Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikipediaWikiProject Saints is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

NA

This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 3 Invitation 4 Saints' days 5 National saints 6 Catholic Encyclopedia articles 7 Collaborations 8 WikiProject Anglicanism 9 Portal 10 Saints category 11 Roman Catholic saints 12 Maltese Blesseds 13 A Question of Notability 14 Articles for Deletion: various 15 Lutheran Calendar of Saints 16 The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist 17 Page move 18 Gloriole.svg 19 Rating for St Leopold Bogdan Mandic 20 Homoeroticism and pederasty 20.1 Sebastian 20.2 Pelagius of Cordova 21 Project Directory 22 Dominic Savio 23 Category:Turkish saints up for deletion 24 Prayers in infobox (again!) 25 Saint Lawrence vandalism? 26 Stablepedia 27 Prayers 28 Marguerite Bourgeoys 29 "Middle" Calendar of Saints? 30 Théodore Guérin 31 Wikipedia Day Awards 32 Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive 33 AfD debate on Indian saint Gopinath 34 Father Damien featured article review notice 35 PROD on Saint Achillius 36 Clarification - Notability 37 Maximus the Confessor 38 Jean-Olivier Briand / Joseph Olivier Briand 39 Assessment of articles? 40 Portal:Saints 41 Saints identified and distinguished 42 Top and High importance Saints articles 43 Scope of Project 44 Interesting things on other pages 45 Queer Reading of John the Apostle 46 Old Testament Saints? 47 Dominic Savio a possible Good Article? 48 Talk Page Template 49 List of saints 50 Michael J. McGivney‎ 51 Categorization 52 Renaming of Anglican saints category 53 John Chrysostom 54 Witchcraft section in Martin Luther 55 Featured Article Candidate 56 Cao Dai saints and potential expansion of project 57 Category renaming discussion 58 Possible renaming of Project? 58.1 Support 58.2 Oppose 58.3 Neutral 58.4 Comments 58.4.1 Compromise 59 Backlog 60 John of the Cross/John of Avila 61 For Comment 62 Of Interest 63 Collaboration: Saint 64 Assessment 65 Article in sore need of more watchers 66 Sidebar? 67 Mother Teresa 68 Hierotheos the Thesmothete 69 Update 70 Naming question 71 Can anyone here make an ad? 72 Saint of the day 73 Citation styles

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 (Template talk), Archive 2 (Assessment talk), Archive 3 (Contentious issues talk), Archive 4 (Individual Saint talk), Archive 5 (General talk)
Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page

[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Saints WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As the importance categories haven't been populated yet, I've quickly drafted my own list of articles of high importance (important for varying reasons) in order to start a discussion. Please take a look at it and feel free to make amendments and additions and discuss your reasoning here. --Spondoolicks 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm sorry I missed the fact that you had already started using the bot - you hadn't when I set up the table a couple of weeks earlier! I'm adding a link to your bot table from the above listing. I also notice several points of confusion about importance - by all means contact me on my talk page if you want help, I was partly involved in setting this up. Generally low-importance is kept for more specialised articles like Early life of Saint Frederick (maybe interesting to a person studying saints, but too specialised for most readers), and top-importance is reserved for REALLY major people like Saint Paul. In practice, though, only specialists in the field (such as yourselves) can make the call - there may well be saints that might be regarded as little-known => low importance. Thanks again, Walkerma 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am a great admirer of both St Magnus and Aidan of Lindisfarne (I'm a Northumbrian). Could you tag those as articles for this project? Thanks! Walkerma 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I just wanted to let you know that the Biography WikiProject has been reorganized and we wanted to see if you guys were interested in merging with us? We've reorganized it so that it's more like the Military history project with task forces for the specialized areas. One of the task forces we could create could be Religious figures-- by merging with us and becoming a task force, you wouldn't lose anything! You'd keep your same page here, it would just be redirected to Religious figures task force (which we'd create) and you would continue as before, except that instead you'd also gain the benefits of being part of a larger project. We would give you a parameter to our Project banner (religion-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Let me know what you think! If you are interested, you need to add your name to the task force vote we're currently having plange 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• WHy can't you just link it under the See also? --evrik 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints' days

This project should coordinate with WikiProject Holidays to establish and promote a convention for the titles of various saints' days. There is variation such as Saint David's Day and St George's Day. -Acjelen 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I like this idea. How do we do this? --evrik 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested in the Catholic calendar of saints, I have moved this listing from its previous incarnation as the Novus Ordo calendar of saints. It is a good listing of the General Roman Calendar, but has a suspicious heading: "General Roman Calendar slightly augmented on unassigned days." I am guessing it needs some cleanup. Also, I think it is a good idea to make it richer by including national and regional saints' days as long as they are indentified as such. I dont think it necessary to confine the list to just those on the general calendar. Many of the most popular feasts to celebrate are national or regional in nature (such as O.L. of Guadalupe). A calendar without her, in my opinion, is bare. --Vaquero100 11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National saints

Are national saints = "saints"? For example, Eric IX of Sweden is a national saint, and was even the patron Saint of Sweden through the middle ages, but was never recognized as such by the Catholic church. Yet, he is in Category:Swedish saints. What are the requirements to be a saint? And should we differ between national saints and Catholic saints?

