Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

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

WikiProject Christianity (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable

questions re "list of beatified people"[edit]

Hello, not sure if this is the right place, but the page directed me here. Two questions. First, when a group is beatified at once, should the individual names be listed here? Second related question. Should a name only be included if there is a Wiki article about that person alone? (as for example "holidays and observances" in the article for each day of the year). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted an example of a question on the talk page. Blessed Wincenty Lewoniuk does not have his own article, nor is he mentioned by name in an article, but the article Pratulin Martyrs names him in the title of an external link, where his companions are also named. Can I include him? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Input requested on use of "orthodox"[edit]

At Pentecostalism, there is currently a discussion on whether it is appropriate to describe mainstream Christians/theology as "orthodox". Input would be appreciated. Ltwin (talk)

Question about Category:Christianity articles needing attention[edit]

Dear editors, I would like to contribute to keeping articles related to Christianity up-to-date and high quality. Currently, the category Category:Christianity articles needing attention seems to contain many articles with no outstanding issues. How is membership to this category decided? Can anyone remove a page from the category? Are the articles listed still in need of attention? The talk page is more or less dead, so I’m asking here in case anyone can point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.


Maximilian Aigner (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are no outstanding issues that you can find, to remove the article from the category you go to the talk page into edit mode. Look for "WikiProject Christianity", then look where it says "attention=yes" and remove that parameter. Ltwin (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Maximilian Aigner: This happens inside {{WikiProject Christianity}} when the attention=yes parameter is set. As was stated above, edit the talk page and modify that parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ltwin and Walter Görlitz: Thank you both very much. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Open Episcopal Church -- needs help and cleanup[edit]

This article needs help and cleanup (and when done, hopefully the tags can be removed). Two editors have also been squabbling about it, both via edit wars and on the talkpage. I just now gave it a bit of a going over, but I've exhausted my skill level on a subject matter I do not specialize in, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's been helped a bit; could use more help/eyes if anyone is willing, as there are gaps in sourcing. I've added Template:friendly search suggestions to the talk page to assist researching. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Independent Baptist[edit]

The article needs more to it, and my edits were undone. A description of their general beliefs should be listed with good sources. Mooters 1563 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism - recent activity[edit]

Could anyone take a look at recent activity on Christian fundamentalism? I already reverted there twice. Thanks. (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Template:Infobox church/denomination in another template[edit]

I would like to use the variable color function of Template:Infobox church/denomination in Template:Episcopal lineage, which I am almost done building. My goal is to have the header change color according to the denomination entered, as well as the font color change when necessary according to the background color, just as Template:Infobox church does. I have tried to code this into the template as it is, but it does not seem to work, as it the header color remains the default color. Does anyone know how I can go about achieving this? Ergo Sum 17:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I came up with a solution. You can see it on the template. Ergo Sum 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New template[edit]

I have created a new template, Template:Episcopal lineage. It is used to display the lineage leading up to a bishop (including cardinals, popes, patriarchs, etc.). It is configured to be used for Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Christian denominations that maintain a historical episcopate. An example of its use can be found on the template page or in the Pope Francis article. Ergo Sum 04:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge templates proposal[edit]

With the new Template:Episcopal lineage created, I propose merging Template:Ordination with the other. I think the aesthetics of episcopal lineage are preferable and recommend creating a new collapsible section within that template to include the information contained within ordination. Thoughts? The merger discussion is located at Template talk:Ordination#Merge templates. Ergo Sum 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"The Bible and violence" article[edit]

I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC) User talk:Jenhawk777/sandboxJenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Jenhawk777/sandbox

