Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Catholicism: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:36, 21 July 2011 editMamalujo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,004 edits →Help needed at Catholics for Choice: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:06, 14 January 2025 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,448 edits →Good article reassessment for Providence College: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|wp=yes|WT:CATHOLIC|noarchive=yes}}
{{to do}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Catholicism}} {{WikiProject Catholicism}}
}}
{{Christianity-related talkpages}}
{{to do|target=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive %(year)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive %(year)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }}
| target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
{{Archive box
| auto = no
| index = /Archive index
| search = yes
| collapsible = no
| bot = MiszaBot II
| units = months
| age = 3 |
* ''']''': December 2005 &ndash; June 2006
* ''']''': July 2006 &ndash; August 2006
* ''']''': September 2006 &ndash; January 2008
* ''']''': February 2008 &ndash; December 2008
* ''']''': January 2009 &ndash; December 2009
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism/Navigation}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism/Navigation}}
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|DarkGoldenRod}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fcf7d3}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |Archives of past discussions''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid DarkGoldenRod;" |
]

''']''': December 2005 &ndash; June 2006

''']''': July 2006 &ndash; August 2006

''']''': September 2006 &ndash; January 2008

''']''': February 2008 &ndash;
December 2008

''']''': January 2009 &ndash;
December 2009

''']''': January 2010 – December 2010

''']''': January 2011 – December 2011

|}

== An editor to watch ==

{{User|71.50.28.249}} has been making mass changes to articles in our project. He has been removing the term "Roman" from "Roman Catholic Church" and other terms, which would normally be fine by me, but he has no consensus, and is removing them from specifically Latin Church usages! Also, he is breaking wikilinks and categories by doing this. Another editor and I have reverted most of his work, but if anyone else would care to chime in on reasons he should not be doing this, feel free. Thanks. ] (]) 05:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

:There have been several IPs that geolocate to that area, they come and get reverted every 3 months or so, then persist again. He does not debate the issue any more, before used to debate it. But this again shows that as the number of Wikipages increases, reality is catching up with us, as this by stating:

::''an untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, as time passes by. This trend may eventually cause that these authors will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month, thus starting a decreasing trend in the number of monthly revisions, and an overall recession of the content creation and reviewing process in Misplaced Pages''.

:He was right, I no longer bother to revert that IP. It is time for policy change for more protection and many more bots. I think there should be a bot request just to revert this fellow. ] (]) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

::Found another editor doing the same thing. {{User|Twmerrigan}}. Only a few edits from him. He has a manifesto on his Talk page about it already. ] (]) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

:::If does the same thing, we can ask for a ] check and it will show quickly. ] (]) 01:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

== Request for input in discussion forum ==

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at ], and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. ] (])
<br /><br /><sub>Automated message by ] from ] at 15:44, 5 April 2011</sub>

== Congregation, mission, church - terminology ==

In regards to ] I'm afraid I may have mucked up the terminology in using the terms church, congregation and mission. I'd guess that any terminologically-aware Catholic would be able to clean up after me on that article in about 5 minutes. Any help appreciated. ] (]) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:Not that bad, really. I made minor changes. ] (]) 18:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks. If I understand correctly - a mission has a congregation and the building can be called a mission church. Of course, parish the thought, a congregation could also have a mission! ] (]) 23:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Perhaps not exactly. But the fact that you even have to ask means only one thing: There are no clean and clear discussions of this issue in Misplaced Pages. It needs to be discussed. I do not have time to do it now, but they need to be added with refs. ] (]) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::::I brought up the topic of "mission dioceses" once, intending to label dioceses in the US. Several editors were '''quite''' annoyed saying that most members of those dioceses did not know this. They were apparently quite humiliated by the label! BTW, a substantial number of US dioceses are "mission", particularly in the West. ] (]) 13:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
::::: Yes, the west is mission-land, but probably an entry in Wikitionary or a small Misplaced Pages article explaining the different terms will be useful. ] (]) 14:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

== Move proposal for Pope Clement I article ==

Discussion is open on a ] to move ] to ]. ] (]) 14:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, you were right, not a good idea. ] (]) 15:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
::A similar discussion has been opened on ]. ] (]) 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== Assessment ==

