Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism / Canon law (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Emblem of Vatican City.svg
Catholicism
WikiProject
Última Cena - Juan de Juanes.jpg
General information
Main project page talk
Christianity WikiProject talk
Members talk
To-do list talk
Assessment talk
Canon law Task Force talk
Collaboration talk
Strategy talk
Terminology talk
Project category talk
Catholicism Portal talk
Project templates
Project banner talk
Footer navbox talk
Popes navbox talk
Catholic
Encyclopedia
talk
edit · changes

Request for input in discussion forum[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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

2012 WikiGrail[edit]

USVA headstone emb-29.svg

Greetings! Ii gives me great pleasure to announce the inaugural 2012 WikiGrail. It is a friendly competition for Christianity-related project members that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards

afd[edit]

Afd[edit]

There is an Afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution involving Vatican City. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church citation template[edit]

Greetings,

I have developed a template to help quickly cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church (found here: Template:CCC), based on the citation style that has become common at the Catholic Church article.

The template takes the paragraph number, automatically generates a link to the online English version found at <www.vatican.va>. It also automatically formats the citation using the template:cite web internally, and also can display both a single paragraph or a simple range of paragraphs. It also automatically generates a reference name based on the paragraph or range, and will assign the same footnote to citations with identical paragraphs or ranges.

I have tested it, and have worked out most kinks, and documented a few workarounds, but I would appreciate anyone who can find the time to test it out and give me feedback. Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For greater flexibility and reliability, as well as better consistency with other citation templates, Template:CCC must now be enclosed in "ref" tags (<ref>{{CCC|123}}</ref>), or an equivalent reference wrapper. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Help please, first Catholic article written[edit]

Hello all - I was browsing through WP:REQUESTED when I decided to pick a random article that look relatively interesting to research and create - I picked a papal decretal called Spondent Pariter- I found the sources a little confusing (especially on the name - is it called Spondent Pariter or Spondent quas non exhibent, different sources gave different names. Also is there a reliable translation of either?) and I would really really appreciate a review by someone more experienced. I hope my work was useful, it was requested at least by someone, and if it gets the thumbs up from you guys I'll submit it to DYK. Cheers, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My first thought reading it through was that it seemed both concise and accurate, an assessment aided by the exceptionally clear writing. Browsing through the sources, my initial reaction was substantiated! As for the name, Ecclesial Latin documents tend to be named based on the opening line. From Walsh 1905 (page 5 of the pdf), "Spondent quas non exhibent" would be the exact opening line of the second paragraph, where as "Spondent Pariter" is the first words of the first and second clauses of the second paragraph. Both names would seem equally valid, based on the different conventions used. These appear to be nicknames, because at the top of the document is the title "The Crime of Falsification" ("De Crimine Falsi"); the nicknames are used to differentiate the various documents with this title. As mere nicknames, I don't believe they were ever authoritatively translated, as such a translation would render their differentiating function moot. "Spondent quas non exhibent [divitias]" from Walsh's translation, is approximately "Promises not Forthcoming" (literally "[They] promise [riches] which are not forthcoming"); "Spondent... Pariter" might be rendered "Promises [made] while [known to be false]" (literally "Promises... Also"). --Zfish118 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zfish118: Thank you for both your thorough review and kind words. I won't attempt a translation then if that is the case, thanks for clearing that up - do you think the article's current title is the most desirable one, or should it be changed? I have no opinion on the matter other than a preference for the most encyclopedic/professional look! I've nominated it at DYK now, fingers crossed - on a side note, do you have any idea how to fix the ISBN error in one of the refs? Cheers! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome :). Spondent Pariter is short and accurate, so I think it is fine. I am uncertain what ISBN error your refer to; possibly the error addressed here?. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments, advice, and assistance requested at Magdalene asylum[edit]

