User talk:Joevans3

General Comments:

I just started using this wiki, and enjoy it, but thought I'd throw out my two cents on how it works, as my first impressions may be similar to the first impression of other users:

1) Latin. What is the intended audience here? It seems like there is a relatively small group of people interested in an online commentary to the LDS scriptures. By using the headings "Lexical Notes" and "Exegesis" on each page, you are further limiting your audience to people who also are familiar with those terms, and/or are comfortable enough with them to look them up on your site and learn them (or don't care). I suggest you simply include your short explanations of each term from the Home Page on each subpage, or, if you care to go this far, minimize the latin further by using the explanations themselves as the titles for each subpart and include the latin merely as a parenthetical clarification. Ie "Explanation and Analysis (Exegesis)".

2)Love the wiki. Will think of more suggestions later.

--Joevans3

Joevans, thanks for sharing these first impressions, they are very valuable. Also, welcome to the site, and thanks for your contributions already. (Matthew will probably give you a more official welcome sometime later.)

I think you make a good point about these terms exegesis and lexical notes. We're sort of in the process of making some changes. For example, we were playing with "help icons" on the Alma 13:1 page, and we planned to add some sort of help link to every page on the wiki like on that page, but I think we got stalled out in indecision about the best way to do this (plus, I think it'd take a bit of work on Matthew's part to make this change, and he's the only one who knows how to make the change, at least so far...). I quite like your suggestion of replacing "Exegesis" with "Explanation and Analysis (Exegesis)" or even just "Explanation" (which I think is a pretty common heading used in Biblical commentaries now...). I think there was also some discussion about the possibility of adding a fifth section which is gives more of a summary of passage with perhaps some brief discussion, perhaps summarizing a longer, explanation section.

We've also struggled a bit in terms of "limiting our audience." Of course we want everyone to feel welcome and of course we'd love to see more participate here. I think there is a danger, however, that if the site turns into a place to simply make obvious or fluffy or merely sentimental statements, then the overall value of the site is compromised.

My 2 cents anyway. Thanks again for bringing up the issue, I think we sort of need a kick in the pants! --RobertC 23:42, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

Hi Joevans! There was some discussion about the word "exegesis" on the blog a while back, where I made the same complaint. After learning the full meaning of the word (that it means to "draw out of the text", as opposed to "reading into"), however, I backed away from my criticism. I really like how the word directs the kind of "explanation and analysis" that is done. I'm not clinging to anything here, but thought I'd mention my changed opinion. What term should replace "Lexical"? --BrianJ 07:33, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

Thanks all. BJ, I would just use what is on the Home page again: "Meaning or Origin of Words" Although, because of common usage of lexicon and other words, "Lexical notes" does not strike me as quite as technical for some reason? Personal taste?

Re "fluff". That sounds pretty subjective to me. Is your presumption that people familiar with these terms or willing to look them up would be less likely to post "fluff?" That they would have greater insight into the scriptures? Who decides what is obvious? In general, I don't think people would go to the trouble of finding the site, and/or getting a username/password, just to post worthless comments. Just a thought.

Hey Joevans, Welcome to the site and thanks for participating. We've gone back and forth on the question of how to handle these section headings. Please see Site talk:Feedback#section_headings for further discussion. --Matthew Faulconer 08:45, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

signing name on talk pages

Hi Jeovans3, fyi. There is an easy way to sign your name which automatically inserts a link to your user page and also adds the date and time. Just type --~~~~. Or you can click on the second from the right button on top of the edit window. It has a picture on it that looks like a small part of a signature. --Matthew Faulconer 16:52, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Ah. --joevans3 17:26, 30 July 2007 (CEST). Thanks!