Not too sure why ] is claimed to be A-class...] (]) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

:Not any more. ] (]) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

:: And . Says the same. It is good for a new release. Will be on DYK in about 10 days, so will get used on these things. ] (]) 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

== New spirituality redirect pages created, please edit as necessary ==


== Request for help: articles related to Trinity / Arianism / Nicaea need attention ==
I've been correcting the redlinks in the some of the ] pages, and I created several redirect pages that link to appropriate sections of ]: ], ], ] and ]. If any of these topics have a better redirect target, please change them accordingly. Thanks, ] ] 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello! Over the past two years, a vast number of articles related to the Trinity, the Arian controversy, and 4th century Church history have been overhauled and/or bloated with material of a decidedly pro-Arian/anti-Trinitarian slant, including ], ], and dozens more. The main user behind this transformation is ], an extremely prolific Arian apologist who runs the blog , one of whose stated purposes is to "oppose the Trinity doctrine." See his ] for a sense of their scope and character.
:I see no problem with your redirects, but that page itself is in need of serious help. A lot of it is flat incorrect, e.g. Montfort, etc. Not that I have time to fix it now, but you may want to add more warning flags on it. It is just a collection of incorrect statements added by . And please . That tool seems to work well for a 1st release software item, although to generous at times. And yes, I am plugging that tool (I just DYKed it), for I think the future of reliability testing is in that type of automation. ] (]) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


While the user in question often adds serious content and cites legitimate scholarly works, it's consistently written in a polemical tone that fails to meet Misplaced Pages's ] principle, and often is improperly cited and/or mixed with ] from his blog. He's also shown himself averse to constructive criticism, as seen from his ].
:: Thanks for the warning. I was thinking much more simply, that maybe redirects to ] or ] might be more appropriate. ] ] 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


While I've attempted to fix some of the more egregious revisions (e.g. to ]), as a Misplaced Pages rookie and full-time theology student I lack the bandwidth to revise and factcheck all the articles in question, and for this reason I'm appealing for your help, especially those of you who have background in theology/Church history. Your assistance with reviewing, revising and factchecking these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you!
:::Unfortunately this topic is just low quality across the board. In my view, this and ] (DSP) compete for the title of important but neglected and low quality topics. Almost every other DSP article has a low quality flag on it. The same would apply to spirituality if one checks them carefully. I am planning to do DSP in 2015 if no one else does (seriously). I hope someone will fix spirituality before then. Come to think of it spirituality is a form of divine signal processing anyway.... so maybe there is some hidden element there.... ] (]) 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


(And of course, feel free to get any other community involved if you think they could help. I'm about to ask ].)
== New Pope template ==


- ] (]) 08:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a new 'incumbent pope' template which is designed for use in Diocese info boxes but can be used anywhere where the name of the pope needs to be updated. The idea is that when one pope dies and another is elected all that needs to happen is for the template itself to be update rather than manually changing the names individually. This template can be found here: <nowiki>{{Incumbent pope}}</nowiki>. ''']''' <sup>] </sup> 22:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


:UPDATE: There's now an ANI open on the user in question, recommending a topic ban, in case anyone wants to weigh in: ]
== The Deputy ==
:] (]) 11:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:UPDATE: The user in question has been as of today for being ]. However, their numerous edits remain in need of review. See ] for a sense of what pages need work. It's a pretty hefty task. Thanks for any help! -] (]) 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Future of this WikiProject ==
We could use some comments/input on the article ] from those knowledgeable or interested in Pius XII and the influence of KGB's propaganda campaign to impugn him (see ]) on the play. The section discussing this influence on the play was recently deleted and replaced with only a dismissive sentence. ] (]) 23:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Off the project, a few editors have asked me about whether ] is still a salient force on the project, most recently yesterday. While the WikiProject's members are definitely active and contributing new articles and content at a prodigious rate, it might be time for us to consider a more organized approach. I'm not super keen on things like Discord, but that could be an option to coordinate efforts. If anyone else has thoughts, please let me know! ~ ] (]) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, that was a lot of material that was deleted, and there were Ok references for some of it. But it did seem to repeat the other article, so I trimmed it back so it is just one paragraph, with a Main, not an entire article, as discussed there. ] (]) 10:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