This article needs a lot of clean up, and multiple notices have been given to it. It's particularly bias towards the Subordinationism view without considering the contrary and thus it does not remain neutral. On top of that, some of the sources it gives are either old or not completely reliable. Mooters 1563 (talk) 2:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I am unsure what you mean by multiple notices. Since this is still in my sandbox, other than answers to questions I posted in the Teahouse, only two people have commented. And an attempt to comply and cooperate with what those commenters said is why I posted this request. I do respond to every piece of advice anyone has posted to me. The article does need clean-up. But I need specifics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Subordinationism is not present, I will argue that, I include the view that the crucifixion is the most violent event in the Bible, and Evan Fales comment, and a couple other things, but if you think that discussion should be expanded, I can certainly do that. Part of the problem, I'm sure, is that the New Testament simply doesn't mention war at all and there aren't the same number or type of events to address as there are in the OT; there are no commands to genocide. The only murder in the NT is Stephen's and he's a victim and that's why I left it out. Perhaps that should be included anyway. I would be interested in hearing your view of that. I can't make stuff up in an effort to avoid some point of view I don't actually have. Representing the majority view accurately while also mentioning alternate views is how this is supposed to work, though, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I need to know what references specifically you think are unreliable and why as well. Some sources are no doubt old but that does not automatically disqualify them.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Ignore the paragraph talking about multiple notices. When you entered your first paragraph ("I am working ...") you edited it in before the existing one, so although it appears to answer you it does not. If you look at the dates you'll see that "Mooters 1563" added his on 30 July whereas yours is from 2 August, 3 days later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't suppose I could talk you into going and reading it and commenting on the content could I? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Possibly tomorrow evening. I'm on UK time and it's 23:34 so I'm off to bed! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk. I've had a quick look and have nothing to add to the detail, others who are far more knowledgeable than I seem to be advising you adequately. One tiny point though, don't be tempted to try to write the whole article in depth in the lead – the lead should summarise for numpties like me what the subject is all about, rather than expound upon the content. Should there be a definition of "The Bible" in a lead? Probably (this may be being read by, say, a Sikh), but possibly not in as much detail (just say it is the Christian and Jewish holy books, he'll understand). Do "Masoretic", "Deuterocanonical" or "historiography" help a high school pupil in Cambodia understand what the article is about? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Martin, thank you for responding. I deleted that stuff from the lead. But it may not matter. I have been getting great help--mostly--but I have run into a snag. Instead of attempting to replace the whole article at once, I took the advice of others here with more experience than I and began editing the existing article with some parts of what they had already seen, and given such great help with. It was reverted within a few minutes by Jytdog without anyone else ever getting the chance to read or see or have an opinion on it. There was no consensus. I suggested he put it back--I don't want to get into an edit war so I have not--and allow the community to see it and edit it and decide for themselves. Maybe give it a week. If they edit every word I wrote I feel like, "So what?" The article will be edited and improved and that's the point-- right? I trust the Wiki community to do quality edits--that's all I have seen so far--plus the majority have demonstrated genuine good will and a desire to help. The flag on this article and comments in talk from other editors--including Jytdog--state this article needs a complete rewrite. I agreed--so that's what I did. Then I was advised not to attempt to submit and ask for a merge but to edit the existing article. I edited about half the existing article with plenty left to do. Jytdog said that was way too bold and reverted the whole thing immediately. He can't have even read any of it. Do I have any recourse besides an edit war which I do not want?Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
HI Jenhawk. This is moving too far from "Project Christianity", so I'm going over to your talk page which seems more appropriate. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Apostles Creed[edit]

To whom it may concern.

It is my understanding that the Apostles Creed is also represented in the Episcopal Church.

Catherine A. Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8000:2C73:B517:D2DA:1781:4F64 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


Judaizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

is an article that really needs improvement. A new editor added some material that I reverted because it was dependent upon primary sources and was OR. They understand that but are concerned about the edits by yet a second new editor that don't seem to improve it either. I don't know if anyone here is interested, but if they are, as I said, the article needs work. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it Doug--it will give me something to do.  :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller and thank you Jenhawk777. Please do also take a second look at my contributions there. I think that there was maybe something i oroduced which could be worked with. Cheers. Judaizers (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)