Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
NA	This page does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.

Catholicism WikiProject
General information Main project page talk Members talk To-do list talk Assessment talk Collaboration talk Terminology talk Strategy talk Project category talk Christianity Portal talk Project templates Project banner talk Catholic Encyclopedia talk Popes talk edit · changes

Archive 1: December 2005 – June 2006

Archive 2: July 2006 – August 2006

Contents 1 Talk:Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church#Requested_move 2 Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church 3 RCC vs. CC 4 Proposal to resolve the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate 5 A Message From the Project Starter 6 Pope Pius XII 7 !!Attention!! INPORTANT 8 Tagging talk pages and assessing articles 9 How'd I do? 10 Holy Prepuce 11 Necedah Shrine 12 New article needs Catholics' help 13 Existing pages to add to the project 14 New template for citing the CCC 15 {{RC-stub}} sub-categories 16 Articles for creation: help requested on potential move 17 Justification article feedback requested 18 Diocesan Infobox / work in progress 19 Proposed Addition to Lists of Patron Saints 20 Collaboration not working!?! 21 help 22 Category:Religious leaders 23 Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal 24 Proposed article 25 Catholic minister 26 Wikipedia Day Awards 27 WikiProject Religion 28 Contemporary and past dioceses - categorization 29 Warning: Deletion of all papal coats of arms 30 Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive 31 lay cardinal 32 Articles about Popes 32.1 Assessing articles about Popes 33 Anti-Judaism versus anti-Semitism 34 Father Damien FAR 35 Articles tagged as needing expert attention 36 Organisation of Catholic dioceses 37 Small request 38 Infobox for Churches 39 The Catholic Encyclopedia and Project Catholicism 40 History of the Papacy 41 History of the Catholic Church 42 Anti-Catholic Humor 43 Page links to Crusaders 44 Catholic Women's League 45 Naming convention 46 Portuguese language alliance 47 Heads up on Jocelin 48 Category for discussion: Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer 49 Article in sore need of more watchers 50 Denomination 51 Annibale Bugnini 52 Cistercians 53 blacklist

[edit] Talk:Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church#Requested_move

There is a survey to determine whether to move Sacraments of the Catholic Church. You are invited to review this survey. --WikiCats 09:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved without process, and all I asked was for a revert. It seems strange that some people have a move now, poll later attitude. But if the poll supports the out of process move, so be it. I'd just urge editors in the future to poll first, move later.--Andrew c 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCC vs. CC

• Talk:Roman Catholic Church - should the article's name be changed to simply "Catholic Church". This debate has been going on for months now, and a vote/comment is underway. There are policy/guideline issues, and disambiguity and POV issues on both sides. Please, if you have the time, take a few minutes to review the past discussions and weigh in. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to resolve the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate

So far as I can determine, there are at least six archived pages of talk relating to the proper name of the page for the Catholic Church headed by the Pope. It is hard to imagine that this so-far endless discussion has not resulted in bad feelings on all sides. Regretably, no final resolution seems to be likely anytime soon if the same tactics are taken.

I would like to make a proposal which I believe might finally solve the core dispute which has led to this argument. I also note that I myself am in no way qualified to seek to "impose" this possibility on anyone, and am thus requesting that the majority of the rest of you involved in this discussion at least consider lending your support to this way of very likely resolving the current discussion.

As most of you will know, there is currently an election to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ongoing. My proposal is that, come the end of this election, a special referendum regarding the name debate be held. Any and all editors who have taken part in the election, but only those individuals, would be eligible to vote to determine how this matter would be decided, including all those who claim no allegiance to any of the opposing sides. The decision reached would not be "final" in any real sense, but would resolve the question which has led to the current debate until some development which alters the current status quo takes place. Exactly how to determine what such developments would qualify could also be one of the issues involved in the vote.