:Sorry to say Pbritti, but I like Discord... ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>] • ]</sup> 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
== Requesting comment ==


== New Catholic DYK on the front page! ==
...on a proposal to change the guidelines on the disambiguation of archbishops' articles: ] &#10013;''']]]''' 13:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


] ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>] • ]</sup> 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==


==Abigail Favale==
] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 11:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I have created a draft for ]. The article may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 20:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


== Inboxes for Pope Saints ==
:As I said there, too many items, but no need to persecute the template itself - can just reduce the size. ] (]) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


For a number of Popes who have been canonised since their deaths (as well as other canonised clergy), there seems to be a disparity between the use of the Saint infobox and the Christian Leader infobox: some place the saint infobox at the top of the article, directly after the Christian leader infobox; others place the saint infobox under the canonisation/veneration section of the article. Is there any established consensus on which is best here? Also, all of the information in the saint infobox tends to be duplicated in the sainthood section of the Christian leader infobox – is it not therefore redundant to use both infoboxes within an article? ] (]) 00:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Name Changes Needed ==
:Yes, we should ''only'' have one per article, but people love adding them. ] (]) 02:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:There should only be one infobox, probably the Christian Leader one for more modern popes at very least; and then using the module attribute to add in the relevant saint sections if any other things are needed. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 13:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
Sorry, I'm still fairly new at editing in Wiki. I can't figure out how to change the title of an article. Two articles need to be renamed due to recent boundary/name changes. The ] is now the ] (covering Oman, UAE, and Yemen). Likewise the ] is now the ] (covering Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia). IMO, forwards from the old names to the new would also be appropriate.--] (]) 20:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Medieval Catholic churches by decade categories: populate or upmerge? ==
:I do not know if the new name is correct or not, but next to the star symbol on the menu there is a small triangle pointing down, and will move it. ] (]) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Please join ]. ] (]) 10:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Avignon Papacy ==
::Full instructions are at ]. ] (]) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


:::Thanks, I knew it had to be fairly easy :-) A first draft at the needed changes has now been made.--] (]) 22:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC) If I understand it correctly, the ] is about a line of popes ''before'' the ]. If so? I had to de-link at pages of anti-popes during the schism. ] (]) 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:No, you don't understand it correctly. Have you tried reading the first lines of those articles? ] (]) 21:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::The infobox says "1309–1376", with Gregory XI listed as the last pope, which indicates ''before'' the Western Schism. Therefore the intro is inconsistent, if the 1378–1417 Schism era is included. To avoid the inconsistencies, the Avignon Papacy page should be split into ''two'' pages - '''Avignon Papacy 1309–1376''' & '''Avignon Papacy 1378–1417'''. At the very least, the schism info is misplaced. ] (]) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== There is a current RfC to create an independent ] article ==
== Pro-life ==


Please head over here ], thank you! ] (]) 08:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The effort to rename ''']''' continues unabated. The discussion to rename '''Pro-life''' for the month of June is ]. It is in mediation. The mediator said "I feel mediation could bring a final resolution to this matter." His idea of ''final'' is renaming '''Pro-life.'''
:This representation of the mediation proposal is untrue by omission, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you that notifications of discussions intended to incline the invited parties to one side or another constitute ]. Please rephrase your notification so that it accurately represents the proposal, if you choose to summarize it, and so that it does not attempt to sway users for or against the proposal. ] (] &sdot; ]) 03:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


== Jimmy Wales has addressed the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences back in 2012 ==
== Prayer shawl in Catholicism ==


While searching in the Internet Artchive to improve ], I sumbled upon which tells how Jimmy Wales gave an address at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences where he had been invited.
I came across the article ], which says these are common in Catholic churches. If so, would anyone knowledgeable care to comment on ]. I'm asking if this is similar to the Pentecostal concept of "prayer cloth". Thanks. ] (]) 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


I was unaware of it, and I found this information funny, so I am relaying it to you here. ] (]) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Discussion at Talk:Defrocking#Requested move ==


== RfC concerning this WikiProject ==
You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC) <small>(Using {{]}})</small>


An RfC on a topic that concerns this WikiProject has been opened at: ] ] (]) 18:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Andrew Pataki ==


