Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Greater Grace World Outreach

I am requesting peer review of the Greater Grace World Outreach article. I am working on it with another editor who has different opinions about what should be included. We have both been accused of conflict of interest and so it will be very helpful to get a third opinion.Spinkava (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Christian Eschatology Workgroup

I would like to propose creating a workgroup to cover [[1]] and related subjects. This page in particular is missing a lot of sources and needs a lot of work. Seeing as it's a super-important subject to Christian theology I think it would be good if some members of this project would climb aboard and improve these articles. Thoughts? Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing Core Topics work group has very little activity, but I will add this subject to its focus. -- SECisek (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It does have 363 articles, but about 80 of those are about the Left Behind books, and many of the others relate to particular groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, so I'm not sure there's really enough content to justify a separate group. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think adding eschatology to the Core Topics section is sufficient. Theology of the end times is vitally important to the Christian faith, but it's true that there aren't as many articles on it than other subjects - I would say maybe a dozen or so address the Christian perspective. Still I have found that most of these are poorly written, which is why I addressed the concern. Thanks for adding it to the Core Topics. I hope all these areas get picked up and fixed up in a way that honors our faith. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to jump-start the Core Topics workgroup? These issues are really important and their readers deserve to have good, complete and coherent articles written about them. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators?

As some of you might have noticed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history seems to be one of the most effectively run projects out there, with its recently elected 9 coordinators. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels are currently engaged in finding coordinators for their projects. Do the rest of you think it would be a good idea to have such coordinators here as well? John Carter (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if possible. I am uncertain how many editors are active here, although it seems to have picked up lately. -- SECisek (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing we could do would be to try to get "coordinators" from not only this project, but the various other Christianity projects as well. So, maybe, individuals from the Anglicanism, Lutheran, Catholic, Latter Day Saints, Eastern Orthodox, and other related projects could be asked to run as well. That way, we'd probably get more active coordination of all the Christianity projects. Military History has nine coordinators, I think we could probably use that many here as well. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor and would volunteer to help out. -- SECisek (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose, for I disagree with hierarchy in Wikipedia, including some people's thoughts that admins are part of a hierarchy. I dabble around in numerous WikiProjects as I see needs. Royalbroil 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (WikiProject Christian music)
It should be noted that, like with Military history, there is no real "advantage" to anyone to being a "coordinator", although some people might give them for whatever reason a bit more respect than others. The coordinators are, simply, the ones who try to keep the day-to-day details of the project functioning. Elections tend to take place, like recently with Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, to ensure that people who haven't yet demonstrated any competency in that regard don't get stuck in positions they haven't demonstrated they can handle. Basically, such people would be responsible for indicating that peer reviews or A-Class reviews are requested, ensuring portals are kept up, and the like. There is no real extra benefit to any coordinator positions, beyond any respect a person who is selected for such a position by election, if it comes to that, probably already to a degree has. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would support such an idea as outlined, but it would have to be clear on the role of the coordinators. It is well established that there are several editors who are sensitive about "their" WikiProjects and article pages. If the coordinators role is not clear you'll basically end up with another WikiProject Council; a lot of great ideas and eager workers, but no real effectiveness. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators gives a fairly good layout of what coordinators can and cannot do, and I think it would serve as a reasonable model. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of assigning or electing coordinators for various areas. I think it helps to organize the task, which is good when dealing with a subject area as huge as Christianity. It also helps people know who to talk to if they have questions or issues in the different areas in this Wikiproject. For example if someone has a question about assessments/core topics/baptist articles, they can ask the assessments/core topics/baptist coordinators. This can also help because some people are gifted administrators and are good at organizing and assigning willing volunteers to work on certain areas, while others are good volunteers who work well under a little guidance. It also helps those volunteers know what they can help with, again because Christianity is such a large area to work with. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been a bit bold (other words probably apply as well, but I won't use them) in setting up a page detailing the responsibilities of the coordinators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators and a page for current nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. I've purposefully left the number of positions to be filled vacant depending on the number of potential candidates, although I do hope to have at least three and, if possible, more. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Nominated myself - Tinucherian (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


John Carter, I do like bold. However, I am confused by the elections page. As I read the page I note:

  • Nominations accepted until April 30th --
  • Don't vote until nominations close. --
  • Be sure to vote by April 11 --

Nominations to be co-ordinators of what sections of the project? I just find it puzzling. Perhaps the areas of the project that are seen as priorities might be identified and "work teams" for those priorities be open to sign up, before coordinators get elected? I wonder if this is too much organization for a wiki. As for me, I am living In my own little world, working to improve the article Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the related articles that impact its stability. ( and I note I have spent 30 minutes of editing time here! I think I am nuts. In its own way, it is funny! Sorry, my friends. and I note that it is already too late to vote!) John Park (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the voting started ? - Tinucherian (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