I ask each of you to thoughtfully and, according to your own inclinations, prayerfully consider this proposal, and, if it is one agreeable to you, to help me in finding out exactly how to go about making this happen. (Hey, I'm kinda new here, OK?) Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we name the article according to the guidelines. --WikiCats 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see that done. The problem is there is serious argument about the guidelines. Some have proposed that the issue be mediated, and that might work too. But the argument about what page if any should be called "Catholic Church" is really getting out of hand, doesn't seem to be likely to end anytime soon, and is almost certainly decreasing the overall effectiveness of the wikipedia itself. On that basis, and the fact that the article is of a high degree of importance to the wikipedia itself, I think that this is an issue that might well be important enough for such drastic measures. Badbilltucker 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The last survey on moving the article Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church was 29 in support and 25 opposed. This is a significant move in the direction of changing the name of the article. Wikipedia:Naming conflict describes how we address naming conflict issues.

It says: The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion	Catholic Church	Roman Catholic Church
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	?	?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	?	?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

The guidelines will resolve this issue. --WikiCats 05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Message From the Project Starter

To tell the truth, I had no idea that this project was even still going on. When I started it in November 2005, I didn't seem like anyone wanted to join. I soon gave up on the whole idea after no one joined. It was a huge surprise when I saw 75 other Wikipedians on this list. I would like to thank all of those that took the reigns of this project in my absence. For that, you get my gratitude and many will recieve Barnstars. Keep up the good work, and lets keep adding our Catholic input on Wikipedia. Trevor 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to you. --WikiCats 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] !!Attention!! INPORTANT

Please help the article The Truth of the Catholic Church please keep it from being deleted and please help revise it. this is the reason why iI created the article.

I created this article for the sole purpose of debunking attacks and critsisms against the Catholic Church. This article is not nessiarly an apolgetic site for the Church. But it's rather a site to debunk crtisisms against the Catholic Church. Such as Catholics worshiping Mary or Catholics worshiping statues and pitures. Were here to give facts, info, and history to defend the Church and debunk these attacks and and critsisms. This article does not and should not endorse or impose any Church or religion. This article does not and should not attack or crtisize any Church or religion. This article is for facts and facts only. Please do not I say do not delete this article. This article can be very useful for people to get the truth in a fair and balenced way without the site imosing their Church. Or without spritual advise or without the stance of somebody trying to convert somebody.

Each article page must itself be unbiased and neutral. There is no such thing as creating another page to balance out the overall tone. Pages named Controversies of So-and-so are fine, as it offers opportunity for both tones, whereas Criticisms of So-and-so and Refutations of So-and-so are in itself biased and not allowed in Wikipedia. Furthermore, entitling it "The Truth" is biased by virtue of its name, and will only bring it into an issue to be debated about. Wikipedia is supposed to be as neutral as is possible and not become the centre of debate itself. Hope this enlightens you. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 11:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How'd I do?

Hey everyone, I am new to the project and to Wikipedia itself. I just wrote an article and I wonder if anyone could give it a look-see and tell me how I did, and how I could improve it. It is Kenneth E. Untener. Thanks! --Undead1 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a decent article to me. Thanks for the effort. -- Meyer 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Prepuce

Holy Prepuce is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necedah Shrine

I request that someone from this WikiProject review the Necedah Shrine article for its NPOV. There is ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 15:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article needs Catholics' help

The Gospel (liturgy) article was recently created, by me, as a spinout from Gospel. This article is supposed to be about the readings from the Gospels used during Mass. As you can see, the Roman Catholic section is very small, and refers to traditional chants. This section in particular needs expansion, but feel free to work on other parts of the article as well! Thanks for your help.--Andrew c 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existing pages to add to the project

There are many existing pages around which could be added to this project, I think. They include the pages of all catholic Scout or Guide organizations.

