User talk:Ath271/Christian Science article/Proposals

Game change

As I reread CS I want to make improvements to it also. I notice it's almost fixed "the metaphysical family" stuff. I see tweeks I want to make to it, and in other areas.

I like working on Ath271/Cpiral. It's our work, as of yet, a kind of talking. But I'm observing that if our CS accomplishments are fleeting, this work of ours will retain worthy and usable content and could remain so because of the collaborative proposal mechanisms we've evolved.

It's turned into a hobby goal. Import the CS theology section to User:Ath271/Christian Science theology and start towards a new article? OK, but as the amount of involvement here keeps expanding, and as CS keeps improving on its own, I begin to feel like a spendthrift. Happy editing! — Cpiral Cpiral 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'd truly love to get to work on a CS Theology article with you, and S&H and MBE. I like your work. I've never had it so good with my advocates. I tried something like this once before at Operating system with several folks way below your caliber. I'm taking an interest in CS lectures and books, but in the interest of time, November might be a better time frame for me for those other articles. To complicate matters, I may need to announce a WP:wikibreak to work on my real life.

For now, my priority has changed from "the lead" to proposing a criticisms section, because the article has improved to "barely tolerable" concerning "the metaphysical family". It now devotes a section title to it whose first three paragraphs do it some justice.

The new Edits section is temporary. That content should go to talk:CS. This work is for proposals. Critiquing the general tone by way of incremental edits is also talk:cs stuff.— Cpiral Cpiral 01:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is right. If I'd seen this before inventing my stream-of-consciousness critique I prob would have put some here, some on talk:cs. That is prob still advisable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ath271 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But now then, I've begun to consider the general critique (under that outline structure) as having several natural merits: a thorough familiarity with CS, a familiarity with our own bias, and lots of fun (sketching the character of our internal critic before we prove ourselves). I hope to rid any bias, confusion, hesitation, or doubt on our part. SV can be very reasonable when not in the intensity like at CS now. When I think about it, I understand SV's position and her need for posturing. The critique approach gives SV a break and gives us more time to research the discussion archive and article history for more critique material.

Girded with these, we can then formulate very confident, clear, concise, powerful and fair proposals on the CS talk page, without drama there or politics there. As it was for us, (and they too often are), the talk page is not as ideal in content as a future researcher might like to find it. And besides there are two more advantages to the usr:ath271/critique-->usr:ath271/proposal-->talk CS route: the infrastructure and notes are in place for other editors, and for Christian Science theology.

SV is consistent in recommending both CS proposals and the CS theology article. See the talk page archives, such as (proposal OR propose) AND SlimVirgin prefix:talk:Christian Science(30 min). See Christian Science theology to almost create it under your user page. Just don't save the page yet. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The metaphysical family

The article sources that:

the metaphysical family: groups such as Christian Science, Divine Science, the Unity School of Christianity and the United Church of Religious Science.[14]

If it is "defined" that way by an RS, it would seem we have little to argue about its inclusion, but I still think the placement in the lead is problematic, because it is the use of a unique term before it is defined. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is linked to its definition in the article. That works for me. It's become low priority. — Cpiral Cpiral 19:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content and format

To increase its readability and usability let's use

User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Critiques that generate proposals/edits here
User:Ath271/Christian Science article/Proposals that generate talk page presentations there

That's a wp:page move and a page creation.

I just removed proposals (section plus outline) to rethink their presentation on a new page. This shouldn't affect the work you're now doing on Critiques (for now, anyway).

Right, but in Critiques I'm editing your outline-oriented commentary (I like that approach) from your /cpiral material. You'll see, and I hope you'll remain understanding if I'm temporarily delayed or "we're" temporarily wrong.— Cpiral Cpiral 20:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the rallying cry is "copious material", so is the joy of its perusal and esp. its usage. So I'm working to increase manageability. An effort to pattern each others spontaneous behaviors will minimize our need to talk or over-engineer things.

I appreciate that! Thanks for attending to management aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ath271 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use the talk page here, where we must, to forge agreements, where necessary, about underlying assumptions and such things. Also we can use

the history page: "diff" views and timestamps
the special:contributions page to note each others WP activities
the special:watchlist: offers to ignore minor edits, jump to history, etc.

Thank you for pointing to these resources.

Our work and its response timeliness requires maintaining a familiarity with (and non-minor changes made to)

the article
its talk page
our proposals and critiques

When we talk in general about our response times being a day or two, it assumes that, entirely.

Consider also setting up

WP:email and/or telephone to eliminate some talk page work
{{inuse}} to eliminate the possible cleanup work of an wp:edit conflict

The more delay there is, the less a readied proposal could mean, because our target is dynamic. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I get that. I've been weighing what that might mean.

As a side note, ridiculously, I didn't know this Talk page was here until you alerted me yesterday (I thought I checked and concluded userspace didn't allow Talk pages...but then, I didn't really know what userspace was until a few weeks ago. Obvs am still a little green in the Wiki world.) Thank you for the alert and for the comments above.

So catching up here, I agree that our target is dynamic and that conversing is interesting but may amount to scattering our fire. I've been okay with that for a few weeks bc it's been exploratory. Sometimes (usually) it takes motion for the right path to emerge. I have been meaning to set up Wikimail so I can better monitor pages, but have resisted bc I don't want the constant incursion of this subject matter into my daily life. It's much more manageable to visit once or twice a week and weigh in, with occasional intensive periods (such as this one). But I just set up Wikimail to increase efficiency here and overall. Ath271 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resources

Wikisource has the beginning of S&H, but only the preface. The CS Wikisource beyond its beginning appears at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:Cpiral
Then there's a CS concordance.

— Cpiral Cpiral 05:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OT: Cpiral I might delete my Wiki mail account. If you'd like to use it please do so soon! I tried to figure out where yours is but don't see it (probably overlooking it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ath271 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]