An infobox was made for leaders of the orthodox church, but I want to find a better color than the yellow that orthodoxy has been assigned (It can be changed since it has not been implemented yet) (see Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Society#Religious_leaders). When you think of the Orthodox Church, what color do you think of? Please leave your responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Infobox Grk1011 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Churches of Christ

The above article has recently been protected as a result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Today's theology lesson. A few more eyes to watch the page, and maybe help try to improve it in a way which all parties might find acceptable, would be very, very welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, that IS a mess. Still, there is no way around it: the church has rather young roots. -- Secisek (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This one I am watching closely. The Edit protection ended a couple of days ago. The article I am editing, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shares common roots, but has not been related for over a century. However, some of the enthusiasts of the Churches of Christ still see themselves as a branch of the Disciples. I agree that a few more eyes here will help focus the task on telling their story.John Park (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Expanded infobox template: {{Infobox church/sandbox}}

Following a discussion at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals" where it was proposed that the templates {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} be merged, I've created a prototype merged template for discussion at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. The documentation for the template is at Template:Infobox church/doc. Your comments and help with improving the template are welcome – please discuss the matter at the Infobox church talk page.

If everyone is happy with {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, then {{Infobox church}} can be replaced with that template and the templates {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} nominated for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The new templete looks fine. The other two can be deleted. - Tinucherian (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I assume the pages with the other infoboxes will get the new one? Grk1011 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed template makes use of multiple parameter names for certain fields (e.g., "name" and "church_name") to minimize the effects of old templates being deleted. However, in general the articles that have used those templates will have to be manually updated by the editors who have those articles on their watchlists.

There's been a new development – someone has proposed converting the draft infobox template at {{Infobox church/sandbox}} into a template that can be used for all places of worship. We would like your views on whether you think this is a good idea, and if you are able to help identify parameters that would be relevant to the religion that your WikiProject deals with. Do join the discussion taking place at "Template talk:Infobox church". — Cheers, JackLee talk 03:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer to have different infoboxes for different religions to avoid cluttering of lots of paramaters. Most of the paramaters for infobox for diferent religions varies and hence there is no need to club them together to a single infobox - Tinucherian (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea that's true. Could there be a line that changes the color of the infobox? because the infoboxes for the leaders of these religions have dif colors based on that religion. Grk1011 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

ChristianityWikiProject: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 44 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital Patrologia Latina

May be of interest: there is a digital edition of Migne's Patrologia Latina available, along with a whole lot more material at www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/_index.html which may be of interest. In Latin of course. Someone (probably) associated with that project has been adding links to the relevant articles. Seems unobjectionable to me, but this has caught the eye of the ever-vigilant spam monitors, and here we are. This could be usable for inline cites, for further reading sections, to create bibliographies for Medieval Latin religious writers, etc. Hope this is useful, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity

This article, affiliated to this project, seems to give far too much prominence to fringe theories, eg origins of Christianity influenced by Buddhisam, Jesus visited India &c. Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Iowa Band

I was pleased to see a speedy response to my request re Wesleyism. My next request requires a bit more work! Please see this proposal for an article on a 19th century missionary group. Does Iowa in the 1830s count as the "wild west"? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion of Jesus

Presently there is no Crucifixion of Jesus article, though there are about 40 articles on the "last week" - even a fairly extensive Crucifixion eclipse article. The closest to Crucifixion of Jesus is Death and resurrection of Jesus - but the only content on the crucifixion there seems to be the purported miracles associated with the crucifixion. Please see Talk:Death_and_resurrection_of_Jesus#Requested_Move --JimWae (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy

I'm not sure how to get an article linked to this project. But the article of Prophecy could certainly do with some help.

It is already linked to various projects, WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Bible, and WikiProject Judaism.

However, there needs to be a good balanced Christian view point. It appears that in general the past the article has been hijacked to a predominantly Jewish POV and then a predominantly Christian POV. But I personally think it needs a lot of balance, but with some good solid Christian input.

I look forward to your thoughts Paulrach (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to WikiProject Christianity. Looks like the article needs lots of cleanup - Tinucherian (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on this article trying to improve all aspects of it. Yesterday I made big changes to the Christian perspective of prophecy. Today I find that this article has now been radically changed by an Administrator with his own religious view point. He has changed this article to the 'experience of prophecy' though not in title and has watered down everything on Christianity. He has also blocked this article. I am not sure what to do now! There has been no discussion as to the nature of the article just one individual crusade.
  • Can Administrator behave this way?
  • Should the article be redefined?
Paulrach (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please help! As Paulrach points out, this article is being radically changed at this very moment. I have a feeling several people will be needed to find NPOV citations and have graceful content disputes. TrickyApron (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church Peer Review

