![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I propose the following paragraph be added to the project page. The only weakness is the lack of examples, if someone can add some that would be most appreciated. MyNameIsNotBob 11:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The church website specifies clearly that the spelling should be "Seventh-day Adventist," including the hyphen and a lower-case “d” for “day”." It also specifies that the abbreviation "Adventist" should be used and never the abbreviation "SDA". As editors of wikipedia we should respect the organization's wishes and abide by these simple guidelines. For more information see Use of the Church Name (www.adventist.org)
I think that the section on the project page should be brought here to the talk page, but I'll let someone else do it. As far as the schools are concerned, there is the List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities which I have done some major work on in the past. That should include all the Adventist tertiary institutions, and is linked directly from the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. I'll add it to the list of pages to work on, though, so that everyone on the project knows it is there. -- Cromwellt| Talk 08:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There are several Adventist schools that have articles. They need to be kept track of. Two that I am aware of are Brisbane Adventist College and. Prescott College, South Australia.
I'll do what I can about expanding Southwestern Adventist University's Page. Druidan 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A category has been created (actually two), someone created List of Seventh-day Adventist Academies and elementary schools then created a category with a similar titile. I thought it would make more sense to mirror the name for the universities and colleges page, and as such we now have Academies and elementary schools affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The above schools are now part of that category. I still don't know where Mamarapha College belongs. - Fermion 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to create a new section on the project page for inactive participants. I know mssever has not edited anything on Wikipedia since July 4, 2005, so he should go there. Comments and disagreements are more than welcome. -- Cromwellt| Talk 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that Perspicacious has not chosen to add himself to the list of participants in this WikiProject, but I'll leave the interpretation of that fact to others for now. -- Cromwellt| Talk 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The founders selected the name Seventh-day Adventist particularly to emphasize two beliefs: a) the seventh day Sabbath as continually valid experience, and b) the expectation of an imminent return of Christ, or the Second Coming. It appears the article omits the Adventist part of the naming formula. Suggest a re-write to so include. Mel 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought people involved with this project would be interested in commenting on the proposed deletion of the Seventh-day Adventist politicians category. See here for the discussion about it. Ans e ll 06:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the contributions by 74.92.128.218 and 207.79.245.253 classed as linkspamming? Ansell 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just created two new categories related to the Seventh-day Adventist church. I first investigated some of the categories employed by other denominations. Also, I considered using "Adventist" for "Seventh-day Adventist" to shorten the category names, but the problem is that the term "Adventist" is too broad. Note that "SDA" is not an encouraged abbreviation.
God bless you! (er... if that's your POV) -- Colin MacLaurin 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a new subcategory for media, which would include books, radio and TV. Which name should we use? Seventh-day Adventist media or Media affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church etc.? Colin MacLaurin 08:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I just created Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists as a subcategory of the new Category:Seventh-day Adventists, patterned after a number of similar categories in Category:People by former religion. What do you think we should do about people who belong in duplicate Adventist categories, such as D. M. Canright who was notable both as a leader in the church ( Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders) but particularly for his defection ( Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists)? Colin MacLaurin 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new subcategory Category:Seventh-day Adventist history. Colin MacLaurin 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see comments at Category_talk:Former_Seventh-day_Adventists#Criteria_for_inclusion-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders is growing larger. I propose breaking it up into smaller subcategories. I have suggested a possible division below. But please don't put your favourite individual into every category just for publicity! e.g. George Knight might be a speaker, but he is primarily an author. Mark Finley may have written many books, but he is more notable as an evangelistic speaker:
There could be a category for church founders, but it would be hard to know where to draw the line chronologically. What about missionaries? Should they be bundled in with another category, like pastors or evangelists? Keep in mind that numbers will be limited, as it is a small church and we cannot simply write an article for every known individual, as they may not be notable by Wikipedia standards.
Other Christian groups categorise their lay people by occupation, however I don't think we have a need to do this in the foreseeable future, apart from the existing politicians category, due to low numbers of these individuals currently.