A few examples:

• Associazione Guide e Scouts Cattolici Italiani
• Catholic Guides of Ireland
• Associazione Guide Esploratori Cattolici Sammarinesi
• Scouts et Guides de France
• Corpo Nacional de Escutas - Escutismo Católico Português

--Lou Crazy 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template for citing the CCC

I was surprised when I could not find a template for citing the CCC. So I created one: {{ccc1}}. This version works only for a single paragraph. This is my first template (not counting userboxes), so improvements and comments are welcome. I hope other editors find it useful. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a second template for citing whole articles of the CCC: {{ccc2}}. This can also be used for paragraph ranges. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{RC-stub}} sub-categories

The main Catholic Church stub type has been hovering either side of being officially "oversized" for some time now. A while ago, I proposed a Cat:Catholic theology and doctrine stubs; I've now uploaded a list of candidates for same to User:Alai/RC-theo. If someone knowledgeable in this area would care to take a look, and either modify the list, or let me know, that would be handy. Also, what about a Cat:Roman Catholic Church by country stubs type for the numberous "Church in Blahland" stub articles? Alai 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for creation: help requested on potential move

At Wikipedia:Articles for creation#probabilism (Catholic moral theology) there is a suggestion that the existing article Catholic Probabilism may be misnamed, and it seems to me that a name such as Probabilism (Catholic moral theology) may be a better place to move the article to. However, I am unfamiliar with the topic and don't know if probabilism would be classified as an example of moral theology or something else.

In other words, I am looking for a recommendation of somewhere to move the article to, beginning with Probabilism (Catholic ...) but I need another opinion as to how to fill in the blank.

(Note: Tomorrow, the Articles for Creation entry will be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-11-19.) --Metropolitan90 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justification article feedback requested

Hi all,

I would like Catholic input on the justification article, especially with regard to the first section, "Justification in the Early Church" (but also with the article in general).

The goal with the first section is to set the stage with basic factual information that becomes important in the later differences between RC, EO, and P theologies. I've had a spot of difficulty because a couple of anonymous-IP Wikipedians have made 'corrections' that have bordered on POVism -- copying parts of the "Catholic View" section into the "Early Church" section, e.g. In the interest of NPOV, and since I happen to be Protestant, I would like for knowledgeable Catholics to proof the section or article and give feedback or make corrections as needed.

Talk: Justification (theology) here.

Grace and peace, jrcagle 19:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan Infobox / work in progress

I am currently working on an "Infobox" for Catholic Dioceses - you can see the beginning work in progress on at my User page User:SkierRMH/Diocese Infobox. I have a couple of requests before I present this as a standard:

• Need help with the formatting, especially of the headings for the categories (personnel, parishes, etc); and with the initial lines...
• What should be included? And before anyone asks, every one of these numbers is publicly available in the Offical Catholic Directory. The list here is pretty comprehensive, but you can see that it's VERY long!
  • To start I've left the Bishop's name off - My next proposed project will be a box at the end of each page that's similar to the one at the end of each pope's page, that gives the predecessor - current - successor.
• Regarding the picture, I thought the DIocesan crest would be most appropriate as the Bishops normally have their own page where that would be more appropriate.

Thanks for any feedback, assistance, that you can provide! SkierRMH 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi SkierRMH,

The Infobox looks good to start off with. I think we should decide what of the info you've included is necessary. For instance, I think the most relevant statistics are those on the number of religious, the overall population and info on the parishes. The rest, while interesting, is a bit too detailed IMHO. I think it would be relevant to include the bishop's name in the infobox, even if it is stated elsewhere, since it is one of the most common pieces of information sought about dioceses. It may also be useful to indicate the geographic region that diocesan is comprised of (ultimately, this is the point of a diocese, right?)

I agree about the crest - it seems appropriate. --03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)... and m@

