This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christian mysticism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 120 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is some rule somewhere on picture size (I think Ywore reminded me on that one), but I've forgotten where... Anyway, according to [1] picture sizes may be accomondated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You should use thumb and leave the sizing alone.
"Normally a thumbnail has a width of 220 pixels (px). This width is used by typical readers, who have not logged in or who have not changed their preferences. You can set a different default width for yourself in My preferences under "Appearance:Files". The options are 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px, 250px, and 300px. Any image narrower than the preferred width is displayed at the narrower width. Images beside the text should generally use a caption and the "thumb" (thumbnail) option; the default results in a display 220 pixels wide (170 pixels if the "upright" option is used), except for those logged-in users who have set a different default in their user preferences. In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference."- [2]
Editor2020 ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason that all of the icons and art are post-Schism? Are there issues with with using early icons of the Church or post-Schism Orthodox icons? Mecurl ( talk) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Eastern Orthodox mysticism and Hesychasm are suspiciously missing here. Western bias? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. Please let me know whether any one reading this article would be interested in joining such a WikiProject. Vorbee ( talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This article uses "c.q." a few times, presumably as an abbreviation for "casu quo" which is a somewhat obscure bit of Latin. I would like to edit those instances to be clearer, but I am not certain of the intended meaning. For example, in the lede paragraph I'm unsure of the relationship between "contemplatio" and "theoria." Can someone help clean up this mystical Latin? 73.242.100.208 ( talk) 13:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@ DuncanHill re:
If you insist on using sfn then you have to define the ref properly, not leave it to other people to fix it for you.( Charming, follow up)
I don't "insist on using" anything, let alone {{ sfn}}, so I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make wholly unwarranted assumptions and impertinent inferences in edit summaries directed at me. I was merely making the best of an already appalling mishmash of cite styles and notes. If I made the odd mistake, it's infinitesimal compared to the frankly abysmal, mismatched, and confusing litany of awful already there. Have I caused you loads of these problems somewhere? Did my error truly warrant this level of snit? I usually fix errors on WP, but I'm aware I make mistakes. Are you perfect?
Nor do I leave my errors for "other people to fix it for you.
". That was completely uncalled for. I'm often embarrassed when I later pick up on various snafus I've made and make a habit of reviewing my edits to look for them. They're mostly still there for me to fix. When other editors do fix for me, they generally, thankfully, seem much kinder than you apparently feel the need to be.
AukusRuckus (
talk)
14:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
leave it to other people to fix". (Where did that come from?) Not saying I should just "publish" without checking for errors and only worry about it later (if that's the thrust of your question). Just attempting to communicate how conscientious I try to be: I take editing seriously. I find that coming back with fresh eyes I can see things, often as glaringly obvious, that I sometimes miss when I'm in the thick of a complex (or even simple!) edit. I definitely try to catch errors before I hit "publish changes".
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christian mysticism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 120 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is some rule somewhere on picture size (I think Ywore reminded me on that one), but I've forgotten where... Anyway, according to [1] picture sizes may be accomondated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You should use thumb and leave the sizing alone.
"Normally a thumbnail has a width of 220 pixels (px). This width is used by typical readers, who have not logged in or who have not changed their preferences. You can set a different default width for yourself in My preferences under "Appearance:Files". The options are 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px, 250px, and 300px. Any image narrower than the preferred width is displayed at the narrower width. Images beside the text should generally use a caption and the "thumb" (thumbnail) option; the default results in a display 220 pixels wide (170 pixels if the "upright" option is used), except for those logged-in users who have set a different default in their user preferences. In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference."- [2]
Editor2020 ( talk) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason that all of the icons and art are post-Schism? Are there issues with with using early icons of the Church or post-Schism Orthodox icons? Mecurl ( talk) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Eastern Orthodox mysticism and Hesychasm are suspiciously missing here. Western bias? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. Please let me know whether any one reading this article would be interested in joining such a WikiProject. Vorbee ( talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This article uses "c.q." a few times, presumably as an abbreviation for "casu quo" which is a somewhat obscure bit of Latin. I would like to edit those instances to be clearer, but I am not certain of the intended meaning. For example, in the lede paragraph I'm unsure of the relationship between "contemplatio" and "theoria." Can someone help clean up this mystical Latin? 73.242.100.208 ( talk) 13:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@ DuncanHill re:
If you insist on using sfn then you have to define the ref properly, not leave it to other people to fix it for you.( Charming, follow up)
I don't "insist on using" anything, let alone {{ sfn}}, so I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make wholly unwarranted assumptions and impertinent inferences in edit summaries directed at me. I was merely making the best of an already appalling mishmash of cite styles and notes. If I made the odd mistake, it's infinitesimal compared to the frankly abysmal, mismatched, and confusing litany of awful already there. Have I caused you loads of these problems somewhere? Did my error truly warrant this level of snit? I usually fix errors on WP, but I'm aware I make mistakes. Are you perfect?
Nor do I leave my errors for "other people to fix it for you.
". That was completely uncalled for. I'm often embarrassed when I later pick up on various snafus I've made and make a habit of reviewing my edits to look for them. They're mostly still there for me to fix. When other editors do fix for me, they generally, thankfully, seem much kinder than you apparently feel the need to be.
AukusRuckus (
talk)
14:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
leave it to other people to fix". (Where did that come from?) Not saying I should just "publish" without checking for errors and only worry about it later (if that's the thrust of your question). Just attempting to communicate how conscientious I try to be: I take editing seriously. I find that coming back with fresh eyes I can see things, often as glaringly obvious, that I sometimes miss when I'm in the thick of a complex (or even simple!) edit. I definitely try to catch errors before I hit "publish changes".