Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone and dissident US parishes and diocese

Those affiliated with the Episcopal Church (USA) are probably aware that Bishop John-David Schofield led many members of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin to form the so-called Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, which claims to be a member of and is claimed as a member by the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Previously, the article for the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone listed the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin as an actual, official member diocese of the province. I removed this, but kept mention in the lede about the province making this claim; on the talk page, I stated that it should probably remain removed until and unless supporting references can be provided.

A recent news article has come to my attention stating that the Diocese of Fort Worth (Texas) has accepted an invitation to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the province, and that the Diocese of Pittsburgh will be considering a similar offer at its diocesan meeting in October.

I expect that as more dissident diocese and parishes abandon the US church in favor of the Southern Cone or similar offers made by other provinces, the matter of canonical jurisdiction will be subject to a lot of debate. Before all this devolves into edit wars, I would like to know if WikiProject Anglicanism has any guidelines on how to treat articles where this issue is relevant, and what type of supporting references would be considered acceptable. TechBear (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Anglicanism

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ALERT: Episcopalian vs Anglicanism

An editor has redirected Episcopalian to Anglicanism, but kept Talk:Episcopalian in which said editor explains said action. I personally don't feel these edits are helpful, since they obscure the differences between the two terms and delete the previous language differentiating the usuage of Episcopal vs Episcopalian, which is basically that an Episcopalian is a person who belongs to an Episcopal church. I for one cringe everytime I hear or see a current reference to an "Episcopalian" church and feel that such usage is derogatory and that it is necessary to assert the correct modern usage, especially in the US. Your comments, please. clariosophic (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"An editor" was me. Angr has since redirected Episcopalian to the disambiguation page at Episcopal: I disagree with his move, but he is a knowledgeable and serious editor, and I am discussing it with him. I too cringe when I see it (in a 21st century context), but the offending articles can be quickly found with Whatlinkshere and fixed. In the meantime, the redirect I proposed will take uninitiated readers directly to the right place. I think the wiktionary articles do a reasonable job of explaining current usage. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see Clariosophic point and I agree. -- Secisek (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

{{bishop-stub}}

Please see question at Template_talk:Bishop-stub and a request for your project to resolve. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Willibrord Society

Willibrord Society has been PRODded for deletion because it lacks third-party sources to establish its notability. I found a few hits at Google Books, but because I'm in Germany I can't see most of the books, so I don't know what's said about the Society in them. I'd like to be able to keep this article, though, so if anyone can help save it, that would be great. —Angr 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Archbishops of Canterbury

I've nominated this article for removal of it's featured list status. Feel free to comment, here. iMatthew (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ALERT: Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh

On October 17, 2008, an editor moved the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church) and then turned the resulting redirect page into a disambiguation page. This does not follow what happened with San Jaoquin and should be reversed but only an editor can do so. There is no need for a disambiguation page. Cross references at the top of each diocese's page are sufficient. clariosophic (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross references are better, but shall we let feelings cool a bit? The split only happened 2 weeks ago, according to the article, and there is time to reflect on the best way to link this.
BTW, other project participants may not be aware that there is also a Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I encourage anyone with insight into this topic to help out. There are now two bodies that consider themselves the rightful diocese, which has left us with a content fork. There's a proposal to slit the pre-schism diobese into an article of its own, with articles for each of the new bodies. But that's not perfect either. From what I've read, it doesn't appear that the situation will be resolved anytime soon, so we need to settle the Wikipedia disposition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of importance of articles

I have just looked through the Top, High, Mid and Low lists and find that there are certain inconsistencies.

I discovered, for example, that the Ceremonial use of lights is assessed at High, the remains of the ruined Burnham Abbey is assessed at Mid while many Anglican Dioceses are assessed at Low!

Problems 1. Decisions are needed over the importance of certain categories of article. Specifically, many listings are for Dioceses, Cathedrals, Parish churches, Bishop of such and such, Theological Colleges, and sites that have religious association such as shrines, ruined abbeys etc.

Currently some Dioceses are Mid and others are Low. Having looked through them, I concluded there was nothing to make the Mid ones more important than the Low ones.