I agree with everything ... and m@ said. You can condense all that info. I would combine the "welfare" and "educational" sections into one "institutions" section where you can list the number of high schools, hospitals, etc. These are easier to keep up with. But if you include the "number served" it becomes too much information and also very hard to keep updated. Use your best judgment, but I would cut the infobox at least in half. --Hyphen5 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I have created on already, and it is already in use in a few diocesan articles - see Template:Infobox Diocese. In contrast to your proposal I have limited myself to the most important facts only, IMHO infoboxes are good for a quick overview on the most important facts and should not contain too much data. The welfare or education numbers could be well made into a whole section of the article, where then also the most important schools etc. can be mentioned. We have quite a lot of diocese articles which are rather short in text, so your infobox would be way longer than the text area in those cases, and probably most fields would be empty as they cannot be found. I also tried to make that infobox work with not only dioceses, but also apostolic vicariates etc., and be capable of incomplete data - not all diocese have auxiliary bishops, sometimes the name of the cathedral is not easy to find. andy 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think the infobox currently being discussed has much more to offer than the older example. I find a lot more information which is indeed useful in the new box. I agree with Hyphen5 that tbe Welfare and Education sections might be better combined. I also feel many of the later statistics in the box are going to become obsolete repeatedly. However, I would not be averse to keeping them in if a "last updated" date was included somewhere in the box. OBriain 11:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is - what is the purpose of an infobox? Is it the general container for all tabular data, or a quick overview on the most important facts? IMHO it should be the second - which does not mean that these additional info do not belong in the article, just putting everything in the infobox just makes the infobox unusable. Compare it with the infobox of countries - one could of course also add the Population pyramid, the ethnic groups and the religions into it as well, yet this are better placed into the demographics section of the article. The number of students, or the number of hospitals is rarely sought when taking a quick look at the diocese, however if someone is interested in the educational or welfare institutions of the diocese he could read the section giving these information with some additional text. To make them machine-readable (e.g. to automatically create a sorted list of dioceses by number of students in their schools) something like the proposed Wikidata comes to mind, or something like the Persondata template. andy 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Another voice saying that the infobox is probably too long, and actually contains too much information. The problem about the Welfare and Education numbers is a real one, as if included those numbers would probably have to be updated annually or so. Not saying it's impossible, but I don't think that it'll actually be done very often. However, if the numbers had a heading "through 200x" or whatever I wouldn't object to the inclusion of some of them. Also, I could see having two boxes, one for the official diocese structure (# of parishes, priests, religious, parishoners, and so on) and a second box for later in the article for the social service structure (hospitals, schools, and so on). I certainly favor the inclusion of the crest, and also think that including the name and rank/title of the bishop or administrator and the location of the diocese would also be important, even if there is a separate box for the succession, as the bishop is so closely tied to his diocese, and it is often useful to know up front if a given archbishop is also a cardinal. Badbilltucker 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that andy's infobox is good in the formatting department and has some relevant (albeit dry) information (e.g. area, rite, etc.) I think some of its fields should be condensed and added to the statistics of SkierRMH's infobox. Some of its element would improve SkierRMH's if incorporated. ... and m@ 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with the "Welfare" section being too lengthy. You should shorten it by including "Number Assisted" in the same line as the type of welfare institution, such as "Catholic Hospitals (Number Benefited)".

Secondly, under "Educational", it's quite a problem when you want to define "High School" and "Elementary School", since you must be aware that many countries do use the same age groups for their mainstream education system. For example, like in Singapore, primary education is from age 7 to 12, while secondary education is from age 13 to 16. Furthermore, there is one Catholic tertiary (post-secondary) institution. Simply calling our primary schools as "elementary schools" and secondary schools as "high schools" is going to cause a lot of trouble when comparing infoboxes, and it might also give misleading indications to the state of education. And when you include the tertiary institution, can you imagine the confusion it will cause? What I recommend is that we do reform most of the "Educational" section, and reduce it to:

1. "Primary Institutions (Students)"
2. "Secondary Institutions (Students)"
3. "Tertiary Institutions (Students)" - (if any)
4. "Colleges/Universities (Students)"
5. "Total Students"
6. "Teachers"
   1. "Priests"
   2. "Religious Brothers"
   3. "Religious Sisters"
   4. "Lay persons"

And merge "Welfare" and "Educational" together to give "Institutions", too. Let's don't give away too much info. This is an infobox on a diocese, not a full article in its own right, though I understand it's tempting to make it look grand. :)

Many of the vital statistics seem misleading, "Received into Full Communion" and "Confirmations" seem to mean the total of people thus far, rather than any other meaning you intend it to be. Of course, Total Catholic Population disagrees with my assumption, but I have no idea what else those lines could mean.