It has been brought to my attention, that there is currently an ongoing debate on the Magdalene asylum article. This debate is occurring with User:Signedzzz and revolves around the neutrality of the article as a whole, but primarily with the section Magdalene asylum#Catholic perspective and there appears to be no immediate solution. I am appealing to see if there are people with better knowledge within the project to comment on the situation and possibly provide a solution. I have discussed the issue on the talk page, but to no avail. Here is a discussion about prior concerns being raised about the issue, you can also see my own contribution here. I am further concerned by the tone and nature of Signedzzz's edit's and am looking for guidance. Please provide some assistance on this issue. Jab843 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The name "Catholic reaction" seems more appropriate. For the record, the material in question has been moved into the Magdalene_laundries_in_Ireland, created as a split on August 23, 2014. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC at MOS:BIO[edit]

I have opened an RFC on the question of appointment of Catholic bishops and the larger matter of inclusion of future jobs in infobox, list, etc. at MOS:BIO. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

World Congress of Families[edit]

World Congress of Families is having some major neutrality problems and can use some more eyes and extra love today. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Love probably does not include making unsubstantiated allegations on people's talk pages. JASpencer (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Like what is unsubstantiated? Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You simply made an edit on my page saying that I was making attack pages with no context about a page that I created seven years ago as a three line entry. This is disruptive and I want to sort it out away from the noticeboards before I have to report you. JASpencer (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop a moment to think here, did it occur to you that this was an automatic posting by the tool Twinkle, which I used to tag the page for deletion? I never intended to accuse you of anything. You were simply being notified that as the creator of the page it was a candidate for speedy deletion. I did not realize at the time that WP:G10 was only for brand new articles, and it didn't even cross my mind to check your talk page for the content of the warning. Now I have retracted the warning and speedy has been declined, does that help? Elizium23 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does help, thank you. I've never used Twinkle so I thought that this was a drive by edit. Could be an idea to drop whoever maintains Twinkle a note on this as it is ripe for creating unnecesary argument. Even a note saying which article may have got the blood up a bit less. JASpencer (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I wonder if the Twinkle warnings also explain why Elizium is the only person posting warnings on User talk:Masioka's page. All those warnings make it look like Elizium has a special problem with Masioka, rather than that he's the only person using Twinkle to revert Masioka's edits. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It's more like both. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I recognize that you two have gone after each other, but I see only one warning from Masioka on your page, and several from you on Masi's. So it looks to outsiders like you really have a beef with Masi. But this may just be the result of no one else using Twinkle to revert (plus, as you point out, Masi doesn't edit other pages). So I'm wondering if the Twinkle warnings need to be softened, or if we need to get more people using Twinkle. I've been frustrated lately with how much vandalism I see that doesn't get a warning on the editor's talk page. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Twinkle makes it extremely convenient to drop warning templates but it isn't automated. What happens is when you use it to revert, the user's talk page will open in a new window/tab. Then you can use Twinkle and select your warning from a dialog and list. Yes it's true, often people who revert will not leave adequate warnings. I sometimes overdo it; there are a whole lot of IPs I have warned that have never come back to even see their warning much less make a second edit. I have apologized at ANI, and I do so here as well, for overuse of the tools in a very short period of time against a newbie. I violated WP:BITE, no question about it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't canvass. This is not a neutral message and the article's relation to WP:Catholicism appears to be minimal, suggesting that the message was left with the aim of garnering support for a particular point of view. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't feel the message itself is neutral. I did. I also made a limited posting on all related Wikiprojects for balance; if I were interested in garnering POV support, I would not have pinged WP:LGBT, among others. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 disambiguation help needed.[edit]

Greetings! The following articles relating to this WikiProject are among the most-linked disambiguation pages this month. Please help to fix the incoming links to these pages if you can:

Cheers! bd2412 T 20:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Templates: Catholic Church in Australia, Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia[edit]