Roman Catholic Church has been listed at Peer Review. Editors are anxious to get this to FA status, so please help review the article and leave comments. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Monthly Newsletter

Monthly Newsletter for this project is long overdue. The last one was for Aug 2007. Shouldnt v restart it ? Comments ??? - Tinucherian (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done : The April 2008 issue is now circulated to the talk pages of the members -

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Elections

Should there be an announcement on the main WikiProject Christianity page that announces these elections? I've noticed that no one is participating except for those of us who were involved in the original discussion on this talk page. Maybe some project participants haven't read the discussion and providing a link to the election would be helpful. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. you are right...One of the non-contestants in the election may inform the talk pages of all the members or even can put a small banner on the project main page - Tinucherian (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. I put up a statement about the elections on the main project page under the introduction part. I don't know anything about making banners or templates, so it's just text. Hope that's good enough to get people's attention. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done : The news is there on the latest newsletter (April 2008) in the talk pages of the members - Tinucherian (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Project

If it interests anyone, a Christianity WikiProject has been started on the Simple English Wikipedia. It is located here. --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Trinitarian Universalists

Could someone with more knowledge of subject than myself take a look at the above list. Is it needed and if so is it controvesial enough to need sources for each person?Bsnowball (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pier_Luigi_Farnese,_Duke_of_Parma

Could someone have a look at this article: Pier_Luigi_Farnese,_Duke_of_Parma. It seems to contain quite some abuse and facts may need to be cross-verified. --Jacob.jose (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of vandalism has crept in over the years. I'll fix it. -- Secisek (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in China work group

Blessing message.svg
Shortcuts:

Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to Christianity in China. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. The goal of this WikiProject is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity in China available on Wikipedia. As a group, we do not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but see to it that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

If you'd like to join and become a part of this project, sign the proposal page.


WikiProject Christianity is currently undergoing elections to choose project coordinators. All members are invited to participate. To review the open spots and their duties, see here. To nominate someone or vote, go here. Nominations are open until April 30.

I volunteer to create and setup pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group over this week - Tinucherian (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Created the basic project pages - Tinucherian (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity Project Newsletter delivery

By now, most of you have received the April 2008 Issue of the project newsletter on your talk pages. For uniformity and to avoid issues with the bots on automated delivery , we have created a new list for all memmbers here. By default all members may receive full content delivery on their talk pages ,whenever a new issue comes out. If you would prefer, you may choose to have the contents delivered to you as Link only content or to not receive the newsletter in any form.If so, please remove your name from the Full content Delivery list and add to Link content Delivery or No delivery sections here. - Tinucherian (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Signpost on FAC and FAR/C reviewing - REVIEWERS NEEDED

The Featured Article and Reatured Article Review processes have put out a call for reviewers. Any editor can review an article and contribute to consensus on whether that article is of FA status. Several Christianity articles have been promoted to FA status recently, and if we'd like to continue adding to that number it might be wise to give back and help review at FAC. This week's Signpost Dispatch, located at

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

, explains the advantages of being a reviewer and details the aspects of reviewing that are critical to maintaining WP's high standards. Hope to see some new faces at FAC or FAR soon! Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article list

How can the Ravi Zacharias article get on the good article list on WikiProject Christian's main page? I made the cut, just doesn't appear on our list yet. Thanks Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Added to the main project page in the GA articles section - Tinucherian (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! This is my first good article, and we saved it from deletion, so I'm a bit proud of it Kristamaranatha (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done , Kristamaranatha . Hope to see more GA articles from you in future . The article is also selected for Portal:Christianity in India - Tinucherian (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Indian Christianity Wikiproject/workgroup

Upon discussion and consensus ( see here) , The following changes and decisions were taken w.r.t to Indian Christianity workgroup :-

  • The scope of workgroup will be limited to Indian region only for now.
  • The workgroup will be renamed to Christianity in India instead of Indian Christianity.
  • The changes will effect the project pages, Portal and the templates.
  • The templetes will be replaced by a Indian map instead of Tricolor flag picture.

This is FYI - Tinucherian (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Indian Christianity Portal

I tried to put the Indian Christianity Portal in the Related Areas section on the Project Page. The text is fine but what have I done wrong with the Image? I followed the correct formatting. Kathleen.wright5 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - The reason is that there is no image in that name. The usual image we use for this protal is Image:Nasrani menorah.JPG . Fixed the issue now - Tinucherian (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Project coordinators

This project is currently undergoing elections to choose project coordinators. All members are invited to participate.
To review the open spots and their duties, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Coordinators.
To nominate someone or vote, Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Coordinators/Election_1.
Nominations and voting are open until April 30 , 2008. - Tinucherian (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism portal

Portal:Anglicanism is up for Featured portal candidate discussion. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism. --Secisek (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Azariah Southworth

