| 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 | Revision as of 22:38, 21 July 2011 edit undoLionelt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,463 edits →Help needed at Catholics for ChoiceNext edit → | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| One example of the deletion is ] |
One example of the deletion is ]. Contributions and assistance at the page would be helpful. ] (]) 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:38, 21 July 2011
 | Catholicism Project‑class | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Catholicism and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
|
| Part of a series on the |
| WikiProject Catholicism |
|---|
 |
| General information |
Main templates
|
| Convention proposals |
| Essays |
| Related |
 Catholic Church portal (Talk) |
|
Archives of past discussions | |
|
Archive 1: December 2005 – June 2006 Archive 2: July 2006 – August 2006 Archive 3: September 2006 – January 2008 Archive 4: February 2008 – December 2008 Archive 5: January 2009 – December 2009 Archive 6: January 2010 – December 2010 Archive 7: January 2011 – December 2011 |
An editor to watch
71.50.28.249 (talk · contribs) 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. Elizium23 (talk) 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 thesis predicted 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. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Found another editor doing the same thing. Twmerrigan (talk · contribs). Only a few edits from him. He has a manifesto on his Talk page about it already. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- If does the same thing, we can ask for a Misplaced Pages:PUPPET check and it will show quickly. History2007 (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, 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. John Carter (talk)
Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
Congregation, mission, church - terminology
In regards to St. Malachi Church 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. Smallbones (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not that bad, really. I made minor changes. Student7 (talk) 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! Smallbones (talk) 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. History2007 (talk) 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. Student7 (talk) 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. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 19 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. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Move proposal for Pope Clement I article
Discussion is open on a proposal to move Pope Clement I to Clement of Rome. Esoglou (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you were right, not a good idea. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- A similar discussion has been opened on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Pope article titles. Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Assessment
Not too sure why Heralds of the Gospel is claimed to be A-class...AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not any more. History2007 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- And try this. 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. History2007 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
New spirituality redirect pages created, please edit as necessary
I've been correcting the redlinks in the some of the Category:Catholic spirituality pages, and I created several redirect pages that link to appropriate sections of Catholic spirituality: Benedictine spirituality, Dominican spirituality, Franciscan spirituality and Carmelite spirituality. If any of these topics have a better redirect target, please change them accordingly. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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 a lot of IPs. And please see this. 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. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I was thinking much more simply, that maybe redirects to Benedictine or Dominican Order#Spirituality might be more appropriate. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this topic is just low quality across the board. In my view, this and digital signal processing (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.... History2007 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
New Pope template
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: {{Incumbent pope}}. Mangwanani 22:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The Deputy
We could use some comments/input on the article The Deputy from those knowledgeable or interested in Pius XII and the influence of KGB's propaganda campaign to impugn him (see Operation Seat 12) on the play. The section discussing this influence on the play was recently deleted and replaced with only a dismissive sentence. Mamalujo (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2011 (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. History2007 (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Requesting comment
...on a proposal to change the guidelines on the disambiguation of archbishops' articles: here ✝DBD 13:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:20th century persecutions of the Catholic Church
Template:20th century persecutions of the Catholic Church has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. No such user (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I said there, too many items, but no need to persecute the template itself - can just reduce the size. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Name Changes Needed
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 Roman Catholic Vicariate Apostolic of Arabia is now the Roman Catholic Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Arabia (covering Oman, UAE, and Yemen). Likewise the Apostolic Vicariate of Kuwait is now the Apostolic Vicariate of Northern Arabia (covering Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia). IMO, forwards from the old names to the new would also be appropriate.--Dcheney (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Full instructions are at Misplaced Pages:Moving a page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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.--Dcheney (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Pro-life
The effort to rename Pro-life continues unabated. The discussion to rename Pro-life for the month of June is here. 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 canvassing. 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. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Prayer shawl in Catholicism
I came across the article Prayer shawl, which says these are common in Catholic churches. If so, would anyone knowledgeable care to comment on Talk:Prayer shawl. I'm asking if this is similar to the Pentecostal concept of "prayer cloth". Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Defrocking#Requested move
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Defrocking#Requested move. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})
Andrew Pataki
I recently created an article for Andrew Pataki, Bishop Emeritus of the Byz. Catholic Eparchy of Passaic. Can anyone find a possible Did-You-Know?-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. — AJDS 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 Andrew Pataki 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 Andrew Pataki to retire when they turn 75?---Balloonman 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. — AJDS 01:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I mean, maybe I'm just overthinking all of this. — AJDS 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.Lyricmac (talk) 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, Andrew Pataki retirement was not accepte by the Pope until after he turned 80?---Balloonman 16:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- We'll go with that. Thanks for your help! — AJDS 17:02, 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:
- 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.---Balloonman 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?...)Lyricmac (talk) 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.--Dcheney (talk) 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: ) — AJDS 01:05, 11 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.--Dcheney (talk) 22:02, 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?...)Lyricmac (talk) 20:43, 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.Lyricmac (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I mean, maybe I'm just overthinking all of this. — AJDS 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Help needed at Catholics for Choice
There material at Catholics for Choice which is repeatedly being deleted. Here is the material:
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."
One example of the deletion is . Contributions and assistance at the page would be helpful. Mamalujo (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories: