SourceryForge:Suggestions
From SourceryForge
Contents |
More practical techniques
Could we link to all the material which actually has "recipies" - now wave yer left arm like this and scream cthulhu - in one place? We've got scads of background and theory, but not much practice. Ganesh.
News Section
I suggest to have a news section where we will write short news about recent developments in the world of Esotericism etc. Currently the "Current events" page redirects to "Development" page. If my suggestion is accepted, we can start writing news in "Current events". The news can also have a special section for news about SourceryForge itself (news like: this person became admin, that person left, this new policy introduced, etc!). I watch Rosicrucian and Masonic news, so I can contribute a lot of these. Note however that many (most) news stories will be about the cultural and charitable activities of these orders, since they tend not to publish their esoteric activities, and this is for good. How do you think? Magos 12:38, 16 Apr 2004 (BST)
- It's not a bad idea if you're willing to keep it up to date. Maybe make Current Events the esoteric news and Sourceryforge:News the news about the site. A sensible formatting would make sense, maybe with dates as level two headings and news items as level 3? Elseware 13:47, 16 Apr 2004 (BST)
- Yes I think it is better to separate esoteric news from SourceryForge news. Magos 05:23, 17 Apr 2004 (BST)
Forum
How about getting phpbb or another forum and placing it in a /forum directory so that we can have an occult forum? Maybe we can attract more members in this way. The idea is that most people dont know what a wiki is and how to use it, but they know how to use a forum. So, if we advertise it properly, people who don't know about wikis will join the forum and start talk about occultism etc and then we will introduce them in the wiki and teach them how it works etc. Magos 00:47, 25 Sep 2004 (BST)
Elseware: Dunno. The world is full of bulletin boards. It's not what I was trying to do really, as I've no urge to run one. Maybe it might be better to "partner up" with an existing one?
- Either internal (our forum) or external (partner forum), we can achieve the same purpose, i.e. bringing in new people in SourceryForge. How can we partner up with an existing BB and which one would be willing to partner up with us? Preferably, the partner forum should already have a community of some ppl. Magos 02:49, 26 Sep 2004 (BST)
Vargr: I notice that there are a lot of members from Barbelith.com that also frequent SourceryForge. Perhaps an arrangement could be struck there?
Elseware 10:26, 21 Oct 2004 (BST): Barbelith, possibly, it's the 'parent' site of s.f. in many ways, but I'm not sure a deal feasable. For one, the guy who runs barbelith does not hang out on the magick forum, for another I don't know what kind of deal might work. The blog-friendly tarot readings seemed like a pretty neat idea, as the blog community is good at sharing good ideas (which I reckon this is).
- The tarot spread generator is awesome! A link at the top to the main wiki page would be wise, I think. And instead of "SF" write "SourceryForge" for search engines' sake :) Great tool! Magos 14:27, 21 Oct 2004 (BST)
Related Wikis
I've been setting up a wiki project. Although there will be some small expansion, the main purpose of this one is an index of spiritual entities. Do you think it a good idea to share information between these two projects?
--Aether Manas, unregistered guest 14:35, 2 Nov 2004 (GMT)
User:Elseware: Well, it's up to the contributor. My long term plan for this wiki is to make it a resource for people who like to walk between traditions, so it will contain some very eclectic material, but my biggest (current) interest is creating new ideas by comparing old ones. Information may be shared or copied assuming it complies with the GFDL, see: SourceryForge:Copyrights
Sister Wikis?
A live and defunct list would be helpful. kiamagic.com (defunct: Magic Sanctum, Supernatural World)Nagasiva 06:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Article Name Policy
Since we have so few articles there's still a chance to do this...would it be useful to put articles at original names rather than popular names,where appropriate?I created an article from a link to Iuppiter and then realized there was no "Jupiter (god)" article to cross-reference.As there was no letter J in Roman times the former is the more historically correct name.Alphabets aside,modernized spellings don't carry the way names were actually pronounced by original worshippers,and for those vesting importance in "true names",this can be important.Similarly,rather than creating an article Uranus (god) we could put one at Ouranos (saves confusion with the planet...though Uranus,or technically VRANVS,was his Roman name),Osiris could be Ousir,and the Celtic goddess (repackaged as a Christian saint) Brighid could be covered as Brigantia,the name actually used in the era when she was worshipped by classical pagans rather than adherents of neopaganism concerned with modern Gaelic (in which the name is pronounced "Breed",which "Brigantia" certainly was not).Any thoughts?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:31, 13 October 2006 (BST)
I'm not sure about this. In the case of the Roman pantheon, i think this would be good in order to avoid confusion with the planets, and for educating people. That will go for some other things, too. It still makes me cringe to see Aristoteles spelled Aristotle, for example. But i wouldn't like to extend such a policy to the Egyptian, celtic, and all kinds of other pantheons. The problem is: few people will enter the right names in the search box when they come here. So we will need to create redirects for the popular names, and people following those will create unnecessary server hits. The owner of sourceryforge told me recently that bandwidth usage might become a problem when this place becomes more popular, so we maybe should try to avoid generating unnecessary traffic. The other problem: for some gods it is hard to find an universally accepted real name. I've red all kinds of different spellings for the real name of Osiris, while Osiris is understood widely. Maybe we should wait a few more days, maybe the owner or someone else comments on this, too. Eusebia 14:42, 14 October 2006 (BST)