Recommend-

  • all Diocese listed at High
  • all Cathedrals Mid except Canterbury Cathedral, St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey at High.
  • all Parish Churches at Low unless they have some exceptional significance for the Anglican Communion.
  • the articles on the "Bishop of such and such" are brief, and include material dealt with under the article about the Cathedral of the same diocese. Rate at Low
  • all Theological Colleges rated low unless they have enormous clout/historical importance, or are a thorn in the side of the Anglican Communion that is threatening to cause division.
  • Biographies- I haven't checked many of them!

2. Two issues of Top importance in the modern church have been given high or mid priority:

3. Articles that I would raise to Top importance

4. Articles now of High importance that I would lower to Mid or Low

5. Articles now of Mid importance that I would raise to Top or High

6. Articles now of Mid to be put down to Low

Amandajm (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to this, so I guess it is OK if I do it. Amandajm (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that some of the more obscure cathedrals be put down to Low, particularly the ex-parish church cathedrals! Is Lincoln Cathedral really of the same importance as Chelmsford Cathedral?! Similarly - Saint Thomas Church, NYC, is known worldwide because of its musical tradition and webcasts, so may be more 'worthy' than other parish churches... Stefan (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I assigned most of the project priorities in 2007 and I did so with an eye on what I personally felt we needed to be working on. I also was on record here somewhere as saying that any project member could change any priority as they saw fit. Go for it.

The only suggestions that caught my eye were John Wycliff - I would say low or mid - I would not argue with high, perhaps - but not top. St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford should reamin mid. The building was the cradle of the Oxford Movement. --Secisek (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked a few, made a few of your tops to highs and vice versa. Over all, very good suggestions -- Secisek (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a new Nav Box for the Anglican Communion and would like it to be comprehensive. Please review "Category:Top-importance Anglicanism articles" for inclusion. All comments are welcome. -- Secisek (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Top importance is more about priorities for inclusion in Version 1.0 and for work by this project. About a third of the articles in Category:Top-importance Anglicanism articles are general Christian topics, that belong in the category but not in specific navigation box.
My personal opinion is that the category is too big for a navigation box.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and I really like the new box, but I do think it has become bloated. Perhaps a footer may be the way to go. I am more intrested in content than size, shape, or location. Thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I put 8+ months of new Featured/GA content on the portal. Check it out!

Also after only being back here two days, I already am sick of seeing Cranmer on every single page because somebody put his mug on the portal link. If no one objects, I am going to put the cathedral back, or perhaps the compass rose. -- Secisek (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They don't show up for me. Maybe a template needs purging? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The template is protected, due to our success in getting it attached to so many articles. I concieved, designed, and maintain the portal. I made the portal link and yet I cannot edit it. Would an Admin do the honors of sticking the cathedral pic from the images section of the project page back on the portal link template? The Cranmer is a bit much on every page, and it is not particularly iconic. The Compass Rose may not be the friendliest logo for some right now and I don't want to offend anyone. -- Secisek (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done the honours. All who wish to join the bunfight may do so on the discussion page of {{Anglican Portal}}. Cheers! fishhead64 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Parish church template

Warning: there is a [proposed deletion discussion] about to windup on this and other templates of interest to Anglicans/Episcopalians. clariosophic (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Anglican template

It seems to me that the large template headed "Part of a series on the Anglican Communion" is impossible to fit comfortably or attractively into the text of articles. I don't think anyway that every article related to the Anglican Church is "part of a series" on it. I would like to see the template redesigned to go at the bottom of the page, horizontally, like many other templates (see the three hideable templates at the bottom of Mary Shelley, for example). This strikes me as the way to go, because, in my opinion, large templates plonked within the middle of articles seem extraneous and look unprofessional (a scholarly article wouldn't have a box like this in its midst). It sometimes overlaps section headings and squashes text between it and an image. Thank goodness there isn't a Catholic equivalent, or the text might become terminally jostled in some articles.qp10qp (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There IS a Roman Catholic one, identical in format to the Anglican Communion's, only get this - it is LARGER.
Please comment on this matter at the template talk page as your input would be most welcome there. I am leaning in the direction of a horizontal nav box as well, at least for use on pages that already have an info-box. The Nav box currently is only located on pages "in the series", the portal link goes on all other pages. -- Secisek (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Commented there. Not seen such a thing yet, but it strikes me that there could occur a traffic jam on Reformation articles, with vertical Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican templates jostling for elbow room. qp10qp (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Where you have a subject like that, best just to put the top-level {{Christianity}} template on it, since that links down to Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism etc. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with David. Did you see the footer as well? --Secisek (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I signed us up for this. We have made huge strides in the last couple of years! --Secisek (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I took this on for us. -- Secisek (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Dioceses by country

