Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 1

message: As I'm documenting the apostles, I've noticed that there is no timeline. It would be relevant to add a timeline in my opinion. I'm still new around here and I know next to 0 about Community of Christ and how everythin is divided up. Should we have three timelines - 1 for Joseph Smith / Early Mormonism, 1 for LDS church, and 1 for the other branches? I think that would be the least confusing. Also, should we have "2004 in LDS" and "1830 in Mormonism" type articles? I think these would be advantages, but maybe we'd only have enough details for decades? Comments? Jgardner 20:16, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
:Right now, we have an article on the History of the LDS Church (needing expansion, BTW), and on the History of the Latter Day Saint movement (which most the churches share), and someday we might get an article on Community of Christ history. As a rule, wikipedians don't like to "break out" articles unless they get too long or pertain to legitimately different subjects. For example, if the history of the LDS church was much longer we might consider breaking into logical time periods (maybe pre-manifesto for, and post-1890, something like that.) However, even if the history articles got much, much longer we almost certainly wouldn't need to break them into years or even decades.
:We might consider making a simple timeline of history, see List of themed timelines for examples of these. Speaking for myself though, I wouldn't want such a timeline unless it was quite thorough. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 21:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline? 

message: Okay, now that the logistics nightmare seems to be over, let's decide what to tackle first. 
As stated above, I propose we make the removal of dead links and the content population of Apostles category articles our first priorities. Since dead links are oftentimes irrelevant, let's put all of them on the project page (that aren't already there) and vote on which should be articles and which should be deleted. If you would like to work on an article, I think it would be good to put your name next to the article you are planning to work on and include a timeframe for its completion. If multiple people are working on the same article, they can collaborate together. Let's help User:jgardner finish up the Apostles category first - jgardner, you want to list all of the empty articles here and we'll sign up? See my example on the project page. 
If anyone else has ideas on the first "real" order of business, let's discuss and get to work. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in full. However, may I make a suggestion that when people remove deadlinks they cite this WikiProject in the description? I fear that some editors will be tempted to revert, or insert other deadlinks. If we refer them here though, we not only avoid reverts, we potentially get another contributer. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 23:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I added a subheading under style on the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Deadlinks) so that I have a specific anchor to refer to when removing deadlinks. Do you think this policy goes far enough? Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 09:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First "real" order of business

message: Most of my knowledge will be best applied reffering to the Non-LDS portions of articles. Which articles could I be of assistance in?--Josiah 01:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IZAK once did a number on Mormonism and Judaism, making sloppy context-ignorant text dumps from Israelite.  The article still "needs cleanup", and it needs all the appropriate perspectives.  (I should cease being a dumping page for people to move stuff and then ignore.) - Gilgamesh 03:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I've asked Yoshiah_ap to help balance Mormonism and Judaism.  It'll be a huge renovation project, to fix all the sloppy edits from ages past.  Everyone's help is appreciated.  Let's do this civilly and amicably. :) - Gilgamesh 03:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been very much gutted and reorganized into a decent stub. I've added a little, but not enough. I'll work on more tommorrow. :)--Josiah 04:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: On an almost unrelated note, do you want a good picture of a Star of David from the Salt Lake Assembly Hall? I'm thinking about taking a bunch of pictures downtown—mostly for the work I do on Salt Lake City topics. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 05:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks, I've got too many of them on my HDD as it is :P--Josiah 14:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Sounds great.  Release a copy into the Wikipedia license and put it in Mormonism and Judaism next to where it's mentioned. :) - Gilgamesh 00:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-LDS 

message: I drafted the much requested William Marks article - needs some extra eyes, editing and wiki-fying. Needs categorization. Who will help? Shall I tackle William Law next? -Visorstuff 00:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: William Marks

message: I am working on Artikels about the Latter Day Saint movement in the German Wikipedia. It would be nice if you can put the pictures related to the Latter Day Saint movement (especial pictures of Temple) on commons. That would make it much easier for me to do pictures in the articels. --Donnyw 11:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm working on this. I've moved over most of the images I uploaded and listed them in commons:Temple Square, ect. User:Cookiecaper appears to have taken some pictures of the Salt Lake Temple. However, I find that many of our temple pictures are dubiously listed as fair use. Even assuming the pictures on Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are fair use, this is an American concept which does not hold in Germany or anywhere else. I don't think commons accepts fair use (see debate at commons:Commons:Licensing, so these images cannot be moved over. Cool Hand Luke 09:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you! commons will not accept fair use, it is also not accepted in the German Wikipedia. --Donnyw 13:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Anyone have knowledge enough to create an RSS feed on project pages, letting us know when they get updated? -Visorstuff 16:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be neat. Do you know any projects that do this? According to discussions at the village pump, feeds are not currently generated. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RSS

message: There is a package of external links that seems to be proliferated through the project.  An anon recently scolded Visorstuff (!) for spamming when he reverted a mass deletion of external links on one article.  V and I agree that the external links package needs to be limited to an "as-needed" basis.  I propose that the full links package go only on the LDS Church page, with other pages getting perhaps one link from LDS church if necessary, and links from other LDS churches as appropriate so as to preserve fairness (non-bias aka NPOV). Tom - Talk 20:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Oh my, I've seen some of that. I strongly agree. External links should be narrowly restricted to the article's topic. General links are not needed all over the place. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive external links being seen as spam