New article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DYKs

My current activity involves finding the christianity related articles from the DYK archives, adding them to DYK section in the main project page , adding {{ChristianityWikiProject}} banners to the talk pages of those articles and assessing them. To my surprise I was able to find lots of GA level articles in them, raising our GA article count from 44 to 51 , by now. I am going in descending order of archive pages and have collected DYK articles till Wikipedia:Recent additions 201 . - Tinucherian (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The more GA's and DYK's we get, the more options we have for the portals. Thank you very much, sir. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Important work, indeed. --Secisek (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation - Tinucherian (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently we have 47 FA class and 88 GA class articles - Tinucherian (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlogs

These are all cold cases so don't take the listing at face value; things may have changed since the tag was placed or the tag may have always been inactionable. Figuring out exactly why the tag was placed may require investigation. Check the history around the date given on the tag.--BirgitteSB 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of the article William Melmoth

I had assessed this article as Start Class. The author of the article , Geogre was not happy (taken it as an insult , infact) and changed it to B class . See here . Interestingly the person is an administrator also. I left a note on his talk page here. Requesting comments - Tinucherian (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for imput on article renaming

Eastern Orthodox church architectureByzantine Rite church architecture —(Discuss). Please add your imput on this topic. —--Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

6000+ Articles

The articles within the scope of this project just crossed 6000 articles. There is a backlog of approximately 2600 unassessed articles. We should try to cut down this backlog as much as possible. - Tinucherian (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently we have 47 FA class and 88 GA class articles - Tinucherian (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to John and others, who have been adding prjt banners and adding assessment , we just crossed 7000+ articles within the scope of our project -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 09:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Long View Center

New article I tagged with your project. APK yada yada 09:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Assessment complete. - Tinucherian (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now a DYK. APK yada yada 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Added to DYK section on main project page - Tinucherian (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Christadelphians

This portal has a few problems. The first and foremost of them is that it doesn't seem to have sufficient content to make a portal sustainable. The guidelines call for at least 30 non-stub articles which don't have some sort of quality question tags on them. I only count a maximum of 27 articles in Category:Christadelphians and all of its subcategories. Any suggestions on what if anything to do about this? John Carter (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

200 Members

I am happy to announce that we have 200+ members in our project now - Tinucherian (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot incorrectly tagging articles as stubs

BetacommandBot seems to be running amok today, blindly tagging articles as "Stub", "Low Importance" when they are not, such as National Council of Churches to cite just one example. Whoever is using this Bot to rate Project articles, please turn it off until you have it correctly programmed. JGHowes talk - 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I left a message on User talk:Tinucherian about the problem. He requested the use of the bot and was probably just trying to lessen the backlog of assessments. Grk1011 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,As Grk1011 said, my idea was to lessen the blacklog of the unaccessed articles for the project. Hence I asked help for the Betacommandbot here

This is the task I asked "

This is from  Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. We need a help by  User:BetacommandBot - for task request 8 .
Our Unassessed Project articles are in Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles .  
We need bot assisted assesment for all the articles. Our project banner is {{ChristianityWikiProject}}
You need to
1) If "|importance=" is empty , replace it with "|importance=Low" . Make sure you dont overwrite if importance is assessed already.
2) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page.
3) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, please use the general wiki guideline of no of characters for Stub/Start classes and then add the appropriate class tag for quality

"

I did this on the folllowing assumptions :-

1) The number of High/Top Importance artilces in unaccessesed articles may be less. On a second manual sweep, we should be able to identify the higher importance articles if any
2) We should not replace the orginal importance assessment if any.
3) The standards for assessment scale for most projects is the same. Hence if there is an already assessment done , we could just reuse the information .
4) Similar automated attempts were done in different Projects like WikiProject Africa - see here.
5) This task for the Bot was an approved task , hence I assumed it to work smoothtly :(


Unfortunatley this didnt have an actual desired effect.
Anyways I will go over the recent assessment logs manually and fix the problems if any in assessments.

Thanks Tinucherian (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent assessment logs here - Tinucherian (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • to continue or not is the question, BCBot stopped when the complaint was raised. βcommand 2 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand , You may continue with the rest of the unassessed articles for ONLY this task

2) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page.

Leave the importance tag. We will do it manually for the rest of the articles.

The question is Why didnt the Task3 didnt work properly . What was your criteria of assessment of quality if there was no pre-assessment on the talk page. I thought 1500 characters was the benchmark for differentiating Stub and Start classes. Looks like it didnt work properly as with the case of National Council of Churches for example.

Anyways you can do only the request 2 with respect to the remaining Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles - If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assessment from the other project banners on the same talk page.