After my successful attempt to rename Category:Anglican diocese in Ireland to Category:Church of Ireland dioceses, thought I might drop by here and see if there might by consensus to rename all the "national" subcategories of Category:Anglican dioceses in a similar way. So Category:Anglican dioceses in Canada becomes Category:Anglican Church of Canada dioceses, Category:Anglican dioceses in Australia becomes Category:Anglican Church of Australia dioceses, etc. I thought it might be a good idea to bring it up here before formally nominating the categories in question. My though process is simple. In each country there might be other Anglican groups besides the official church, and the Anglican provinces do not always match national boundaries (often not). Therefore we should categorize diocese by the hierarchy they belong to first. Geographical considerations can be addressed separately though things like Category:Religious sees in Canada, and so on. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the categories are all that big of a deal, but I agree. -- Secisek (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but I agree as well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move: Maundy Thursday to Holy Thursday

There is request to move Maundy Thursday (talk) to Holy Thursday; see discussion. —Angr 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on name in lede of Gene Robinson

Talk: Gene Robinson#RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene approprite for the lede of this BLP?

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

infobox for anglican bishops

A US bishop's secretary has contacted me about the usage in the Epsicopal church. Apparently in North America bishops are 'Installed' rather than 'Enthroned'. Is there some way this can be reflected in the infobox, or is there an alternative that can be used? Mish (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we should do something about this. Anybody? --Secisek (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Request for comment

There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Request for Comments. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Diocese of Lincoln Major Improvements needed

I have been trying to give some of the unassessed articles in WikiProject Lincolnshire a rating and when I came to this one I was very disappointed. As a High importance article it is only just fit for a Start. As it is not our area of expertise, I was wandering whether or not you can do something to bring the article up to scratch, if so it would be much appreciated. If you can contribute then when you see th article has inproved substantially the please contact me and I will try to re-assess the article. Thank you,

95jb14 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC), a member of WikiProject Lincolnshire.

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude talk 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral GAR notice

Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Church using big C or little c?

I have a question. When editing articles on Anglican churches, and I mean denominations as opposed to local congregations, should a capital letter C be used or lowercase? I've noticed in alot of articles their seems not to be any regularity, with it some times being spelled church and others Church. Just asking. Ltwin (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Anglican Communion is itself a denomination, which has provinces, and there are churches within it (as in buildings and congregations) - I am not aware of provinces being referred to as denominations in their own right within the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church in the United States is a Province of the Anglican Communion which includes the USA, and is itself made up of nine provinces and the 'Church' has a capital 'C' because that is its name - in the same way that the Church of England has a capital 'C', and is made up of two provinces, within the Anglican Communion, Canterbury and York. In the case of the Anglican Church of Canada, which is also a province of the Anglican Communion, the capital 'C' comes from that being its name. In Wales, the Anglican province is called the Church in Wales; In Scotland the Scottish Episcopal Church; in Ireland the Church of Ireland. If it is the name, it is capitalised (as per the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, (the Anglican Communion approximates these denominations) the Church of..., the Anglican Church in..., the Church in..., The ... Episcopal Church, The Episcopal Church of..., etc.). Mish (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I probably haven't made myself clear. I'm not asking about capitalization in the full name. What I'm referring to is for example a situation like this: "The Episcopal Church has an episcopal form of government. The Church (or is it church?) is led by bishops." Does anyone understand what I'm asking now? Ltwin (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think so. If I do, the "c" probably should be capitalized if the word "church" in that instance is being used as a part of the name of the body in question. So, to maybe clarify, the "Episcopal Church" is the name by which that organization popularly goes by. In the particular instance you added above, however, it isn't overwhleming clear whether the word "church" is being used as the "name" of the organization or just as a term to describe it, in the same way it is used to describe many other churches. In instances like that, when the word "church" is more or less the entirety of the clause being used as the subject or object, then there probably isn't a need for the "c" to be capitalized, as the meaning of the sentence would be as clear without it as with it. Does that make sense? John Carter (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find it helpful to use Church for an organisational body, and church for examples of buildings, since in an article about a Church, you will probably end up referring to churches fairly frequently. David Underdown (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

