User talk:Tahc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cat: Christian denominational families[edit]

Is is wise to make changes to every article in this category? It's mainly key order changes I think. Nevertheless, it could be seen as interfering in a live discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parallel Lives, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dion and Marcellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tahc/Family tree of the Greek gods[edit]

Greetings. It looks like you inadvertently created a copy of Family tree of the Greek gods in main article space as Tahc/Family tree of the Greek gods. I've moved it to userspace as per what I assume was your intent. Happy editing! --Finngall talk 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of God[edit]

Hi Tahc,

I noticed that you reverted my removal of the hatnotes on Kingdom of God (Christianity). According to Wikipedia's guideline about hatnotes linking to articles that are related to the topic, hatnotes "are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic". The two linked articles are related to the subject of the Kingdom of God (Christianity) and are, for that reason, not appropriate hatnotes, but rather are appropriate links to include in the body text of the article. Would you be willing to allow me to remove the hatnotes again?

Neelix (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Anglicanism categories[edit]

It seem that you don't understand that the WP:BRD process is exactly that. It is Bold, Revert, Discuss - not Bold, Revert, Revert, which is what you have done. So don't tell other editors to follow a process when you aren't following it yourself. I will be seeking further discussion on some of these Anglicanism categories as it is obvious that many of them are being used to include anyone who calls themselves an Anglican regardless of how far removed they are from the Anglican Communion. Anglicanus (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want a category of just archbishops from the Anglican Communion that would be called Category:21st-century Anglican Communion archbishops. tahc chat 12:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Anglican Communion people are the only ones who are appropriately and correctly called "Anglican" for the purposes of such Anglican categories in an encyclopaedia such as this. Although the "continuing" and "realignment" people can and do call themselves Anglicans that does not entitle them to inclusion in categories which are only intended for Anglican Communion bishops etc. If you want to include them in "Anglican" categories then they should be "Continuing Anglican bishops" or "Anglican realignment bishops" etc just as we don't include "Old Roman Catholic" bishops in the "Roman Catholic bishops" categories. It is exactly the same principle. Just because these people call themselves "Anglican" it does not mean that they should be recognised as such in an encyclopedia without any distinction. The constant misuse of categories and other misleading information in articles by "Continuing Anglican", "Old Catholic" and "Independent Catholic" editors is an ongoing and significant problem on Wikipedia. Many of these people and groups are the ecclesiastical equivalents of diploma mill "universities". Anglicanus (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you have begun a discussion in a better place, Talk:Creighton_Jones, please continue it there instead. tahc chat 08:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have not "begun" any discussion on that page. That was another editor. But I am willing to move my discussion there. Anglicanus (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Who says it's a non-diffusing category?[edit]

I see no reason why, for example, Lutheranism is should appear in both Protestant denominational families and in Christian denominational categories. Why should it be an exception? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Christian denominational families‎ is were it people will look first for various Protestant denominational families‎. They have always been there, and (to many) they should only be there (since many "Protestant" denominational families claim not to be Protestant). If many of the "Protestant denominational families‎" are also in Christian denominational families‎ it would be confusing to not have them all there. tahc chat 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to argue against your own proposal. (1) If a denomination self claims not to be Protestant, then don't put it in the Protestant category. In which case, it's OK for it to appear in the Christian family. (2) They have not always been there. You added them. (3) There is no confusion in not having them in Christian denominational families as the navigation is perfectly logical. (4) You make no case why this category should be an exception to the normal rule. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
1. They were not always in Category:Protestant denominational families-- because User:Marcocapelle created that category today.
2. Some Baptists claim Baptists are not Protestant. Some claim Baptists are Protestant. Some Anglicans claim Anglicanism‎ is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Some Anglicans claim Anglicanism‎ is both Protestant and Catholic. Etc. tahc chat 20:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)