Thanks for your service, Betacommand

- Tinucherian (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view  talk  edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Project Elections

Dear members, Thanks for interest and participation in project Elections 2008 for Coordinators . Can we close the balloting ?? In this event of tie, I hereby Nominate John Carter as the Lead Coordinator. Thank you for the support we have been given - -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 03:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the support of the memmbers for the election. I sincerely feel John Carter is more experienced and eligible for the post of Lead Coordinator. If there are no objections , I request John Carter to accept the post of Lead Coordinator for the project this time ? -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
John Carter has accepted to serve as Lead Coordinator of the project. Thank you John.With permissions of all, I will close the elections. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the Bible

I've been working on cleaning up this article's very bias leanings (it's more INconsistency of the Bible than anything), and I could use some feedback (on my talk page please) regarding the changes I've made so far, and the points I've made on the article's talk page. Also, if someone can assist with rewording the beginning of the article? I'm hitting a brick wall trying to make it concise, but still presenting the points in a NPOV manner. Thank you Faith (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Church article needs citations, copyediting

The above article has been nominated for inclusion in the latest release version of wikipedia. That nomination is now being held given the comparatively poor referencing and tone of the article. Any efforts to improve the article to make it more likely to be selected for inclusion would be extremely welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Forestville Baptist Church

This is a new stub I wrote. It's only notable because it's a NRHP and I can't seem to find any RS that mention it besides the NRHP database. Anyway, I tagged it with your project. APK yada yada 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

St. John's Metropolitan Community Church, another one. APK yada yada 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Values Coalition

The article for the Traditional Values Coalition has been replaced several times by someone noting that the "previous" version was in violation of NPOV. While this is correct, the version which the editor(s) have been replacing it with is also, and more dramatically, in violation of NPOV. If someone who is familiar with the coalition could attempt to work out a NPOV version of the article, it would be appreciated. I'd do it myself, but I won't have time until this weekend, and I don't recall hearing about the coalition before. In the meantime, I have reverted the article to the "previous" version and {{POV}}-tagged the article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: The editor has now re-added much of the content of the "previous" to his own version in an attempt to satisfy NPOV. I'm leaving the article alone for now, as the edits appear to be in good faith. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests

Two things:

(1) I've recently been doing some editing on contemporary worship and noticed a few oddities in related articles. Christian worship seems to need quite a bit of work (it has loads of "see also" links) and IMO is rather POV. Also there are two articles, church service and service of worship which are quite similar. Perhaps some restructuring is needed.

(2) One notable omission is an article on conservative evangelicalism. I can't find anything on this, and as they are a distinct and notable group within the church, I really feel they merit an article of their own. Existing articles on Evangelicalism and Conservative Christianity aren't really adequate. Can anyone do some work on this? I might try to start an article, but I'm not enough of an expert to be able to do much and it will be messy!

Thanks! Sidefall (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Evangelicalism

As mentioned above, I have now started an article. I hope other editors will be able to work on it. Sidefall (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I've added it to articles needing expansion above and on the main requests for expansion page. Perhaps editors of other articles could link to it as appropriate. Sidefall (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reformed charismatic

This article is currently a redirect to a church that takes this theological position. I would welcome a proper article on this approach. It seems to have grown in prominence in recent years. Sidefall (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Review request for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi

I think that I'm nearing completion in writing this article about a Japanese Seventh Day Adventist medical missionary who was forced to serve in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II and was killed during the Battle of Attu. I hope to nominate the article for featured status soon. I don't normally work on articles of this subject, so, if someone could look at it and provide some feedback on the article's talk page on how it could be improved, it would be really appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of scope

I think it would make sense to alter the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group to not include any content which does not specifically relate to Christianity per se. This would mean removing a few categories from the Category:Syriac Christianity, specifically Category:Assyrian settlements. Category:Chaldeans, Category:Neo-Aramaic languages, Category:Nochiya Tribe. Category:Osroene, Category:Syriac alphabet, Category:Syriac literature, Category:Syriac writers, Category:Syriacists, Category:Translators to Syriac, and maybe moving any articles contained within those categories specifically relating to Syriac Christianity into another category. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A Question of Style

there is a straw poll underway at Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Capitalization_of_.22Church.22 regarding the style guidelines for capitalization and church bodies. Pastordavid (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity barnstar?

Is there one? John Carter (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is one {{Christianity barnstar}}

The Saint's Star Award for hard work and diligence on the Christianity WikiProject


-- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Isn't this the standard one?

Image:ChristianityPUA.svg - Created to recognize those editors who tirelessly contribute in a genuine fashion to Christianity-related articles. by Aiden


--Jacob.jose (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Philip's Church Ruins

New article. APK yada yada 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Coordinators Elections 2008


The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.

The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.

The following people were elected .