DNB

I was looking at the "to do" list and thought I'd make a little propaganda for Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB. From a slow start on Dictionary of National Biography article addition, there is now greater momentum and some proper listings just coming online; and (for those not so familiar with the old DNB) it is particularly strong on detailed Church of England matters (Church of Ireland too). I expanded Herbert Thorndike from its text this morning. To put this in perspective, the Britannica 1911 articles are often cut down versions of the DNB biographies of the same people, so it makes some sense to reverse the process by thinking how to expand by going in the other direction. Of course using old material has some standard problems, but that's more a matter of skill and judgement to overcome than a permanent obstacle. I commend this source, despite the still-crunchy technical issues in getting the text, for getting missing articles in place and expanding stubby ones with factual content. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Thomas' Parish (Washington, D.C.)

Just a heads up - I've tagged the article with your project. Cheers. APK that's not my name 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cosmo Gordon Lang

Work has begun on enlarging and improving the Lang article, with a view to a peer review next month. Details are on the article talkpage. Comments welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed that Template:Anglican Cathedrals in the British Isles be renamed and moved to Template:Anglican Cathedrals in Great Britain and Ireland. Discussion taking place at the template's talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Anglican cathedrals Great Britain and Ireland

Template:Anglican cathedrals Great Britain and Ireland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. +Angr 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator elections

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deans

I'm starting to work on C of E deans, and some help would be welcome. (The lists of bishops are truly getting there in terms of completeness.) The current position is that there are number of templates, but lists are lacking (these are what I'm interesting in providing). Often enough the templates start in the 20th century, while my area of specialism is the 17th century, right now. Available reliable lists are out there, but typically end in the middle of the 19th century. So this is a heads-up that lists are quite likely patchy as posted: fairly well worked-over in the early modern period, perhaps with gaps from about 1850, and articles linked in from mid 20th century, where they often exist already. There is scope for plenty of verification work. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Anglican Church in North America dioceses

I'm not Anglican, but I have been keeping up with the Anglican Communion problems. I've noticed that US dioceses that separated from ECUSA and joined the Province of the Southern Cone were disambiguated with "(Southern Cone)" in their article names. However, these dioceses: Diocese of Quincy (Southern Cone), Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone), and Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) are now all member dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America. Would anyone interested and knowledgeable take a look at these articles and rename them appropriately? I'm personally not sure what would be a good disambiguating phrase. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Category for Deans of Lincoln

Please come and participate in the discussion to get Category:Deans of Lincoln since 1908 rectified. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Liturgy

I started organising the fascinating story of how we got from the 1662 BCP to Common Worship before I had thought about if the articles should be in Category:Church of England liturgy or something more Anglican. It would be good to connect these two articles and the Alternative Service Book, with the intermediate steps of 1928 Prayer Book and First Series of Alternative Services. Help please! PeterGrecian (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Churches - notability and Manual of style

Hi - I have ventured here as I am currently creating articles about churches in Southampton, starting with St. Mary's. Before I get too stuck in, can I ask a few questions:

  1. Is there a Manual of Style for churches?
  2. Is there a defined Notability threshold for churches? Those I have done so far are all listed buildings so pass on those grounds, but is there any bar on creating an article on a small 20th-century church with no architectural merit?
  3. Should the name of a church begin "St." or "St" (without the stop)?
  4. I see some articles refer to, say, Shirley Parish Church rather than St James' Church, Southampton. Which is correct? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Gay priests

Currently Gay priests is a redirect that ignores that the priesthood extends beyond Roman Catholicism. Comparing the situation of someone like de:Elizabeth Kaeton to that which prevails in Roman Catholicism would be a useful exercise that could well be done under such a lemma, if it were not a redirect. See Talk:Gay priests.--Bhuck (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Episcopal Dioceses in Wisconsin

