Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thelema/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is the talk page for WikiProject Thelema

Cleanup question

For the articles listed under "Cleanup," what sorts of actions are needed - general editing, adding cites and references, or both? Does the answer vary by article? If so then a more detailed list would be very helpful.Psuliin 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Rose Kelly article, made a few cosmetic fixes, and put a "to do" list on the discussion page listing the improvements I thought of. Perhaps that would be a good way to handle these?Psuliin 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

93 -> thelema

The {{93}} was changed to {{thelema}}... seems kinda arbitrary. Was there a reason?---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thelemite vs Thelemic

We have this Category:Thelemite texts. My understanding is that "Who calls us Thelemites does no wrong" which is to say, Thelemites are people. The adjectival form which should modify "texts" would be "Thelemic", no? I'd be happy to do the work involved if there is consensus to correct this to Category:Thelemic texts. Looks like it should only require the page-move and 21 minor edits. --Geoff Capp 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. Thelemite describes a person whereas Thelemic is the generally accepted adjective form of 'Thelema.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psionicpigeon (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree as well. Crazy that the original proposal for this was 2 1/2 years ago, with another person agreeing one year ago, and still nothing has been done. Seems like a simple change, and even if only a small detail, still improves the overall quality of what we do here. Fr.333 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Thelema WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New transparent Unicursal Hexagram

I've created and uploaded a new transparent Unicursal Hexagram

Image was removed as non-free Will in China (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to replace all instances of the old jpeg one with this one, unless the jpeg version fits better within it's context (black background, etc).

Maybe a notice should be put on the front page? — zorkmid ^EA 16:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's fair use? It seems fairly likely to me it was created before modern copyrights... in any case, it's showing as having a grey background to me, but that might be an IE problem? ---J.S (t|c) 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OTO vs. the OTO

It seems like this project should have a standard for which usage should be preferred. There seems to be inconsistency over people referring to the Ordo Templi Orientis as "OTO" or "the OTO". I used to use mainly "OTO", but now looking at the 1917 constitution I'm going to switch over to the OTO. Then again, in the COTO's history page they seem to use only "OTO". --Jackhorkheimer 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly the issue over the fact that there are several OTO's in existence. For clarification the main orders in this schism re:

The Caliphate OTO

Typhonian OTO (OHO Kenneth Grant)

OTOA (which has ties with some of Michael Bertiaux's occult work.)

Another issue is that a lot of Thelemites disagree with the Caliphate proclaming themselves has THE OTO , using pointless legal statements to affirm this stance. when in reality their "body" of occult/magickal work has failed to back this up.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not trying to sort out which is the "real" OTO. I'm just trying to figure out a simple grammatical point: whether the OTO should be referred to as "the OTO" or "OTO". --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Will in China pointed out to me that the Latin Ordo Templi Orientis makes the article "the" redundant as I was editing the Typhonian OTO page. Technically, from a linguistic standpoint, he is correct.

From the standpoint of common usage, however, both versions are used, including by Crowley himself.

I chose to accept Will's guidance, and I used the convention Ordo Templi Orientis rather than "the" Ordo Templi Orientis on the TOTO page. Estéban (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

O.T.O. maintains an official style guide. There is no "the" --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)