== Diocese page titles ==
I recently created an article for ], Bishop Emeritus of the Byz. Catholic Eparchy of Passaic. Can anyone find a possible ]-able fact in that article? (Or if you can find an interesting somewhere that could be added and sourced?) I'm having difficulty finding anything that would make for a good hook. — ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
:I can see two possible hooks. One would be good as an April Fools DYK and the other a general DYK:
:# ...that Bishop ] was considered a byzantine? (AFDYK allows for the non-capitalization of proper nouns if it would give it away, this would play upon the the use of byzantine as a slur and thus a good AFDYK.)
:# ... that it is customary for Catholic Bishops, such as ] to retire when they turn 75?---''']''' '']'' 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
::I have to be honest, I've never heard of someone being called a "byzantine" as a slur. (I can't find it in a dictionary; is that a common usage? Would people understand it as being a joke?) The second one might be okay, except that Bp. Pataki actually retired five years past the retirement age, it not being uncommon for the Holy See to wait to accept the customary petition for retirement. — ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I mean, maybe I'm just overthinking all of this. — ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I have a feeling that the perjorative byzantine 'joke' would fall pretty flat(I would never make the connection). It is a requirement, of course, for bishops to tender their resignations at age 75, and not uncommon for them to serve past their 75th birthdays, so the DYK about retirement might be okay. Its certainly the truth, the way Balloonman phrased it.] (]) 15:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Byzantine would be a slur in an manner that it could mean old fashions/out of touch---it's not a common slur and would work primarily with people who thought Byzantines were strictly historical characters. The second one could simply be updated to:
:::::#...that despite the customary practice of Bishops tenuring their resignation when they turn 75, ] retirement was not accepte by the Pope until after he turned 80?---''']''' '']'' 16:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::We'll go with that. Thanks for your help! — ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Here's how using byzantine would be a slur, think of it in the same terms that somebody might say, "That's so 1980s of you!" "That's so byzantine of you!" Not really a slur as a term by itself, but in context it could be used as such.---''']''' '']'' 17:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Actually, Bishop Pataki was aged 80 years, 3 months and 7 days, according to catholic-hierarchy.org(http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpataki.html), just to be precise(yeah, yeah, I know, enough with the precise stuff, okay?...)] (]) 20:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Please be careful about confusing the Eastern and Western sides of the Catholic Church. The requirement to submit a resignation upon reaching the age of 75 is in the Code of Canon Law for the West only (Canon 401§1). There is no equivalent in the Eastern Code. Bishop Pataki is Ruthenian.--] (]) 22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I knew that there were different Codes, but I had no idea that the retirement ages were different. Many of the articles on Bp. Pataki's retirement reference the mandatory resignation of 75-year-old bishops. (Here's one: ) — ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


I am quite a bit annoyed by the unnecessarily long page titles such as ], ], etc. These should obviously be at ], ]. Is there a guideline somewhere that prescribes this preemptive disambiguation? If so, why does it seemingly target only Catholic dioceses? Compare ] with ]. ] (]) 21:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Help needed at ] ==