There has been some discussions about merging the Eau Claire, Fond du Lac, and Milwaukee Episcopal Dioceses into one or merging the Eau Claire & Fond du Lac Dioceses into a new diocese or possible other combinations. The reasons given: financial problems and the small populations of the various parishes. As of right now nothing has been decided. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion

I suggest to Wikiproject Anglicanism to make List of Anglican theologians. I think that Handbook of Anglican Theologians edited by Alister McGrath should be good reference work. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for project help on St. Mark's Anglican Church, Remuera, Auckland

I removed a PROD from this yesterday and added some project templates to the discussion. Maybe someone from this project can bring the article up to standards and add some additional sources. Maybe from here. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As a note, the page in question was speedydeleted for copyvio. I suggest writing from scratch in userspace or a project subpage, as I did in WT:NZ#Request for project help on St. Mark's Anglican Church, Remuera, Auckland (and I think this would be a good place for collaboration). --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Church of England dioceses

User:1 has nominated List of Church of England dioceses for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming format for churches

There is currently a proposal at Talk:St Denys's Church, York to move the article from St Denys's Church, York to St Denys Church, York. Is there a preferred format or any guidelines for the naming of church articles. Please add your comments to the discussion at Talk:St Denys's Church, York. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anglicanism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity portals

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Liturgy pages need help

So, I was just browsing around, and noticed that most of the articles dealing with parts of the Mass/Eucharist/Communion service were nearly exclusively Roman Catholic in content. I changed some intros to indicate that they're not just for Catholics, but they all could use some Anglican-specific help (and Lutheran-specific, and Orthodox-specific, etc. if you have friends from other liturgical denominations). Here are the pages I've come across so far....

I'm no theologian or liturgical expert, but I'll add what I can. Hopefully someone out there has the expertise and time to flesh these articles out. Or if you can point me to good sources, maybe I can contribute as time permits. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mary (mother of Jesus)

It has been proposed that the article currently titled Mary (mother of Jesus) be renamed Virgin Mary. Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. Xandar 23:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comment

I've made a proposed table (HERE) for the List of Primates in the Anglican Communion based on the List of bishops in the Church of England. Please stop by and comment DBD 10:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

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

Requesting comment

...on a proposal to change the guidelines on the disambiguation of archbishops' articles: here DBD 13:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Prayer shawl in Anglicanism

I came across the article Prayer shawl, which says these are common in Anglican churches. If so, would anyone knowledgeable care to comment on Talk:Prayer shawl. I'm asking if this is similar to the Pentecostal concept of "prayer cloth". Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an "orphan" talk-page, left behind when the article was deleted or merged with tallit. I suggest that someone with more technical knowledge considers deleting the talk-page--Jpacobb (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with senior clergy project

I wonder if anyone would help with a project I'm embarking on. I'm trying to put Anglican archdeacons & cathedral deans (provosts) right.

  1. It starts with Category:Anglican archdeacons and Category:Anglican deans. I've been going through each of the categorised articles to check that the subject in fact held the position – i.e. it is listed in the article with a source. If not, I try to find a source to that effect.
  2. I then go to the position's page (e.g. Archdeacon of Richmond, which I think is currently the exemplar) and see if the lists can be expanded from the currently-cited sources and from british-history.ac.uk.
  3. I then link all of the office holders to the correct article name (whether it exists or not) – I Google to determine the person's WP:COMMONNAME (generally Forename Surname) and dab using (priest) or (Archdeacon of Somewhere).
  4. I then bring the nav Template up to scratch – that includes placing it at the appropriate name, linking the title to the position's page, grouping where necessary and sorting in the "Somewhere, Archdeacons of" form.

Anyone care to help, please? DBD 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistent naming of senior clergy articles

Should they all be at Archdeacon of X, List of Archdeacons of X or Archdeaconry of X. I think we can all agree that the articles would ideally include information on both the role and the office holders, and I personally think they should all be at Archdeacon of X. (All the previous applying mutatis mutandis for cathedral Deans and Provosts). Comments? DBD 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

American Anglican Council needs help

This article has been systematically edited, at times apparently at the AAC's direction, to remove any trace of the various specific controversies surrounding the organization. Lacking time I am tempted to do a three year revert, but I was hoping others could attempt a less drastic repair mission. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think I quite trust myself to do that without using the word "splitters!"... DBD 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Rubric and Ornaments Rubric

I have recently spent time trying to improve the quality of these two articles and some people might like to have a look at them, give them a rating and / or comment--Jpacobb (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the Anglicanism Template need more work on it?

