Template_talk:Quakers
Template talk:Quakers
This template is related to the WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
Hi. Thank you for having started this navigation template.
Here is the state of this template before the following changes were made.
Images
I removed the Quaker star, a symbol of Quaker service. I understood that Friends otherwise tried to avoid symbols. Being plain in such a template seems to me more accurate.
Titles
I removed the subtitles because being quite obvious.
List of famous Friends
Some women and artist (Hicks) and others are added.
- But isn't his cousin Elias Hicks (namesake of the Hicksites) by far the more prominent figure in Quakerism?--BillFlis (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is a good move. While Elias was more important within the RSoF, Edward is by far the more famous. If the category is fame, Edward makes more sense to me. --Ahc (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
List of organisations
Perhaps not the more famous, but the more usefull in an encyclopedia. With subtitles to help. Only the acronyms to gain space, but the full names do appear when holding the mouse only a short time on a name.
- Replaced with full names. I see no merit in obfuscating these organizations by reducing them to acronyms. Space is not a problem!--Shantavira|feed me 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Themes
Adding this line gives the navigation template quite the same structure as the links proposed on the main page Religious Society of Friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MHM-en (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I like the idea of this line, but is there a better name that we could use? Themes just doesn't seem to fit in to me. Granted I'm not sure what a better name would be, so maybe it should just stay. --Ahc (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the articles collected under "Themes" are a miscellany. Clerk, a list of Quaker businesses, and Homosexuality in Quakerism...I just don't see what they have in common or what group they belong to. If you want to leave the articles grouped like that, the appropriate text is "Miscellaneous". — goethean ॐ 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Done Changes made 16 April 2008 by User:Goethean, remplacing Themes by Others (and putting this line at the bottom end) -- MHM-en (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Update on all pages
This navigation template is at the bottom of the pages mentionned before I made some additions. Before adding it at the bottom of all other pages, we may wait on more reactions and suggestions?
Inclusion of Quaker Bible
The above is included under themes, and I'm frankly not sure why it's there... I'm not aware of, and the article doesn't indicate, any significance of this particular bible translation to the Society of Friends, now or historically. Thoughts? SamBC(talk) 16:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done This is no more in the template. -- MHM-en (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind seeing it in the 'Other' section as it is an interesting from a historical standpoint. I do grant, however, that it's significance is pretty minor in Quaker history other than being the only translation solely produced by a Friend. For the latter reason alone, I think it might warrant inclusion. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This was actually a really nifty tool for maneuvering around the quakers on the wiki. =] --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.16.49 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of Kenneth Boulding—Should we include separate "Modern" Friends and "Historical" Friends sections?
I've added Kenneth Boulding's name to the list of famous Friends. I've been thinking that we ought to add several other notable Quakers from the modern era, but I wanted to sound out the thoughts of the template's creators and other Wikipedians.
What do you think of adding modern Friends to the template? Do you think they should be listed alphabetically in the "Quakers" section, or should the section be subdivided into "modern" and "historical" subgroups? (And should these groups be called "modern" and "historical" or are there better, simpler terms?)