User talk:Techybae
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Techybae! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes
[edit]I noticed you have done several recent changes to i.a. some articles which I have been rather heavily involved in. I have a question and a few comments on your changes.
Firstly, the stance of the Church of Sweden towards saints is vague at best; while not outright denying saints, the Church of Sweden does not accept any formalised process of designating saints, as in e.g. the Catholic church. There is a short explanation on the stance, in Swedish, here. Most church names referring to saints are there largely for historical reasons, furthermore. Therefore, I have reasoned that to include references in infoboxes to saintly dedications would in the case of churches within the Church of Sweden be confusing at best and misleading at worst. What's your reasoning for wanting to include them?
Secondly, in the lead section of the article on Storkyrkan you removed and rephrased a section claiming it was unsourced. If you had taken the time to read a bit more of the article you would have found that this was not the case; that claim is supported by two independent sources. There is no obligation to provide inline citations in the lead for facts which are properly cited later in the article. Also, it would have been a nice courtesy to spend one minute to properly format your citation, instead of just putting a raw link there, not least considering the article is GA rated and should uphold certain standards in this respect. I will revert this change to the way it was before.
Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The process of cononization is not the same as dedicating a church to a Saint in some fashion, which the church of Sweden does do even in modern times, though it's not required.
The vagueness of the issue makes sourcing difficult, but as an ordinand for the priesthood in the CoS I like to think I have some idea of the churches self understanding on this issue. For an example of a CoS church outright stating it has a patron Saint, see https://lundsdomkyrka.se/fordjupning/st-laurentius/ Including Saint dedications where applicable is thus relevant, "formal dedication" notwithstanding.
I'm not a pro at this so I thank you for your input on formatting. Techybae (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There is also a lack of coherent views in the Church on this, with some subsets surely agreeing witg you, with others taking a more "Roman" stance (see the Societies of St. Lawrence in Lundaand St. Ansgar in Uppsala and their respective churches for examples of the latter). A statement such as yours is simply too confessional in one direction to truly reflect the self understanding, and breadth thereof, that exists. It would be a bit like saying Anglicans don't do the saints thing because the 39 articles condemns it, which is true but doesn't reflect the breadth of views in practice.
Hopefully that helps, as I have no desire for an edit war. Techybae (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply! Yes, I am not questioning the fact that the CoS does venerate saints (though I was unaware of the fact that the CoS still dedicates churches to saints), but as you say, there is a certain vagueness in its relationship to saints which is why I have avoided the issue altogether. Hm... well, but if you say the church still does dedicate churches to saints I guess that settles it, I'll let it be for the moment. It would be good to have some reference to a reliable source on the issue at some point though. The page about Lawrence in Lund is equally vague; while the headline does mention "patron saint" the text itself merely states that the church was consecrated to Saint L; well, that was in 1145... Anyway, perhaps the best course of action would be to be equally vague here, then. I'll remove the wording in the article on Storkyrkan which explicitly states that after the Reformation the church was not dedicated to any saint, and let the additions you've made to patron saints in the infoboxes be as they are. And let me know if you find anything that can shed further light on the issue. Glad to see someone interested! Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I just findit to be something of interest,but as you say it's very vague. It's something I feel can be discerned based on how the church behaves, keeping relics in some cases but again not for the same reasons as, for example, the Roman catholics. I think it would be more apt to say "still names church *in honor of* saints", in modern times, but I feel that "dedication" kind of describes that, even if I agree that it might cause some confusion for someone just dkibg5a cursory glance. Techybae (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that makes sense for the infobox, it's actually kind of a great solution here because we can just leave it without comment there and it doesn't specify how that dedication came about or anything... You've convinced me it's a better way. :) By the way, sorry if I sounded bossy and/or confused above, I am a bit distracted today and afraid not everything I write may make perfect sense. I do appreciate your interest in the issue and especially your insights, it's very helpful! I jumped a bit here now and changed Storkyrkan, but should've asked you if you think the above is a good solution first, but I guess you're on board with this then? Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
No sweat, there's enough crappy edits on Wikipedia to make people a bit snappy after all. And like I said I'm really bad at formatting so my edits aren't always that good.
Oh and Yeah it looks good I think.
Thanks for a fruitfulddiscussion . Techybae (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)