I have several questions about the choice of page titles.
1) What are your thoughts on romanizations for non-Chinese persons in their file names? E.g. Cressy, Reichelt, Richard. Should we use their English names followed by the 漢字 as the page titles? Also, what about institutions?
2) For some pages (such as 妙善), there are multiple entries, which I have separated into sub-headings. What do you think? This allows the reader to select which person they want to look at, but it does not follow the format we have established for biography pages. --Erik hammerstrom 23:11, 31 March 2010 (CST)
I have created the template Temple_infobox, and have used it for four pages (See "Recent changes"). If you could take a look at it when you get a chance, I would appreciate your feedback.
--Erik hammerstrom 04:57, 3 June 2010 (CST)
After talking to you, I created the page Welch Project. Right now it just contains the list of chapters and headings as found in the book.
--Erik hammerstrom 20:10, 17 June 2010 (CST)
I think double-checking the articles we have before the one year anniversary is a good idea. I will take a look at all the pages for which I am listed as editor. I intend to finish my work on the grant by next Friday (before the one year anniversary). I have currently done 33.5 hours of 54 (around 62%). It looks like most of the most important geographic and temple articles have now been done and I am shifting back to biographies. Today I am going to start doing pages on a few Japanese missionaries and scholars active in China (Mizuno, Tokiwa, Ogurisu, etc.). I am hoping to finally do pages for Liang Qichao and Yinshun this week, too.
If you see anything you think we still really need, let me know and I will get to it.
It looks like you are doing well on the periodical stuff. That's a good sign for your own work. Good luck.
--Erik hammerstrom 00:02, 14 July 2010 (CST)
I still think a clickable map is a good idea, but the one we have right now is a little too small to allow differentiation of places that are close together. If the map was larger I think we should still use it.
I think I understand what you are saying about an intro line with the subject in bold. Had we agreed to do this for all types of articles (such as institution)? I can't recall. I know we wanted to do it with geo, bio, and temple articles. Blank_Institution and Blank_Periodical have not been edited to reflect this, nor has the latter been edited to include an infobox. I will do that now.
On a somewhat related note, I think it would be better if we leave disambiguation information for all articles at the top of the page (as in Foxue yuekan 佛學月刊), and not in any infoboxes (as you have done for Fojiao yuekan 佛教月刊). This is information that the reader should see first thing before proceeding into the article. I think placing it at the top would expedite this.
--Erik hammerstrom 01:37, 20 July 2010 (CST)
Greg, I am mostly fine with having people get approval to join. I say "mostly" for three reasons: First, we may not want to put any barrier up to having people join. Including us, I think we have about 2.5 active registered users currently and we shouldn't do anything that might discourage participation. Second, the system you propose would require us to list our e-mail addresses here, which would probably increase the amount of spam that we each receive (unless we put our addresses up as JPEG files, or use some other such measure). Lastly, the amount of spam accounts we have received has not seemed onerously large to me. This of course may change.
These are my thoughts for now. If you really want to change how registration works, I will go along with it, but I tend to think it is unnecessary right now.
--Erik hammerstrom 01:47, 5 November 2010 (CST)
I agree with what you propose (using pinyin only for subsequent citations of a term, name, etc. in Chinese).
The one thing I do not agree on is why if the term is part of the article title we do not use bold through the hole line. You suggest leaving the title not bold. It seems that placing the article title in bold is an issue of formatting, akin to placing something in quotation marks. One does not place only part of a term in quotation marks, but the entire string. For example:
Do you see what I mean?
I see what you mean about using half bold, half not bold for main entries, but it seems an unnecessarily complex formatting request. Also, aren't we placing the item in bold font because it is the main entry?
--Erik hammerstrom 00:16, 26 January 2011 (CST)