Lead Coordinator
John Carter
Assistant Coordinators
Tinucherian
Secisek

Congratulations to the elected ones and as Coordinaters , we thank all the project members for the support and participation in the elections.
-- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

We now have a list of articles which have been tagged by this project with one or more cleanup tags at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Cleanup listing. Please feel free to do any work you can to address the existing problems there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008 Newsletter

May 2008 Newsletter is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/May_2008 . Let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions asap.I had asked BetacommandBot for delivery -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. One idea we might try in the future is something like Novels does, in requesting a specific red link to be started every month, and then thanking the article starter by name the next. We might in the future look into trying to get a collaboration, and maybe creating a specific page for Christianity wide discussion, like Novels has. I think something like that would be very useful for the future. And I'd love to create some sort of official barnstar award discussion page, like some other projects have, to maybe increase the value of one or two such awards. But all that will doubtless come later. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. We definitely need to work on Monthly collabrations. Looks like we need lots of activity from the project members. The current newsletter was delivered to the member talk pages by Addbot, thanks to Addshore-- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 16:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Portals old and, maybe, new?

We now have a Christianity browsebar listing all the Christianity portals at the unimaginatively named Template:Christianity browsebar. Are there any further portals we should consider creating? John Carter (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A Portal just on Protestantism would be a good addition.Brian0324 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem there is the scope, as we already have Portal:Calvinism, Portal:Christadelphians, and Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church which overlap tht at least a little. I could definitely see adding havingPortal:Lutheranism, Portal:Pentecostal Christianity, Portal:Methodism, Portal:Baptists, and maybe Portal:Anabaptists, to match the related projects. But the existing overlap with the three extant portals might be a bit of a problem. And I think there probably is enough content for each of the separate portals mentioned above. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You have a point, but the Reformation is such a big topic that a Portal would serve it well. I'm not opposed to the denominational portals that you suggest, but at this point Seventh-Day Adventist and Christadelphians are pretty minor players in the bigger picture of post-Reformation times. The Calvinism Portal does overlap, but a portal that dealt with all of the reformers and the resulting movement still covers a lot of new ground. I can't remember, but one of the other language Wikipedia sites has a Protestantism Portal that defines the scope pretty well. Maybe worth a look.Brian0324 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea of a Portal:Reformation, and possibly a Reformation work group, is one that has been discussed before, and one I personally wouldn't mind seeing, but I'm not sure from your above comment whether you're talking specifically about the Reformation or about Protestantism in general, which goes well beyond just the Reformation. John Carter (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A Portal:Protestantism is what I am suggesting. A Protestant Reformation Portal would work but since there is already Portal:Catholicism - it just seems like a gap to jump to the denominational portals like "Baptists" (as useful as it might be) without having the bigger movement addressed.Brian0324 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see a Portal:Christian Theology created - but first I would like to see a lot of the theology-related articles cleaned up. I have mentioned this on the core topics discussion page, but I just can't seem to find the time needed to devote to an overhaul of theology articles (so I'm putting in my 2 cents and hoping someone else can jump in). One suggestion I have for these articles is to make sure the different topics (e.g. Eschatology) have a Christian theology page, instead of lumping it together with how every other religion views the subject at hand. There is a Christian Eschatology page but it needs a lot of work, does not cite its sources, and may contain original research. I'm happy to see the Sanctification page has made progress, but could still use some work and citations. Anyways, the way I see it, if people are using Wikipedia to get information on Christianity, it should be reliable information and as well-written as possible. Kristamaranatha (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Smith's Bible Dictionary available in print.

DYK that Smith's Bible Dictionary (Public Domain) is available in print? Available from Thomas Nelson. I can't put a link to the web page because it keeps going wrong. Kathleen.wright5 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter May 2008

Malankara Church

An user Avineshjose proposed a merger of Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church and Malankara Church. Malankara Church is the original church established by St. Thomas in India. It was undivided until 15th century - later it become different denominations Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Malankara Catholic Syrian Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church etc ..during the course of history. The user has his personal intentions on this request for this merger ( explained in the talk page) . To be fair to him , I request a third party and unbiased opinion on this issue , on the article Talk page -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I did not formally start a merger proposal yet. I am looking for more third opinions on the issue. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You may also refer the similar discussions going on in ml.wikipedia, especially at:
  1. ml:സംവാദം:ഓര്‍ത്തഡോക്സ്‌ സുറിയാനി സഭ
  2. ml:സംവാദം:യാക്കോബായ സുറിയാനി ക്രിസ്ത്യാനി സഭ
  3. ml:സംവാദം:മലങ്കര സഭ
  4. ml:സംവാദം:ഓര്‍ത്തഡോക്സ്‌ പൗരസ്ത്യ സഭ
--Jacob.jose (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Anabaptist‎ contributions by Bishop Ron McRae (talk · contribs)

Can somebody look into the contributions of the usee Bishop Ron McRae (talk · contribs) on Anabaptist‎. Is there a POV push or just good faith? -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like good faith, imperfect (surprise), and an article that could use some focused attention. GRBerry 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Christianity" area discussion page