See Category:Christians by occupation and its subcategories such as Category:Roman Catholics by occupation to get an idea of what others have done. Your input is important and welcome. If you can think of a classification with fewer divisions, please suggest it. Colin MacLaurin 03:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Seventh-day Adventist Church WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Springwood Adventist Church (sic), also known as the Springwood Seventh-day Adventist Church, page is currently under discussion here. Ansell 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Will everybody please pay more attention to 'Top' importance articles? Today somebodies has been adding vandalism, inflamatory remarks and outright junk into Ellen G. White article. Although, I've removed stuff like "SDA church's routinely present "Revilation Seminar's" during which church members are very explicitly coached not to "Spill the Soy Beans" regarding the primacy of E.G. White.", the entire article needs to be fact checked to see if anything else (esp. something more insidious) is left in. Shinhan 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey just asking that everyone help out, you may notice that I have gone and moved our related article list to the WP:1.0 project automated bot process. The way this is done is by adding the {{WP Adventist}} and uses the parameters CLASS (which are stub, start, B (b-class), GA (good article), A (a-class), FA (featured article)) and IMPORTANCE (low, mid, high, and top). If you notice any articles that I have incorrectly classified feel free to change it. Also if you notice any articles not tagged with the template, at least just put the template there without the classification. Thanks, MyNam e IsNotBob 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, for those who may not have noticed, an RfC has been filed about one of the project articles. Feel free to contribute. Ansell 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have an interest in the Second Coming article. Could some of you please comment there on my question about the number two and how it might be better set within a wider understanding of Christian eschatology. I wonder from where the second part of second coming comes and whether this language importnat to Adventists. -- Just nigel 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose a policy which can be migrated to the project page after consensus is reached. This guideline is needed both to improve the current state of the articles, and for the reference of future editors. The WP:NPOV policy states articles
To represent different points of view fairly, we need to be aware of the best sources and their point of view (POV). The church does not have an official statement on everything! Instead I suggest that the spectrum of current views be mentioned in proportion, with lowest notability assigned to ordinary church members, more notability for pastors and administrators, and the most notability given to scholars (the professionals regarding theology). Colin MacLaurin 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Historic, non-mainstream beliefs are currently given too much weight, and contemporary mainstream through to progressive views are given too little weight, and often no mention at all. In particular, articles mentioning the sinful nature of Christ, perfectionism etc. sometimes give the impression that such debates are split about 50-50 in the church today, which is simply not true! The policy states, "The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can." The following sources represent groups of scholars and authors, with their POV included so contributors understand who they are referencing:
These represent a consensus of scholars, administrators, pastors and other church members.
These are highly notable, but not the only part of the picture. If a major portion of the church/scholars disagree, then quote that POV as well, in due proportion.
These have been set up by the church, but a statement by them does not constitute an "official" viewpoint.
What about variation due to geography? Rumour has it that developing countries are more conservative in their theology. This may be worth mentioning, but on the whole the United States scholars are the most notable. (This is certainly true in Australia)
Colin MacLaurin 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tonic and others, I have done a lot of thinking about our discussion on sources to use for Adventist beliefs. I remember a Wikipedia policy stating something like: if there is debate as to which view is the best, just include all the points of view, with citations. I hope that much of our conversation can actually be transferred into articles, e.g. scholarship not always reflecting the average church member etc. We could just say, "There are several angles from which to consider the theology of the church such as official statements, Adventist scholarship, and "popular" material or presenters." I thought of some major Adventist figures who are not scholars but form a major face of the church, like 3ABN, Mark Finley (most well known evangelist? His book Studying Together is a reference for his views), Dwight Nelson and Doug Batchelor. Another good one would be the prophecy seminar, which is often used for outreach, and should be featured in the Eschatology (Adventist) article IMO (I know of several new prophecy seminars currently being developed, so this would probably need some updating in the future). Colin MacLaurin 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Please discuss at Category talk:Seventh-day Adventist leaders). Colin MacLaurin 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding people like Hugh Martin, David Lewis (singer) , Wintley Phipps, etc to the [[Category:Seventh-day_Adventist_Church]] section. Some of them are only stubbs and need to be expanded. I'll help where I can. -- Maniwar ( talk) 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I propose the following paragraph be added to the project page. The only weakness is the lack of examples, if someone can add some that would be most appreciated. MyNameIsNotBob 11:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The church website specifies clearly that the spelling should be "Seventh-day Adventist," including the hyphen and a lower-case “d” for “day”." It also specifies that the abbreviation "Adventist" should be used and never the abbreviation "SDA". As editors of wikipedia we should respect the organization's wishes and abide by these simple guidelines. For more information see Use of the Church Name (www.adventist.org)
I think that the section on the project page should be brought here to the talk page, but I'll let someone else do it. As far as the schools are concerned, there is the List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities which I have done some major work on in the past. That should include all the Adventist tertiary institutions, and is linked directly from the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. I'll add it to the list of pages to work on, though, so that everyone on the project knows it is there. -- Cromwellt| Talk 08:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There are several Adventist schools that have articles. They need to be kept track of. Two that I am aware of are Brisbane Adventist College and. Prescott College, South Australia.