Lastly, as a comment, while I think it might be a challenge getting figures to fill in all the fields to specific detail, it shouldn't be a problem so long as each member of the WikiProject takes the effort to at least manage the infobox of their own diocese. I don't mind doing so for my own archdiocese, do you?

With all that done, it can then be merged into Template:Infobox Diocese, with a few other additions, like year of founding. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Addition to Lists of Patron Saints

Would it be helpful to have 2 sections on each of these pages:

• The list of the Saint's name in alphabetical order
• The list of the place/profession/illnes in alphabetical order

For those looking for the patron of XXX it would be an easier way to view the page! Let me know and I'll get it done... SkierRMH,02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration not working!?!

For some strange reason, this WikiProject's Collaborations seem to have died down. Does anyone have any idea why this is happening? Was there some automated system that could not function when I did some formatting? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• There was no automated system. It was run by a system of volunteers. I don't have the time to work on it anymore, but if you do I highly encourage you to get it back up and running. --Briancua 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

im willing to help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeoniDb (talk • contribs).

[edit] Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova^Charge! 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed article

I'm mostly active in politics and election articles on Wikipedia currently, so I was wondering whether there wouldn't be more than enough information available to fill an article about the next papal conclave (especially since the current collaboration is papal conclave...)? What I'm thinking about was mostly sourced speculation on who would be papabile, a list of cardinals who would be eligible to vote, and so on... —Nightstallion (?) 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to doubt it, as by definition all of the information which might be included (names of candidates, eligible voters, etc.) would be subject to change between now and the time the conclave is actually called. Also, I think I heard somewhere that it is officially forbidden for cardinal-electors to even discuss the potential next election while there is a current pope, so I'm going to have to guess that the only thing that could be included would be unsourced speculation. Badbilltucker 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all information will continuously change on Wikipedia, so I think at least a list of future electors should be no problem. I do recall some gossip in the media about Ratzinger only being an interim pope with a few lined up to become the next "serious" pope, though...? I think there should be some information available that could constitute an article on this topic. —Nightstallion (?) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic minister

A discussion on the question of what is the proper topic of that article is going on at talk:Catholic minister. Michael Hardy 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary and past dioceses - categorization

I raised this issue with respect to Diocese of Hamar, which is a Lutheran diocese under the Church of Norway, but was - until 1536 - the seat of a Roman Catholic diocese as well. There is no direct connection between the two - the modern city of Hamar was founded in 1849 about a mile south of the medieval city. I think it would be misleading to equate the two dioceses, since they covered different areas, were set up under entirely different situations, and obviously are related to entirely different denominations. This applies to other dioceses in Norway and presumably in other countries where the Reformation became a crown edict.

My suggestion would be to set up a separate category called Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses or some such term. And then I think that for example there should be an article called Roman Catholic diocese of Hamar. Perhaps someone more familiar with the terminology, etc., can propose the right wording? --Leifern 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many Catholic dioceses that have ceased to be, for whatever reason, are now titular dioceses. There are, however, some that are not (at least yet). In cases where a diocese has become titular, the article on the titular diocese would be the obvious place for details on the diocese that once was. As for the others, lets see what other folks come up with.--Dcheney 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: Deletion of all papal coats of arms

It looks like next to all papal coats of arms have been proposed for deletion because of the deletion of a template and a lack of information about sourcing for these images. Please go through Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006 and other appropriate categories and add the needed information to prevent them from being deleted. When you've added the source, please also remember to add the insignia in question to the affected article(s) again. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lay cardinal

The number of pages linking to lay cardinal is rather small. If others should link there, please add the links.