I much appreciate the time and effort put into the scripting of the Anglicanism template and I know that there has been an earlier discussion of the point I am now going to raise. But as a newcomer, I feel that the end result as displayed is too heavy for the page. If it appears opposite a short lead with a long TOC under it, the end result is a visual horror (see Book of Common Prayer). Would it be possible for the detailed menus under each main section to become "drop-down" ones when the cursor is moved over the main section name? Alternatively, could a small "logo" be devised with a link to the overall menu? Perhaps this should be on the talk:template-page but I suspect few people look there and I will post a link there--Jpacobb (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Church Society

I created this stub, and it has been improved/added to in a private capacity by a user with an openly declared daytime involvement with the Church Society. The user has invited me (not in any way connected with the Church Society) to review his edits to ensure transparency and NPOV. As far as I can see they are NPOV, but at his request I am now posting here to get a wider view. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hello! Lately, I've noticed that a lot of historic Anglican churches are being featured on the main page. This is great! It would be nice to have a newsletter to inform members of the project of these accomplishments as well as other ways we can help. Who wants to write it? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a separate newsletter, but it would be nice if this sort of thing were mentioned here on this talk page. Angr (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A newsletter would increase awareness of the project and it's initiatives. It would jumpstart participation here. I could help out a little.– Lionel (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian devotional literature

Christian devotional literature appeared and is a noteworthy topic. But the article is pretty narrow, as I said on the talk there, and the various denominations who read this should really add their respective components to make it balanced. History2007 (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

ECUSA and the Social Gospel

Can anyone address the thread "Social Gospel in the introductory paragraph" on this page? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "Gospel" mainstream editors needed

Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed redirection of Christianity subproject talk pages

I have recently started discussion about possibly eliminating the use of a separate talk page for it here. Input from any interested editors is very welcome and encouraged. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Anglicanism will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in Anglicanism. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglican Diocese of Leeds

Hullo chaps! Since the announcement that three dioceses in England will (essentially) merge, I've been keeping many articles up to date with proposal info. Instead, I would like to create the article Anglican Diocese of Leeds. I've started in my user space – please could some folks help get it up to scratch before we move it to article space? The information is currently in the following articles:

DBD 14:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I suggest you also post here: WP:XNB. – Lionel (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Church bells

{{Infobox church}} now has parameters for church bells (number of, weight, and hanging arrangement). Please help to populate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Divine" or "Theologian"?

I have been reading through a fair number of Anglican Articles with historical sections and have come across several references to "Anglican divines". I know perfectly well that it means "theologian", but suspect that a lot of readers will not. Even if they do, wouldn't it be a good idea to use contemporary language in a 21st century encyclopedia?Jpacobb (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Anglican divines constitute a specific set of theologians who are generally held to define Anglican theological style. Not all Anglican theologians are numbered among the Anglican divines. Mangoe (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Urgent Issue with Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh

User:DBD has renamed the article Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican Church in North America). The edit summary says the following, "(DBD moved page Talk:Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to Talk:Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican Church in North America): prefix Anglican incorrect (not actual Anglicans))". Please discuss on the article's talk page. Ltwin (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Christ (term)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Christ (term)#Requested move. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Association

Memorial tablet in the western entrance porch of the ChristChurch Cathedral showing the members of the Canterbury Association

The Canterbury Association was an English group of Anglicans that hatched a colonisation scheme, and the Canterbury Region is the result of their grand plan. Some of them emigrated to New Zealand, but many of them never had the intention of emigrating. So far, so good. The Canterbury Association existed for only a few years before it got dissolved. In a quest of finding out a bit more about the group, its membership was researched for a series of books on The History of Canterbury. In Volume I, the group's membership is listed (in Appendix IV) - I count 84 members. After Volume I was published, a memorial tablet was installed in ChristChurch Cathedral.