I'll do what I can about expanding Southwestern Adventist University's Page. Druidan 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A category has been created (actually two), someone created List of Seventh-day Adventist Academies and elementary schools then created a category with a similar titile. I thought it would make more sense to mirror the name for the universities and colleges page, and as such we now have Academies and elementary schools affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The above schools are now part of that category. I still don't know where Mamarapha College belongs. - Fermion 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to create a new section on the project page for inactive participants. I know mssever has not edited anything on Wikipedia since July 4, 2005, so he should go there. Comments and disagreements are more than welcome. -- Cromwellt| Talk 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that Perspicacious has not chosen to add himself to the list of participants in this WikiProject, but I'll leave the interpretation of that fact to others for now. -- Cromwellt| Talk 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The founders selected the name Seventh-day Adventist particularly to emphasize two beliefs: a) the seventh day Sabbath as continually valid experience, and b) the expectation of an imminent return of Christ, or the Second Coming. It appears the article omits the Adventist part of the naming formula. Suggest a re-write to so include. Mel 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought people involved with this project would be interested in commenting on the proposed deletion of the Seventh-day Adventist politicians category. See here for the discussion about it. Ans e ll 06:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the contributions by 74.92.128.218 and 207.79.245.253 classed as linkspamming? Ansell 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just created two new categories related to the Seventh-day Adventist church. I first investigated some of the categories employed by other denominations. Also, I considered using "Adventist" for "Seventh-day Adventist" to shorten the category names, but the problem is that the term "Adventist" is too broad. Note that "SDA" is not an encouraged abbreviation.
God bless you! (er... if that's your POV) -- Colin MacLaurin 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a new subcategory for media, which would include books, radio and TV. Which name should we use? Seventh-day Adventist media or Media affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church etc.? Colin MacLaurin 08:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I just created Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists as a subcategory of the new Category:Seventh-day Adventists, patterned after a number of similar categories in Category:People by former religion. What do you think we should do about people who belong in duplicate Adventist categories, such as D. M. Canright who was notable both as a leader in the church ( Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders) but particularly for his defection ( Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists)? Colin MacLaurin 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new subcategory Category:Seventh-day Adventist history. Colin MacLaurin 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see comments at Category_talk:Former_Seventh-day_Adventists#Criteria_for_inclusion-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders is growing larger. I propose breaking it up into smaller subcategories. I have suggested a possible division below. But please don't put your favourite individual into every category just for publicity! e.g. George Knight might be a speaker, but he is primarily an author. Mark Finley may have written many books, but he is more notable as an evangelistic speaker:
There could be a category for church founders, but it would be hard to know where to draw the line chronologically. What about missionaries? Should they be bundled in with another category, like pastors or evangelists? Keep in mind that numbers will be limited, as it is a small church and we cannot simply write an article for every known individual, as they may not be notable by Wikipedia standards.
Other Christian groups categorise their lay people by occupation, however I don't think we have a need to do this in the foreseeable future, apart from the existing politicians category, due to low numbers of these individuals currently.