I read David Kertzer's book The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, and then saw the play by Alfred Uhry based (only a little bit loosely) on the true story. The play has Pope Pius IX (played by Brian Murray in the production I saw) explaining that a certain woman was a "....friend" [or something like that] of Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli, and then saying "He's not breaking any vows; he's a cardinal, not a priest." The audience laughed. I wonder how many understood that Antonelli was quite literally a cardinal and not a priest. (Of course, I don't mean to say that the audience was wrong to laugh at that statement....) Michael Hardy 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about Popes

I may be restarting a discussion that has already happened, but it seems to me that a good 200 of the 260 articles on individual popes are of extraordinarily low quality. Nearly all of them suffer from too many quotations from Britannica and Catholic Encyclopedia without any context ("Innocent was supported by Girolasto and Cavatelli", whoever they are; references to theological debates that aren't explained; etc). They all need to be edited for style and tone so they don't sound like they were typed verbatim from a book written in 1899. A lot of them are stub-level, missing wikilinks, etc. Furthermore, very very few are tagged as part of this project, nor are they tagged as anything (many even have blank discussion pages).

I guess what I'm saying is there needs to be a mini-project to clean up these articles - they collectively seem to be the red-headed stepchild of this project and it would be nice of some diligent person/s could address them one by one. Thoughts? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will undertake this willingly. Thoughts and comments and discussions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loyola/Popes/ Loyola 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing articles about Popes

Perhaps the members of the project can help me with a tagging problem I have. take as an example the article Anacletus or Pope Sisinnius. As is common with many of the early popes there is very little detail. In fact my primary source book on the popes (*Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (Harper, 2000). ISBN 0-06-065304-3) contains 7 lines on Sisinnius and the Catholic Encylopaedia has 6 lines. Therefore these articles are very unlikely (barring some major archaeological find) to progress beyond what they currently contain. How then should the quality of these articles be assessed? I believe that stub and start are unreasonable. Even though they are complete (small as they are) and that would warrant an A quality seems a bit over the top. Would B be acceptable as a compromise? I would really value your thoughts on this. Discuss on this page or my ^{Pope Worskpace} Loyola 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Judaism versus anti-Semitism

I'm having an editing dispute over at what was once called Anti-Judaism and has since become, against my protests, Religious antisemitism. The move was decided upon via a hijack at Talk:antisemitism (rather than Talk:Anti-Judaism), and I've tried make various reasonable (I believe) arguments as to why this makes little sense, but I've made no headway. Most of the contributers at antisemitism seem to fall under the old saw "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" and seem completely unwilling to distinguish the teachings of the New Testament and the apologetics of the Church Fathers from what I would consider the real anti-Semitism of Luther, David Duke, etc. I've now been told that what Jesus was preaching was a form of "theological antisemitism". I'm continuing to work on the article anyway at User:Kendrick7#Anti-Judaism but once I present it, I'm just going to be accused of content forking I fear. Any support, moral or otherwise, would be appreciated. Pax vobiscum. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least one editor agreed with me. I've added anti-Judaism to this project. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now [[Talk:Anti-Judaism|it keeps getting removed]] from this project, though in my opinion it surely belongs here, though it may evolve to cover more than minor aspects of Protestantism as I continue to work on it. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father Damien FAR

Father Damien has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles tagged as needing expert attention

Catholic guilt and National Catholicism have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of Catholic dioceses

Here is a proposal for the organisation of Catholic dioceses. Tell me what you think!

• Category:Catholic dioceses
  • Category:Catholic dioceses by country
    • Category:Catholic dioceses in the United States
    • etc
  • Category:Catholic dioceses by ecclesiastical province
    • Category:Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in Oceania
      • Category:Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Melbourne
      • etc
    • etc
  • Category:Catholic dioceses immediately subject to the Holy See
  • Category:Catholic titular dioceses
  • Category:Catholic dioceses by autonomous church - needs a better name
    • [[:Category:Roman Catholic dioceses]]
    • Category:Chaldean Catholic dioceses
    • etc