I've been bold and created a discussion page for any ideas any editors may have which relate to Christianity as a whole at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum, and posted a few questions there. Anyone interested is free to make any comments on the issues raised there, or any others of importance to the various Christianity groups. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Puer oblatus

Hello. Can somebody shed light as to why this page redirects Oblate (religion)? What is "Puer oblatus"? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard the term before, but it appears to be a redirect from a latin term that is occasionally used in English. If you have JSTOR access, this 1932 article says in part "If John Duns was then a boy of thirteen, he must have entered the Order as a 'puer oblatus ', as fifteen was the earliest age at which ..." Less a reliable source, but readily available this page uses puer oblatus to describe someone entering an abbey. Given the first paragraph of Oblate (religion)#Origins and history and those two sources, I believe that it was the latin phrase used after the Tenth Council of Toledo to describe an oblate who had not yet reached puberty and thus had a future opportunity to leave the monastery. Comparing Thomas Aquinas with la:Sanctus Thomas Aquinas (the latin wikipedia article on him) which uses the phrase tends to confirm this. GRBerry 04:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, I suppose. Any idea on how I could cite this on the article? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need better sourcing for that purpose. Check the Catholic Encyclopedia, look for a dictionary of canon law terms, look for latin-English dictionary/phrasebooks, look for a great scholarly source on oblates. Those are the sorts of sources I'd most expect to see it in. GRBerry 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gift of God

This article is listed as needing copyediting. I checked up its history and it looks like it was up for deletion back in November. I don't know what the outcome, if any, there was, but I would think this article should be deleted. It is completely original research, with no sources. Can anything be done about this? Should it be deleted, or remain on the copyedit-needed list? Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion via a "prod". A prod is only used for non-controversial deletions, and cannot be used if someone objects. The next step would be to nominate the article at articles for deletion. I would suggest that yes, this is original research, contains personal opinion and essay-like material, and no third party sources - nominate for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur. It could be that this is indeed a theological term, as the phrase gets used often enough in various contexts, but it strikes me that even if it is a term on which we should have an article, the current text is not helpful for writing the article we want. GRBerry 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it for deletion. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Baptism Cruft

A quick search came up with these thirty baptism related articles. Now don't get me wrong, baptism is certainly important. But there seems to me to be an undue amount of overlap in these articles. Suggestions? Pastordavid (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Torah-submissive Christian

This looks like a mess of soap-box, essay, and original research to me (or perhaps at best a coat-rack). Anyone want to have a look and see if I'm totally off base here? Pastordavid (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is a cut and paste copy of this version (or another from about that time) of Christian Torah-submission, which is now a redirect to Biblical law in Christianity per August 2007 consensus at Talk:Christian Torah-submission#Requested move. See also Wikipedia:Content forking. I recommend boldly redirecting, and if that fails try further steps through AFD. GRBerry 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC) - What am I saying? Cut and paste is a copyright violation, so I just deleted it. If the author wants to bring it back, they need to revisit that move/merge discussion. GRBerry 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That solves that. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, the article wasn't actually a candidate for quick deletion. I noticed the article missing, so I traced it: It was originally its own page under Christian Torah-submission. Then, on 22 August 2007, it was merged into Biblical law in Christianity by User:Namikiw. On 23 April 2008, User:Ewawer copied and pasted the Torah-submissive section from Biblical law in Christianity to Torah-submissive Christian.[2] It doesn't appear to be copyright violation at all, but an attempt on User:Ewawer's part to split the article without following the correct procedure. I see why you deleted it and it could stand clean-up, but it should be restored to Biblical law in Christianity to allow a split to be properly discussed. MagnusX1 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I continue to believe that it was quite definitely appropriate to speedy delete this page. As I said above, it was a cut and paste copy of existing text, and hence a copyright violation since the prior contributors weren't credited. What I hadn't originally noticed was that after the merge to Biblical law in Christianity had been done, someone had changed the redirect page to the cut and paste copyright violation. So when I deleted the copyright violation, the original page was later deleted under WP:CSD#R1, as well as the original talk page where consensus for the merger was established. Those later deletions needed to be fixed, and I have now done so. As merging is an editorial decision, spinning back out is also an editorial decision. However, with a consensus originally established for the merge, it should only be spun back out after a consensus is established to do so. The proper place to seek such consensus is at Talk:Biblical law in Christianity, and the discussion should link to Talk:Christian Torah-submission#Requested move, and it would be best if the editors in that discussion were notified of the new discussion. If this does not satisfy you, please raise a discussion at deletion review - but be aware that the content has long been considered problematic, so those issues will need to be addressed also. GRBerry 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Cut and paste copy of existing text is not a copyright violation unless it has copyrights retained. All Wikipedia content in licensed under the GFDL and freely editable (unless the original page was also a copyright violation, but that does not seem to be the case).
Cut and paste of existing Wikipedia content could be plagiarism if the prior contributors weren't credited correctly-- but note well that "prior contributors being credited correctly" is generally quite complicated and not an area of copyright law at all. Plagiarism is also not a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Carlaude (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do with five articles

