the wiki project. I'm happy to post some (very!) brief comments regarding how I plan to teach my (12-14 year olds) Sunday school lesson each week, explicitly asking for suggestions and other ideas on how to teach the lesson. Also in the post I can include a standing invitation for blog post requests. And we can keep an active look out for others in the bloggernacle to explicitly invite to be permabloggers. Feast Upon the Blog sounds better than any idea I can think of. Is Blogger the best place to start or is there somewhere better? --RobertC 12:56, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I reserved the domain name feastuponthewordblog.org just in case we decide to do this. PS someone has taken feastupontheword.com. I didn't check who. Too bad I didn't snatch that up a while back as it used to be available. I'm not sure what blogging software is best. I don't like the idea of being tied into any particular hosting service. --Matthew Faulconer 15:58, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Blogging software

Scratch the comment below, I think if we're not going to use something super simple like Blogger, WordPress is the way to go. Here's a plugin for subcategories. --RobertC 18:11, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Here's a chart of different blog software features, but it doesn't say whether it is possible to number comments. This is a pet peeve I have of blogs--if they don't number the comments, it gets really confusing when comments on a post break out into a couple mini discussions. Also, I think having the possibility for subcategories in addition to regular categories will come in really handy for a blog like we're considering.... --RobertC 16:15, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we may use wordpress. I am going to try to devote some time to this over the next couple of weeks so you won't see my around here as much. (Though I said it would only take me 5 minutes to setup, I realize now that I want to do a bit more than just use Blogger--I think.) Robert I will be e-mailing you with some questions along the way. Anyone else who wants to have input on questions like whether to number comments, what software to use, etc. let me know either by posting a comment here or sending me an e-mail. --Matthew Faulconer 05:23, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I don't so much care whether or not I have a say, but if you need someone else to bounce "theoretical" ideas (as opposed to "software" issues) off of, feel free to e-mail me as well. Thanks for all you do, Matthew. --Joe Spencer 15:46, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Help rolling back

Obviously my attempts to rollback two versions didn't work, I'm hoping somebody (i.e. Matthew) will fix this and tell me if there's an easy way to do it (easier than copy-and-pasting from the history diff...). --RobertC 12:49, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC)

The "rollback" thing only rolls back the last edit. The spam program may have automatically made two edits simply to make the rollback feature difficult to use. You can revert back to an earlier version pretty easily. Click on the history page. Click the link to the page for the last good version (the link with the date and time on it). Then click edit. Then click submit. Let me know if those instructions aren't clear. --Matthew Faulconer 03:45, 27 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's very clear--and very easy, I should've figured that out myself (I kept hitting the diff link instead of the actual date link). --RobertC 03:49, 27 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Search problems

Robert pointed out that searching on a specific verse isn't taking you to the page it should (instead it is taking you to what is called a redirect page). I noticed that "Gen 1:1" works while "Mosiah 4:12" doesn't. Does anyone see a pattern in those that work versus those that don't? --Matthew Faulconer 09:33, 2 February 2007 (CET)

Never mind. Gabriel figured out the problem, but I don't have time to fix it right now. --Matthew Faulconer 09:44, 2 February 2007 (CET)