:The Catholic ] is also without a prefix. The reason it's on most dioceses is consistency. It's the same for Anglican and Episcopal dioceses. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 04:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
There material at ] which is repeatedly being deleted. Here is the material:
::Consistency between which pages? These examples seem to point to an inconsistency. ] (]) 10:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<blockquote>
:::Other than the primary dioceses, that is, Rome and Canterbury, all dioceses have their denominational prefix.
Critics of Catholics for Choice argue that only a negligible fraction of CFC's income come from subscription fees and over 97% of its funds are donated by tax-exempt groups and private foundations including the Ford Foundation and George Soros. Other contributors have included the Playboy Foundation. Its original offices were provided by Planned Parenthood and it was originally funded by the Unitarian Church. It has also been noted that, despite the Catholic moniker, its top contributors are supporters of abortion but don't appear to support the Church in any way: "While all of CFFC's five principal backers have supported Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League or NOW, not one is known to have contributed to officially recognized Catholic nonprofits."
:::I imagine that many years ago there was a discussion and consensus on this. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
</blockquote>
::::But that is not correct. Check ]. The pages are titled ], ], ], and so on. The denominational prefix is exceptional. I would like to know if there is a guideline or a naming convention, and where the appropriate venue for a naming convention discussion would be. ] (]) 22:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hmmmm. I wonder what WikiProject Anglicanism thinks about that; per ] and other sources, the "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." convention is 18 years old, and was decided on for consistency among page names even for when there is not necessarily ambiguity. I think we'd need some massive consensus to change roughly 3000 page names. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 23:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. I imagined that would be the reason. Interestingly, ] addresses this situation: we have ] because of ambiguity, but we do not have ] for consistency with ]. Apparently, the Anglican dioceses do not need these appendages while the Catholic diocese pages have unnecessarily long and unnecessarily complicated names. We should discuss it. ] (]) 23:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:In the case of Philadelphia, there is both a Roman/Latin Rite Catholic jurisdiction along with a Ukrainian Catholic one. ] (]) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, no, there's only one Archdiocese of Philadelphia, as there's a ]. I'm firmly for DarthStabro's proposal. ~ ] (]) 04:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The proposal to discuss this with WikiProject Anglicanism as well, ]? ] (]) 10:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I meant to add you. We should have consistency, and your proposal is wise. ~ ] (]) 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
One example of the deletion is ]. While, some valid objections are sometimes raised to one or two sources, that does not warrant deleting the entire section. Editors on the page have also erroneously asserted that Catholic News Agency articles are not reliable or a primary source. It seems to me that opposition to this material has much more to do with POV opposition to criticism of the group, especially the non-Catholic nature of its backers, being in the article, than with legitimate objections. Contributions and assistance at the page would be helpful. ] (]) 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 03:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:06, 14 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Catholicism and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCatholicism
WikiProject iconWikiProject Catholicism is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Project
Workgroups
Subprojects

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-17


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Part of a series on the
WikiProject Catholicism
General information
Main templates
Convention proposals
Essays
Related
icon Catholic Church portal (Talk)

Request for help: articles related to Trinity / Arianism / Nicaea need attention

Hello! Over the past two years, a vast number of articles related to the Trinity, the Arian controversy, and 4th century Church history have been overhauled and/or bloated with material of a decidedly pro-Arian/anti-Trinitarian slant, including Homoousion, Arian controversy, and dozens more. The main user behind this transformation is AndriesvN, an extremely prolific Arian apologist who runs the blog revelationbyjesuschrist.com, one of whose stated purposes is to "oppose the Trinity doctrine." See his contributions for a sense of their scope and character.

While the user in question often adds serious content and cites legitimate scholarly works, it's consistently written in a polemical tone that fails to meet Misplaced Pages's Neutral POV principle, and often is improperly cited and/or mixed with original research from his blog. He's also shown himself averse to constructive criticism, as seen from his talk page.

While I've attempted to fix some of the more egregious revisions (e.g. to Athanasius of Alexandria), as a Misplaced Pages rookie and full-time theology student I lack the bandwidth to revise and factcheck all the articles in question, and for this reason I'm appealing for your help, especially those of you who have background in theology/Church history. Your assistance with reviewing, revising and factchecking these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

(And of course, feel free to get any other community involved if you think they could help. I'm about to ask WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.)

- HieronymusNatalis (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: There's now an ANI open on the user in question, recommending a topic ban, in case anyone wants to weigh in: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles
HieronymusNatalis (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
UPDATE: The user in question has been indef blocked as of today for being WP:NOTHERE. However, their numerous edits remain in need of review. See Special:Contributions/AndriesvN for a sense of what pages need work. It's a pretty hefty task. Thanks for any help! -HieronymusNatalis (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Future of this WikiProject

Off the project, a few editors have asked me about whether WikiProject Catholicism is still a salient force on the project, most recently yesterday. While the WikiProject's members are definitely active and contributing new articles and content at a prodigious rate, it might be time for us to consider a more organized approach. I'm not super keen on things like Discord, but that could be an option to coordinate efforts. If anyone else has thoughts, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to say Pbritti, but I like Discord... ~Darth Stabro 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

New Catholic DYK on the front page!