There seems to be a lot of overlap between {{Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia}} and {{Catholic Church in Australia}} - the latter of which was recently added to Roman Catholic Diocese of Darwin. Should the two templates be merged? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I created the latter as an umbrella navbox for the entirety of the Catholic Church in Australia. The one which presently exists only for the Dioceses, Ordinariates and Eparchies is lacking in content. I'd personally support a merge of the older into the newer template. That being said, I would have an inherent conflict of interest as the template creator. I will bow to consensus. James (TC) • 5:18 PM 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
While the second one is certainly thorough, it might also be slightly excessive. The Cathedral subsection is not well organized; for instance, it is not immediately clear which Cathedral belongs to which diocese. Presumably, one could navigate to the diocese's page to find a link to its cathedral. There are also presumably hundreds or thousands of churches in Australia, and it would be very ambitious to list them all, and the resulting master template would become quite cumbersome. Thinning the list might result in an arbitrary selection. What might be work out instead could be a navigation template for each diocese, containing its cathedral, parishes, and religious orders, that could plug in above the master template. One could navigate through information about a particular diocese, and then use the master template to navigate to the root page of another diocese. The master template itself might be a bit more generalized by including links to nationwide ministries, religious orders, and the bishop's conference. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The Cathedrals are listed in order of Diocese. With respect to orders, there are those which have a Superior General, but which report to the diocesan or local bishop. Then there are orders of Pontifical Right, Opus Dei (a personal prelature) and various smaller orders. I will attempt to cleanup the layout as you are correct in pointing out that as it is, it is very clunky and not immediately clear. James (TC) • 9:55 AM 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that not all religious institutes are orders. Most are congregations or societies of apostolic life. Orders are large and hundreds of years old: I believe the last one to be founded was the Society of Jesus in 1540. Many so-called reliable sources get these things wrong. The best way to find out is by checking the institute's own websites. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, within Australia we have the Immaculata Order. It's a small, cloistered order, but their constitution was approved by Archbishop Julian Porteous (when he was an Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney) and he presided over the solemn profession of vows of the Mother Superior and a number of other nuns within the order.
That being said, how would we possibly include the orders in the new navbox?James (TC) • 8:10 AM 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Synod on families[edit]

I was a little surprised to discover that there was no article on the synod on families currently underway, so I created 2014 Extraordinary General Synod of Bishops. It is very much a stub, so contributions are welcome. --Briancua (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Josaphat Kuntsevych Controversy[edit]

IP 188.129.90.247 has been aggressively editing the article on Josaphat Kuntsevych, a canonized Catholic saint. After making several obviously POV attempts to edit the article w/o sources he has added one. Unfortunately the source is a polemically anti-Catholic website which I doubt passes WP:RS. Further a good chunk of the most recent edit looks like a copy and paste. That said, some of the claims may be legitimate and there are original sources quoted. Kuntsevych is a VERY controversial figure among Eastern Orthodox Christians. See the talk page. Currently I am unable to revert any of his edits due to 3RR. A look from other editors would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article naming convention for Latin documents identified by incipits[edit]

Moved: was at User talk:BoBoMisiu

The following discussion took place on my talk page.

I agree and support your recent page move to Ad sanctam beati Petri sedem based on the fact that Latin incipits do not capitalize all the words. However, it is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia; see Category:Documents of the Catholic Church. Should we endeavor to move all the pages in question to lowercase names? And if so, I suggest we open a thread first on WT:CATHOLIC to make sure there is WP:CONSENSUS for the change first. What do you think? Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that using the capitalization found in sources such as Denzinger, etc. is the way to go and I see that the Vatican website also uses lower case incipits. It seems to be the more correct way. Now that I looked at how many articles are not lower case incipit form, it is better to find WP:CONSENSUS. A thread on WT:CATHOLIC is the best way to go. I would help moving them. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) that all the articles about church documents identified by latin incipits should be moved to titles with lower case and that a naming convention for such articles be defined somewhere. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Admittedly, capitalization is often used in English, especially in journalism, through mistaking an incipit for a title. Thus, for instance, "Lumen Gentium" is quite common. But it is still incorrect. It does not concern only documents in Latin. Think of Mit brennender Sorge and Non abbiamo bisogno. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pope John XXIII#Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pope John XXIII#Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

I wanted to entertain a broader discussion here, as the talk page where this began is watched by fewer than 30 editors. In regards to Interwiki links, do people here feel that they should be used liberally within an article when the only alternatives would be no link at all, or a redlink? I feel personally that they are confusing and unnecessarily surprising. If an English-language reader sees a bluelink then he expects an English-language article on the other side. We should not presume to yank their attention to Italian here, and German there, and Spanish there, all within the context of the same article. But I will leave it up to WP:CONSENSUS here. Unfortunately the person who has added them is edit-warring to keep them in, has not responded to talk page requests or indeed ever participated in any discussion at all, and never uses edit summaries. So whatever the outcome, we could use some enforcement of it. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I use them. The {{ill}} is a red link with another interlanguage link in parenthesis. When a page is created in the English language Wikipedia, the foreign interlanguage link will not be shown. It provides more information than a bare red link. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The start of the Western Schism-infoboxes at Pope Gregory XI-article[edit]