What should we do with POxy 1464, POxy 2990, POxy 3929, POxy 658, and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035. The first four are sub-stubs on a particular libellus from circa 250 A.D. The fifth is instead an arrest warrant of the same date and origin. Are they mergable? Should the greek and English texts get transwikied to wikisource? (How would we do that?) Are they worth keeping at all? GRBerry 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with transwiki-ing them. The procedure there, as per this page, is evidently to just place {{Copy to Wikisource}} on the top of the page to be transferred to start it off. John Carter (talk)
Yeah, wikisource is probably the way to go. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035 may warrent staying as an article, if some additional commentary can be found in reliable sources (seems like the sort of thing that would have had articles on it, but maybe not). But even so, it still needs to be added to wikisource. Pastordavid (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Flagged the 4 of 5 with Greek text for copying. After the copying occurs, I'll PROD the four libelli. GRBerry 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gospel Harmony

This is a relatively new article that looks to be redundant with Chronology of Jesus, I've suggested a merge, but I'm not sure if it's a POV fork or some other issue. It appears to be an adaptation from [3], and I don't know how reliable a source that is.Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Student Life articles

I have merged Student Life New Zealand into Student Life (university ministry), and plan to do the same with Student Life Australia. The article they are being merged into seems to lack notability too, as I have indicated with the template, and might itself be merged into the apparently notable Campus Crusade for Christ. Nobody seems to be watching them, and they were all created by one-edit wonders, so I need some more feedback. Maybe I should take them to AFD (even though the content is technically being merged) to get some? Richard001 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review Campus Crusade for Christ and work downward from there. Agape Europe is anpther sub-organization of CCfC. GRBerry 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, but I think I'll work my way up to it first. Richard001 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Just a thought here everybody but so far nobody has made any of the christian based infoboxes part of this rather impressive project. Currently there are around 25 infoboxes devoted to different aspects of christianity. A large proportion of these are about people such as bishops, archbishops, partriachs and popes and this area is largely unregulated. Basicually what I am getting at is that I have two propsales to make. 1. That we incorporate at least some of these infoboxes into our project. (Template:Infobox Bishop (talk · links · edit), Template:Infobox Archbishop (talk · links · edit), Template:Infobox Patriarch (talk · links · edit) and Template:Infobox Pope (talk · links · edit) would be my personal preference to start with first because they are the ones I have worked with and know they are of a reasonable standard) 2. That we possibly create an Infobox Departement to deal with the problems that arise with this infoboxs. Thats it basicually, it was just a thought that crossed my mind. I know how very busy many of the members of WikiProject Christianity are but I think this would be a valuable asset to our cause. So any feed back please let me know. The Quill (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing, feedback

Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.

On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?

As a side note, if the listings are too long when generated for the entire project, I can also generate them for individual workgroups, which might be easier to handle.

Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Corpus Christi (feast) needs your help

I can't figure out from Corpus Christi (feast) just what Corpus Christi is. Can anybody help out the non-Christians here? (Obviously, please add info to that article, not just here.) Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. "Corpus Christi" as a phrase means "Body of Christ", which seems in this context to refer to the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the body of Christ. Does that somewhat answer your question? John Carter (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi can I ask a question about christanity here? ElectricalExperiment 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You can ask, but since this is a project for improving Wikipedia's articles about Christianity, we are likely to direct you to an article rather than answering directly. GRBerry 03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
does the bible say why homosexuality are bad? ElectricalExperiment 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see The Bible and homosexuality for an article on the subject. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New work group proposals

There are now two new proposed work groups of Christianity, one to deal with the main articles on all the Christian faiths, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Christian creeds, and another to focus specifically on content relating to Christian philosophy and theology, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Christian theology. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the Christian Creeds project would work as a subgroup under the Christian Theology one? Kristamaranatha (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The answer would be dependent on whether the group would include the various official church entities within the Anglican Communion, and similar instances when there are more than one governing entity in the same faith tradition. My guess would be that they probably would all be included. If that were to happen, that might make the ties to "theology" somewhat tenuous. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that the creeds in some instances may have more of a historical or governmental significance as opposed to a theological one? I guess I have just always looked at the creeds as theological. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, what I'm really saying is that maybe it wasn't named particularly well, but the words "denomination", "church", "sect", and similar, which might be more clear to some people, might also be in a sense more objectionable to some individuals, and I was trying to come up with a term which wouldn't get people objecting to it from the very beginning, although it looks like I might not have done a particular good job there. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)