Francis W. Kelly ~Darth Stabro 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Abigail Favale

I have created a draft for Abigail Favale. The article may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Inboxes for Pope Saints

For a number of Popes who have been canonised since their deaths (as well as other canonised clergy), there seems to be a disparity between the use of the Saint infobox and the Christian Leader infobox: some place the saint infobox at the top of the article, directly after the Christian leader infobox; others place the saint infobox under the canonisation/veneration section of the article. Is there any established consensus on which is best here? Also, all of the information in the saint infobox tends to be duplicated in the sainthood section of the Christian leader infobox – is it not therefore redundant to use both infoboxes within an article? Vesuvio14 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should only have one per article, but people love adding them. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There should only be one infobox, probably the Christian Leader one for more modern popes at very least; and then using the module attribute to add in the relevant saint sections if any other things are needed. ~Darth Stabro 13:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Saints Cosmas and Damian#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saints Cosmas and Damian#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Medieval Catholic churches by decade categories: populate or upmerge?

Please join this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Avignon Papacy

If I understand it correctly, the Avignon Papacy is about a line of popes before the Western Schism. If so? I had to de-link at pages of anti-popes during the schism. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you don't understand it correctly. Have you tried reading the first lines of those articles? Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The infobox says "1309–1376", with Gregory XI listed as the last pope, which indicates before the Western Schism. Therefore the intro is inconsistent, if the 1378–1417 Schism era is included. To avoid the inconsistencies, the Avignon Papacy page should be split into two pages - Avignon Papacy 1309–1376 & Avignon Papacy 1378–1417. At the very least, the schism info is misplaced. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a current RfC to create an independent Catholicism article

Please head over here Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article, thank you! Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales has addressed the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences back in 2012

While searching in the Internet Artchive to improve this WP article, I sumbled upon this 2012 CNS article which tells how Jimmy Wales gave an address at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences where he had been invited.

I was unaware of it, and I found this information funny, so I am relaying it to you here. Veverve (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC concerning this WikiProject

An RfC on a topic that concerns this WikiProject has been opened at: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Request for comments: in cases of a large numbers of religious celebrations in a religious calendar (e.g., feast day of saints), can they all be listed in a non-list WP article? Veverve (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Diocese page titles

I am quite a bit annoyed by the unnecessarily long page titles such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris, etc. These should obviously be at Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archdiocese of Paris. Is there a guideline somewhere that prescribes this preemptive disambiguation? If so, why does it seemingly target only Catholic dioceses? Compare Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster with Diocese of Canterbury. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The Catholic Diocese of Rome is also without a prefix. The reason it's on most dioceses is consistency. It's the same for Anglican and Episcopal dioceses. ~Darth Stabro 04:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Consistency between which pages? These examples seem to point to an inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Other than the primary dioceses, that is, Rome and Canterbury, all dioceses have their denominational prefix.
I imagine that many years ago there was a discussion and consensus on this. ~Darth Stabro 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
But that is not correct. Check Category:Dioceses of the Church of England. The pages are titled Diocese of Oxford, Diocese of Chester, Diocese of Gloucester, and so on. The denominational prefix is exceptional. I would like to know if there is a guideline or a naming convention, and where the appropriate venue for a naming convention discussion would be. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I wonder what WikiProject Anglicanism thinks about that; per WP:RCC and other sources, the "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." convention is 18 years old, and was decided on for consistency among page names even for when there is not necessarily ambiguity. I think we'd need some massive consensus to change roughly 3000 page names. ~Darth Stabro 23:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I imagined that would be the reason. Interestingly, WP:CONSISTENT addresses this situation: we have Georgia (country) because of ambiguity, but we do not have Spain (country) for consistency with Georgia (country). Apparently, the Anglican dioceses do not need these appendages while the Catholic diocese pages have unnecessarily long and unnecessarily complicated names. We should discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
In the case of Philadelphia, there is both a Roman/Latin Rite Catholic jurisdiction along with a Ukrainian Catholic one. Dcheney (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, no, there's only one Archdiocese of Philadelphia, as there's a Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia. I'm firmly for DarthStabro's proposal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The proposal to discuss this with WikiProject Anglicanism as well, Pbritti? Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I meant to add you. We should have consistency, and your proposal is wise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Providence College

Providence College has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism: Difference between revisions Add topic