Before an edit-war will break out I will ask you here for advice. The Western Schism originated after the death of Pope Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected and took his residence in Rome. Dissatisfied cardinals chose Clement VII, who returned to Avignon. The popes got a somewhat equal support in the world.

My idea was to make this visible in the succession-boxes, without taking a stance on the ‘correct’ pope (see here . However, User:GoodDay prefers the official line of popes, arguing “Schism not highlighted in succession boxes of 'schism' era popes articles.” See here. Well, I believe that he origin of the Schism should be visible in the succession-boxes. After all, when a country splits in two, Wikipedia makes that visible as well. The same should apply in papacies, I think. But what do other users think? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, if an anti-pope is going to be added as a successor of Gregory XI, then one would need to add anti-popes into the infoboxes & succession boxes of Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VI, Gregory XII and Martin V, as the Western Schism ended in 1418. PS: Remember folks, the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. That's why they're called anti-popes. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This would probably best be solved through an RfC. I can see, in some of the few cases where there were legitimate reasons for the "election" of the antipope and maybe less good reasons for the so-called "pope" that including both as successors in the succession-box of the previous pope might make sense. But those are probably rather rare instances and might best be addressed on a case by case basis. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tricky stuff. IMHO, the Western Schism template is all that's required on the 'Schism era' popes. Again, not sure why similar edits weren't made to the other pope infoboxes & succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
GoodDay, thanks for your input, but I disagree. With your logic, we should include each North Korean president in succession boxes of South Korean presidents, which makes no sense. I would rather take an example on the Roman Emperor Didius Julianus-article. After he was killed, the generals Pescennius Niger in Syria, Septimius Severus in Pannonia, and Clodius Albinus in Britain saw themselves as successor. All three are included in the succession box. I think that is how it should be there, and at the Pope Gregory XI-article as well.
I know that the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. However, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia; the last time I checked WP was not owned by the Vatican, so their views are not to be followed blindly here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If you include the anti-popes (again, not sure why you added only to Gregory XI's infobox & succession box), then you'd be un-legitimizing Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII & Martin V. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote only Gregory XI's succession box because the split happened after his death. And it is not me who is/was un-legitimizing those popes. It were the Avignon popes who were doing that to the ones in Rome, and vice versa. Look, if we were talking about the Star Wars-universe, I would comply to anything George Lucas says about it. But we are discussing real history here. The Vatican has no complete authority to the truth on that.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm still bewildered as to why the anti-popes weren't added to the infoboxes & successon boxes of the other 'Western Schism' popes. PS: Again, the template below, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

.

(e-c)Part of the "real history" Jeff5102 mentions of who is and is not a "successor" to a position which is, officially, the leader of a clearly defined group is who that group counts as being in the official line. I don't see Lambert Simnel listed as a possible successor to Richard III of England, although as a pretender to the throne of England he would meet the same basic criteria that the anti-popes would. If we don't have dubious claimants listed in other official regnal succession boxes, there is a reasonable question whether they should be listed here. Probably the best way to get a good answer to this, like I said, would be to file an RfC and provide as much information or at least links to it regarding the matter as individuals who don't have a really good grasp of Catholic history will be able to examine all the relevant concerns and come to a reasonable conclusion. I might include such an RfC in the "Religion and philosophy", "Politics, government, and law," and "Biographies" categories myself, to try to get responses from the broadest number of people informed in those various topics. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In agreement. Your Lambert Simnel example is spot on. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference between Simnel and the Avignon antipopes is that the antipopes were recognized by countries like France and Scotland as the official pope for many years. Simnel was just a pretender for a few months, without ever having worn an official crown. I do believe that Didius Julianus and/or Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia (whose succession is disputed as well) are better examples. That said, an RfC would be a good idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)