Talk:Christian mysticism

Picture size

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)

Do you wish to accomondate something? Or you are telling me that is OK to do so? Hafspajen (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh... good question. Both, actually. I was corrected several times for adjusting pictures; but according to this help-article it seems to be acceptable. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure it is. That is why the tool exist...Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 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)

Hi, you made some very nice additions to the article. Thanks for your suggestion, but there is a good reason to do so. The reason is that these pictures are now the same size of the sidebar. Also these pictures are quite big in real life and the thumb size is not quite enough to give a god image, for example Stigmatization of St Francis, by Giotto, is covering a whole wall in reality. Same reason why Sabbatai Zevi uses 350px in the lead. We already agreed that we will keep the size of the pictures like they are, hope that it is not to big problem for you. It is not forbidden to do so. Logged in users can choose from widths between 120px and 300px, . I think that covers it. Are you interested in mysticism? Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The size of the images is a minor detail and I won't be upset about it one way or the other. Editor2020 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is lovely, because you really do a good work on Wiki. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Iconography Examples are limited to post-Schism

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

Eastern Orthodox mysticism and Hesychasm are suspiciously missing here. Western bias? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject

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)

c.q.

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)

@73.242.100.208: I added the term; it seems to be a 'standard' term in Dutch, but not in other western languages. Dutch equivalents would be "oftewel" ( in other words, i.e., aka) and "danwel" (fairly untranslatable, but "or" would come close). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that the best you have to offer good faith users?

@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)

How long do you usually wait before seeing if an sfn you've introduced works? DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not that I "wait" to see if an {{sfn}} works. I trial them then and there. I thought I'd checked them all: clearly some got through. I miss things sometimes, despite my best efforts. (Have you seen how convoluted the notes/ sub-notes [ye gad!] /citations /further reading, is in the article?)

My remark about coming back later to recheck, was in response to your assertion that I was going "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".

I'm sorry I made the mistakes, perhaps they were egregious ones. It's otherwise hard to see why the need for remarks about leaving fixes to others; I've never behaved that way. I'd intended to make a bit of project of the article, over a week or two, but it's clearly not a place I should be. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I've also noticed and fixed non-functioning sfn refs by other editors, so I do notice them. At least sometimes! I will frequent the "Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" page that you pointed out, for a more systematic approach. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you add User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js then you can see errors highlighted on the article page as soon as you save - it makes it much harder to miss any! If you watchlist Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors then you'll see additions to the category whenever you visit your watchlist. That's how I saw it today. It came up on my watchlist that you had added this article to the category a couple of hours previously. Several other articles came up as being added by other editors. Your edit summary explicitly referred to citation formatting. I have absolutely no interest in the article, and it's only on my watchlist now because of this thread. If it doesn't get added back to the error category then it's extremely unlikely I shall ever even look at the article again so please don't avoid editing it for my sake. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)