This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why have these Christian/Baptist category/boxes been added to this article? There's no documentation about this in the article. He was notable for his copyright work -- what does that have to do with religion? Will that stuff even be able to be documented anywhere? --Lquilter (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a reasonable question. At present, the reasoning is as follows.
(1) Categorization at wikipedia is often all but incoherent. As I have now repeatedly stated, the entire Category:Jerusalem is currently a subcat of Category:Religious texts. Cleanup of such categorization is a clear and existing problem. Unfortunately, such cleanup requires a clear understanding of the existing category tree. In some cases, this may relate to errors in the existing "category tree" structure, in some cases it may relate to an article being categorized in a way which may have been supplanted by later categorization or is simply inappropriate. Unfortunately, the only way I can think of to address this is to find out what the extant "complications" of categorization are.
(2) I am currently, as you problably guessed, trying to tag the various relevant articles for the Baptist work group. This would include all those articles contained in the Category:Anabaptism, as per the stated scope of that group. Unfortunately, this article falls within the Category:Mercer University alumni. Mercer University is a Baptist school, and the subcat for alumni is currently one of the more remote "descendant" categories of Category:Anabaptism. Whether it should remain such a subcat is another question.
(3) There are currently a rather staggering number of WikiProjects out there, somewhere over 1000. I've been trying to update the project directory, off and on, for over three months now, and it's taking that long largely because of the number of projects. I think one of our eventual goals is to try to reduce the number of new projects and banners, the latter being more problematic. There are already about 20 WikiProjects specifically devoted to specific academic institutions. One way to possibly reduce them is to turn any such new groups into "task forces" of other projects. Whether a Mercer project, if it were ever created, would fall unto WikiProject Georgia, WikiProject Universities, or the Baptist work group I honestly don't know. It should be noted that the banner for Baptists is right now only in place because of the categorization mentioned above.
It could be argued that the group may not be able to add much to the content. In all honesty, I don't know. It could also be argued that the tag should be removed because it is misleading, or because the categorization should be different, or whether projects should only tag articles which are clearly and explicitly directly relevant to their most directly related subject material, I don't know. All I can really say right now is that placement of the work group's banner anywhere is a comparatively recent development, and that upon completion of the placement, I sincerely hope that the categorization which falls within that group's category will be examined by any number of interested parties so that it most directly reflects not only the stated scope but also possibly the more "real" scope of dedicated activity of not only this group, but the other extant WikiProjects. Having said all that, I personally do not get the impression that this specific article is one which is necessarily pivotal to that work group, so, if it were to be removed, I can say in all honesty the one who placed the banner wouldn't replace it. Thank you for your attention to this rather drawn-out response. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. The Mercer University connection! Okay that makes some sense. What it suggests to me is that perhaps some WP project templates need a brief "explanation of adoption/connection" field for places where it is frankly not at all obvious. --Lquilter (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)