The vast majority of them already have articles on Wikipedia. I'm guessing that all of them would meet notability criteria. I once created a category and am working my way through the list (so far, I have done 30 members; a further five that I've looked at don't have an article yet).

I asked the Wikiproject New Zealand/politics whether members of the Canterbury Association should come under its scope. The one reply that I received was that they firstly belong to this Wikiproject. Shall I go ahead and add the project on the talk pages? Schwede66 04:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Update. The category now has 58 members. I only add articles to the category once the text spells out that they were members, and a reference is provided to back this up. Given I had no feedback on the query above, my decision is that once I've dealt with all the existing articles, I'll go ahead and add this project to the respective talk pages. Schwede66 01:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. Considering we colour the tables claret for bishop lists (thusly), I thought it might be nice to colour bishoppy navboxes with a pale claret (thusly), diocesan ones pale yellow (thusly) after the dioceses infobox, deany ones pale blue (thusly) and archidiaconal ones pale green (thusly). Thoughts? DBD 10:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's superfluous, makes the templates harder to read, and counter to the guidelines at wp:accessibility and WP:NAVBOXCOLOR. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have altered the claret shade to comply with said guidelines. The other three did anyway – I have checked using Snook's tool.
A good idea. However, the colours are not equivalent in terms of hue. For instance, the claret for bishops is a bit muddy, and should perhaps be slightly brighter; on the other hand, the diocesan yellow is too bright and could be toned down a touch. Only my opinion.
It's a nightmare getting these right (especially when you ask a "committee" – speaking as a former graphic designer), so you have my sympathies! – Agendum (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DBD 23:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I personally think it's better without the colouring. It looks strange when there are multiple navigational boxes at the bottom of one page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That's fair enough, Plastik. Of course, aesthetics are subjective and that is your personal preference. I'm asking the WP members to contribute their ideas. DBD 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If colours are to be used I feel this set of four have problems: the pale claret: better to use the same colour already used for "Bishopric" labels; pale blue with dark blue text may be harder to read, maybe something like fawn or sandy might be used here. The yellow and pale green colours look all right.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I still don't think we need them, but if you are going to add colours, then you should do so using a border colour, either like what is done for rail lines (see Template:Senzan Line) or like what is done for hockey teams (see the title bar in Template:Montreal Canadiens, not the rest of the template) or the top border colouring for succession box headings (see template:s-ach). having the colours defined in one place (a single template) would allow them to be altered without having to change all the templates (see template:infobox religious building/color or template:NRHP style). Again, I am still not in support of the colouring, but if we must, there are ways to do it without worrying about the contrast between the text and the background. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am supportive of coloring, but only in the manner in the above comment. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a great ideaBashereyre (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, all. Here are some ways border colouring could work:

DBD 12:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I also like the border colors. Spartacus007 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

border colours on the title are better than border colours on the entire navbox, and if you are going to do it, create a template name {{Anglican navbox titlestyle}} with
{{#switch:{{{1|}}}
| Archdeacons = background: #FFFFFF; border-bottom: #33AA55 5px solid; border-top: #33AA55 5px solid;
| Bishops = background: #FFFFFF; border-bottom: #7F1734 5px solid; border-top: #7F1734 5px solid;
| Deans = background: #FFFFFF; border-bottom: #3355AA 5px solid; border-top: #3355AA 5px solid;
| Diocese = background: #FFFFFF; border-bottom: #FFCC33 5px solid; border-top: #FFCC33 5px solid;
}}
and invoke with |titlestyle={{Anglican navbox titlestyle|type}}, using the various types. I still think no colouring is better, but this would centralise the location of the definitions. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This looks good to me. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here is a finalish proposal, which would be implemented as Frietjes suggests:

For your questions, comments and/or indications of approval DBD 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, now it's 7 days later. I'm going to go ahead and implement in the manner suggested above. Cheers, folks. DBD 16:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee: Thomas Traherne

After undertaking a revision of the article, I've nominated Thomas Traherne for promotion to Good Articles. It is under this WikiProject and I invite anyone to take a look. If you're interested in reviewing, take a look at the article's talk page or WP:GAN. Thanks for your time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anglicanism/Archive_5&oldid=1232552240"