From Feast upon the Word ( Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrators on this site have only had brief discussions on style and formatting guidelines. The site is maturing, and it's time to start thinking about this more carefully.

Current system[edit]

The four main headings for each page have already been established and described on the site policies page here. Inside these headings, formatting thus far has primarily consisted of using a bullet point for each comment, sometimes with a heading such as

  • Verses 10-12: Here we see...

My vote is to discontinue the earlier heading system (which I think I initiated) of

  • Vv. 10-12: Here we see...


I think this system works reasonably well. However, as I see it, there is one fundamental problem that makes this system unworkable as a long-term system:

  • Dealing with multi-paragraph comments - When adding a comment with multiple paragraphs, there's no easy way to connect the later parapraphs with the earlier bullet.
If you try to indent the later paragraphs with no bullet, they do not line up very well as this paragraph illustrates (or look here). Besides, the indenting is a little hard to follow with the scripture window, esp. if you try to do nested bullets (as shown here, at least I can't see the nested bullets in my browser...).

Another problem is that it's not very pretty or organized having several bullets starting with the same "Verse 10:" prefix.

Proposed solutions[edit]

Here are some proposed solutions to the problems described above:

  1. Non-nested subheadings - One obvious and simple solution is to use subheadings for each verse, and when there is multi-paragraph commentary for a verse, create a separate (non-nested) subheading with a description for that multi-paragraph commentary. Here's an example of how such a policy might look. Notice how the automatically generated table of contents becomes very long doing this....
  2. Nested subheadings - Nested subheadings could also be used. This makes a more structured table of contents, but I think it's hard to distinguish the levels of subheadings used on these wiki pages and makes an over all messier system. Here's an example of how this system might look.
  3. Definition list approach - Another approach would be to use definition list formatting as shown here. This prevents the table of contents from being displayed. I think the table of contents can be suppressed using some command, though I'm not sure if the level of depth for the table of contents displayed can be specified. Also, this system requires a slightly steeper learning curve (esp. learning that you can't use semi-colons the definition title (what is effectively the subheading title).


Please feel free to comment on either of these approaches (on this discussion page), make your own suggestion, or have a look at the many other systems I thought about by:

Of course not every page will follow the guidelines we decide on, but it's time to work on establishing some sort of guidelines for style and formatting.