MH au 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your proposal. What would be the actual content on the pages? For example, would the first page "Catholic Dioceses" list all 3,047 current jurisdictions around the world? What about historical dioceses? (5,000+) Titular dioceses? (2,180) Or would the top page(s) only list references to the sub-pages? --Dcheney 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about building a single list of dioceses (that's discussed at Talk:List of Roman Catholic dioceses), it's about the structure right now under Category:Roman Catholic dioceses, the automatic sorting of existing articles. Most of the one suggested above is already implemented, in contrast to above there's a "dioceses by continent". The ecclesiastical province categories are only implemented for few countries, and IMHO are only necessary in case there are really a lot of dioceses in a country, for all other cases it'd be enough to mention the ecclesiastical province in a infobox in the article. andy 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your proposal re: provinces is more appropriate but, in some cases, dioceses span more than one country - how should this be addressed? The inclusion of all Catholic rites is necessary -presently Eastern rites are separate. Also, it must be decided what the Western rite should be called - many cases use 'Roman' (should this be the form?). MH au 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small request

Could someone put together an article on the Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice medal? It is the highest award a non-cleric can receive in the Catholic Church, but it hasn't got a mention anywhere on Wikipedia (cept some Polish guy). Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this request, but unfortunately lack the knowledge to write the article. However, when working on an article on the musicologist Mary Berry (a recipient of this award) I must admit to being disappointed that there was no article on the medal to which I could wikilink. Robotforaday 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice started with some basic information. Loyola 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox for Churches

Is there currently an infobox for Churches/Cathedrals/Basilicas? I think such a thing would be helpful to clean up a lot of these pages. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I agree that an infobox is needed; it would help to clean up the pages and would give the pages a more organized, uniform look. Hey jude, don't let me down 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Catholic Encyclopedia and Project Catholicism

Currently there's a debate going on as to whether the Cathiolic Encyclopedia is fit to be accompanied in the Project Catholicism Template. See Template talk:Project Catholicism. JASpencer 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Papacy

I have embarked on a major expansion of the History of the Papacy article which was just a stub before I started working on it yesterday. I have attempted to keep the focus of that article on the history of the Papacy and NOT on the history of the Catholic church. This is, of course, a very difficult distinction to maintain since the histories of the Papacy and the Church are so closely intertwined. What I've been trying to do is to leave out anything that is more about the Church but not really that relevant to the Papacy. It seems to me, for example, that the work of most missionaries is an important part of the Church's history but not as important a part of the history of the Papacy. For this reason, I have left those out.

I seek your help in making these kinds of distinctions. I have, for the time being, left out the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. I am trying to decide how relevant these are to the history of the Papacy. They are, obviously, very important to the history of the Church. What should be said about these topics in the History of the Papacy article? Your thoughts on this question would be much appreciated.

Since writing this initial request for feedback, I have added information about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. What I need now is feedback as to whether I have the right amount of information about each of these topics. --Richard 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also left out most of the 20th century because I ran out of steam. I plan to write something about the relationship of Pius XII to Hitler and Mussolini.

I've written a bit about papal relations with Fascists, the Lateran pacts of 1929 and the Reichskonkordat since writing this original request for feedback. Your feedback about these sections would be appreciated.

The role of John XXIII in convening Vatican II is also important. I also plan to write something about the relationship of John Paul II to the Polish Communist government and his role in helping bring an end to Communist domination of Eastern Europe. His role in reversing the modernist trend in the church is also important to document.

I've also added sections on Traditionalist Catholics and Sedevacantists because, although they are not very visible in the Catholic Church, they are a direct challenge to the authority of the Pope and therefore warrant mention in the History of the Papacy article. --Richard 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have I left anything out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History of the Catholic Church

I have to say that I was disappointed to find that the History of the Catholic Church article was a timeline instead of a prose article. As such, I think it should be titled Chronology of the Catholic Church. I would much prefer that an article titled History of the Catholic Church should be an overview that expands upon the history section in the Roman Catholic Church but provides a level of detail similar to History of the Papacy or History of the United States. What do you think?

