User talk:Matthewfaulconer/Sandbox Alma 13:1-5

Latest changes

Hi All,

I still think this needs a lot of work but I feel like I have done one complete revision. Before posting it though I thought I would give some time for comments/concerns/edits etc given how large the changes are.

Also, I think this is a good test case for the formatting conventions. There are two possible ways of looking at this formatting as it relates to this page. 1) Am I applying the formatting conventions in the best way here? 2) Do we like how the formatting conventions work in a page with quite a bit of material?

On a related note, I don't like the huge table of contents. Not sure what to do about it though. Maybe simply moving the TOC to the end of the page would help. Also, the fact that users who don't like it can hide it makes it better. It is nice that someone can use it to look just at the part they want to.

Finally, I did cut some things that I wasn't sure how to fit into the revision. Feel free to add something back in.

--Matthew Faulconer 16:33, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Matthew, what do you think about applying the formatting rules we've discussed to the questions section too? Here's a page that shows how I think it would (should) look for Alma 13:1-5. --RobertC 13:41, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I think these formatting rules make more sense when the questions are sufficiently complex (i.e. a multiparagraph question) or there are quite a few questions. In this case I think there are a sufficient number of questions to justify this new approach. Do you (or others) agree that we should use the simpler formatting rules in some simpler cases? Or do you think it would be best to always use these new rules even if there is only one short question for the commentary page? --Matthew Faulconer 13:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Good question. My concern is that if we use simpler rules (I expect you mean using bullets and "Verse XX:" or "In verse XX" prefixes--are these rules really that much simpler than using "===" prefixes for each verse?) then the cost of adding the new formatting rules later becomes greater--the cost not only in terms of actually changing the formatting but also the cost of users having to learn a second set of rules for longer commentary pages. Also, I think it looks cleaner to follow a consistent set of formatting rules throughout the site.

On the other hand, I agree that on sparse pages (which are still the vast majority of pages) the new rules don't look as good, though I think changing the formatting so the font is the same size fixed the worst aspect of this problem. Also, it's probably more natural and easier for new users to let commentary develop starting with the simple rules, applying the new rules only when there is sufficient commentary to warrant it.

Tough call. All told I'd probably vote to use the new rules on every page--this would require a somewhat awkward transition period, but from a long-term view, I think it'd look better and overall make it easier for users to learn (one set of rules to learn rather than two). Regardless, I'd envision adoption of formatting guidelines as gradual, first just posting guidelines when a concensus is reached without, for example, making "adheres to formatting guidelines" a requirement in patrolling edits. --RobertC 21:51, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK. I like that. If others have a different opinion feel free to pipe up. Otherwise let's go with always adding the "===" prefixes and then the verses that the comment covers. Let's also say that when the comment covers a whole section of verse that the comment should go on the first part that it covers. Also let's say the user can optionally add a title preceded by a colon and a space. So if you wanted to put a chapter outline in a chapter of 45 verses you would put the following heading on the 1-5 verse exegesis: === Verse 1-45: Chapter outline ===. Sound good? --Matthew Faulconer 05:16, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. --RobertC 08:18, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)