See Category:Christians by occupation and its subcategories such as Category:Roman Catholics by occupation to get an idea of what others have done. Your input is important and welcome. If you can think of a classification with fewer divisions, please suggest it. Colin MacLaurin 03:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Seventh-day Adventist Church WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Springwood Adventist Church (sic), also known as the Springwood Seventh-day Adventist Church, page is currently under discussion here. Ansell 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Will everybody please pay more attention to 'Top' importance articles? Today somebodies has been adding vandalism, inflamatory remarks and outright junk into Ellen G. White article. Although, I've removed stuff like "SDA church's routinely present "Revilation Seminar's" during which church members are very explicitly coached not to "Spill the Soy Beans" regarding the primacy of E.G. White.", the entire article needs to be fact checked to see if anything else (esp. something more insidious) is left in. Shinhan 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey just asking that everyone help out, you may notice that I have gone and moved our related article list to the WP:1.0 project automated bot process. The way this is done is by adding the {{WP Adventist}} and uses the parameters CLASS (which are stub, start, B (b-class), GA (good article), A (a-class), FA (featured article)) and IMPORTANCE (low, mid, high, and top). If you notice any articles that I have incorrectly classified feel free to change it. Also if you notice any articles not tagged with the template, at least just put the template there without the classification. Thanks, MyNam e IsNotBob 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, for those who may not have noticed, an RfC has been filed about one of the project articles. Feel free to contribute. Ansell 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have an interest in the Second Coming article. Could some of you please comment there on my question about the number two and how it might be better set within a wider understanding of Christian eschatology. I wonder from where the second part of second coming comes and whether this language importnat to Adventists. -- Just nigel 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose a policy which can be migrated to the project page after consensus is reached. This guideline is needed both to improve the current state of the articles, and for the reference of future editors. The WP:NPOV policy states articles
To represent different points of view fairly, we need to be aware of the best sources and their point of view (POV). The church does not have an official statement on everything! Instead I suggest that the spectrum of current views be mentioned in proportion, with lowest notability assigned to ordinary church members, more notability for pastors and administrators, and the most notability given to scholars (the professionals regarding theology). Colin MacLaurin 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Historic, non-mainstream beliefs are currently given too much weight, and contemporary mainstream through to progressive views are given too little weight, and often no mention at all. In particular, articles mentioning the sinful nature of Christ, perfectionism etc. sometimes give the impression that such debates are split about 50-50 in the church today, which is simply not true! The policy states, "The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can." The following sources represent groups of scholars and authors, with their POV included so contributors understand who they are referencing:
These represent a consensus of scholars, administrators, pastors and other church members.
These are highly notable, but not the only part of the picture. If a major portion of the church/scholars disagree, then quote that POV as well, in due proportion.
These have been set up by the church, but a statement by them does not constitute an "official" viewpoint.
What about variation due to geography? Rumour has it that developing countries are more conservative in their theology. This may be worth mentioning, but on the whole the United States scholars are the most notable. (This is certainly true in Australia)
Colin MacLaurin 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tonic and others, I have done a lot of thinking about our discussion on sources to use for Adventist beliefs. I remember a Wikipedia policy stating something like: if there is debate as to which view is the best, just include all the points of view, with citations. I hope that much of our conversation can actually be transferred into articles, e.g. scholarship not always reflecting the average church member etc. We could just say, "There are several angles from which to consider the theology of the church such as official statements, Adventist scholarship, and "popular" material or presenters." I thought of some major Adventist figures who are not scholars but form a major face of the church, like 3ABN, Mark Finley (most well known evangelist? His book Studying Together is a reference for his views), Dwight Nelson and Doug Batchelor. Another good one would be the prophecy seminar, which is often used for outreach, and should be featured in the Eschatology (Adventist) article IMO (I know of several new prophecy seminars currently being developed, so this would probably need some updating in the future). Colin MacLaurin 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Please discuss at Category talk:Seventh-day Adventist leaders). Colin MacLaurin 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding people like Hugh Martin, David Lewis (singer) , Wintley Phipps, etc to the [[Category:Seventh-day_Adventist_Church]] section. Some of them are only stubbs and need to be expanded. I'll help where I can. -- Maniwar ( talk) 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)