--Richard 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholic Humor

I have proposed moving/deleting the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section of the Anti-Catholicism article. I have provided my rationale on the talk page. User:Colin4C has objected to this proposal but I disagree with his reasoning. Please read the discussion on the talk page and register your opinion there. Thanks. --Richard 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page links to Crusaders

Believe it or not, rather then linking here or to a separate article about the participants of the Crusades, this un-ambiguated titled actually goes to an article about a Rugby team. Now unfortunately this means that many of the 200+ links that are actually meant to go to the Crusades article are linking there. Now there is a page move request to move the Rugby team article to one that actually makes a lick of sense and to have the Crusaders redirect to the Crusade's article but assuming that doesn't go through, it might be helpful to have some folks take a look at these misdirected links so we can get them pointing to a more appropriate article. 205.157.110.11 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Women's League

Currently I cannot find an article on the CWL. I would start one, but to be honest, I have very little idea of what they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.198.223 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I've added Catholic Women's League as a stub. JASpencer 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

Acclamation (in Papal Elections) in my opinion sounds a bit informal. I was perhaps wondering if Acclamation (Roman Catholic) or Acclmation (Election) would be a better title, but I wanted to get some input here. What is the disambiguation convention for Catholicism-related articles? Hbdragon88 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese language alliance

Is here anyone who speaks Portuguese? I am trying to gather some catholic friends to launch a WikiProject Catholicism in the Portuguese wikipedia. Can you imagine: Portuguese language world don't have even a Christian Portal at pt.wikipedia. That's said. Our Lad of Fatima, pray for us, pour Brazilians. Any suggestion would be must appreciated. Keep up with the good works. Thanks. Mauro do Carmo 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up on Jocelin

Just to give a head up on the article Jocelin. It will appear on the main page on Saturday, so that I'd ask that some of you put the links which will appear on the mainpage ( see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2007) on your watchlist. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for discussion: Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer

I have nominated Category:Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. The category has only one article, its main page. Its one-and-only subcategory can be easily moved to its parent category. --Kevinkor2 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. The result of the debate was delete. Thank you, Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) and all participants.--Kevinkor2 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in sore need of more watchers

The article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) was created by a user who likes to include fairly questionable content, like a reference to "Peter, considered to be the first divine person by church of Rome." Moreover, the user in question believes that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century AD, and that various books contain "very special meanings" in need of being decoded. (See further the deletion discussion for 62 of his articles that were deleted this morning.) I am burning out trying to single-handedly steer De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) towards being a sound and encyclopedic article, and I hope someone else can start watching the page. I have no agenda and would welcome editors with very different views from mine; the page just needs honest and experienced participants, period. (It might also be worthwhile to explore Doug Coldwell's other contributions.) Wareh 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denomination

A user is removing Roman Catholic Church from the Denomination line in the Bishop template at David Beaton (a Cardinal and an Archbishop of St Andrews who died the Scottish Reformation of 1560). See Talk:David Beaton. He claims it is anachronistic. I don't take his arguments all that seriously, but it needs wider discussion because it could have implications across all pre-Reformation Bishop articles. 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annibale Bugnini

I have recently delisted the article on Annibale Bugnini from the good articles list, for the reasons listed on the talk page. I hope to help try and rectify some of the serious problems with the article soon, as the reform of the liturgy is a topic I am seriously reading up on at the moment, but for now, I thought the only option was to delist immediately, as this article is some way short of the required standard as I understand it and have seen it applied in other topics. If some experienced editors from here would go over and have a look and try and address some of the concerns, that would be great. Robotforaday 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cistercians

I have recently done some major edits to Cistercians (adding images, restructuring for chronological order, improving sources and expanding on Cistercian technology, etc.), and I feel this article would make a good GA with some work (if you forgive the redundancy). I would appreciate it someone would give an assessment of its present state, or provide some more footnote citation. Thanks. --Grimhelm 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blacklist

I couldn't save content with reference to www.fish_eaters.com in a portuguese wikipedia. Is there somehow to take out from the blacklist the website http://www.fishe_aters.com ? At last for portuguese wikipedia. Thanks. []'s Mauro do Carmo 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)