Here are two "Swedish" saints that as far as I know where never canonized, but were regarded as saints in Sweden:

• Saint Botvid
• Helena of Skövde

Fred-Chess 12:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Way back, local Espicopacies beatified people from their area, and had them ratified by the Bishop of Rome. This developed into Canonization. I am note sure in this instance if they were ever formally canonized. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Formal canonization by Rome is only relevent with regard to Roman Catholicism. I don't believe the current Pope is going to advance the causes of Charles I of Great Britain and Nicholas II of Russia; I am equally sure that that lack of recognition by the Vatican matters not one whit to the Church of England or Russian Orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I don't think the Anglicans or the Orthodox give a rat's zinger about pronouncements from Rome, and consider them as binding on them as the U.S. Congress considers Acts of Parliament on them. Even within the RC Church, a lot of saints got "grandfathered" when Rome took over canonization authority, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) only a few got "de-haloed" as it were much later on (St Christopher of the Dashboard springs to mind). As for inclusion, I believe the criteria - for Christian saints at any rate - is that they are recognized by some Christian body as being a saint, either by formal canonization, public acclamation, a church named after them, etc.

Oh, and as for national saints, there may be a difference of opinion over just who is a nation's patron; it should be indicated just by whose authority a saint's national patronage is claimed (i.e., national cultus, local church, Rome, etc). --SigPig 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia articles

I'm in the middle of categorising missing Catholic Encyclopedia articles, and as part of that I've put red links from the Catholic Encyclopedia that relate to Saints. I hope that this will be useful, if you see already done please redirect the articles.

Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Saints

JASpencer 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I only hope we write our own and not port those articles over. Those articles are already available, and we need to be more critical and inclusive. Geogre 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborations

The article Paul of Tarsus was nominated for GA. I have been doing the review and failed the article. This article is in need of a collaborative effort as the issues i'm noting on its talk page shouldn't be the burden of one or two individuals. Gnangarra 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does he count as a Saint? Wouldn't he be an apostle, and fall under WikiProject Apostles or something? Or to put what I'm saying another way, shouldn't we be trying to work on the obscure Saints rather than the famous ones that get hundreds of edits a day even without our intervention. Clinkophonist 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe.. the new news .. st paul isn't a saint!!! who said so Maltesedog 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Our portal is being neglected (I've caught it up to July). --evrik 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints category

I've been doing a lot of work moving articles from Category:Saints into their country in Category:Saints by country, and I've created a lot of new country cats (Category:Syrian saints, Category:Ugandan saints, etc). I've run into a problem with some of them, for instance saints from Asia Minor... I started Category:Byzantine saints for people from there, but people from earlier than Constantine I were not Byzantines. I thought about starting a category for "Turkish saints" (Turkish as in people from Turkey, not just Turks), but that still leaves the question of people from Constantinople, which was Greek until it was captured. Any thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I also want to start a category for saints from the Holy Land (which would include, obviously, a very large percentage of the earliest saints) but I can't decide what to call it... I think "Palestinian saints" would just invite trouble. "Levantine saints" is too broad, and "Saints from the Holy Land" doesn't sound right. I'd appreciate some input on this, because it's a category we definitely should have.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I created the category Saints from the Holy Land. I can't decide what to do with the Asia Minor articles, so I'll let someone else worry about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, a bit digressive, but I have a question about category saints from the Holy Land. On Wikimedia Commons, some one claimed my discategorization of St. Paul of Tarsus from this category and reverted my edit. In my understanding he was from the Asia Minor, and not from the Holy Land (Palestine), even if he spent a long time there. How do you think about it? --Aphaia 07:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can see him being included in both Asia Minor, his place of birth, and Palestine/the Holy Land. Certainly, his connection to the Holy Land is a matter of more than a little importance to the subject, and it seems reasonable to me that an outsider might find having him included in that category as well useful. John Carter 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for constructive suggestion. I'll bring it back and try to make a compromise. -Aphaia 09:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic saints

There is a discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16#Category:Roman Catholic Saints about whether to merge the new category Category:Roman Catholic Saints into the main Category:Saints or divide that category to diferentiate saints venerated in one tradition from those in another. Input from people familiar with the issues and actively working in this area would be very welcome. Eluchil404 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese Blesseds

I plan to write out fully-pledged articles for the all the Maltese Blesseds in the following weeks. These will include those beatified in 2001:

• Giorgio Preca mt:Dun Ġorġ Preca [1]
• Ignatio Falzon [Nazzju Falzon] [2]
• Maria Adeodata Pisani [3]

spellings in Italian [Maltese]. links are to the Italian biographies by the Vatican.

I would also like to include any other ones. I remember there was a sister who was beatified long ago but I cannot remember the name nor find her icon.

I already have onboard a number of other Maltese editors who will contribute. I would like to ask anyone interested in helping in this coordinated effort to drop me a message on my Talk page.

_└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this page Floriana#Religion? I would suggest using their English names, as is the practice of the church. Pope John Paul II spoke at Publius Square during his two visits to Malta, and on his second visit held the beatification ceremony there for three Maltese: ^[1]

• Father Giorgio Preca (founder of the Society of Christian Doctrine)
• Ignacio Falzon
• Maria Adeodata Pisani

[edit] A Question of Notability

I just joined the project today and am eager to start putting the WikiProject banner on relevant talk pages. I am a bit stumped as to the workings of the Assessment system, though. "Low" importance is listed as: Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Saints, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Saints Jerome and Junipero Serra were both listed as "low" importance, but I can't imagine these two were included "primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic." Do they not at least qualify for "mid" importance: Subject contributes to the total subject of the Saints WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous ?

I ask only because I need to rate all the new banner recipients, and if Jerome is low-importance, I shudder to think what poor Gerald of Mayo will be. Any advice?--TurabianNights 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started adding various English, Cornish and Irish saints to the Wikiproject, ranking both importance and article status. I'm basing my rankings more on the idea of "the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the article (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it)", which is expressed in the paragraph above the explanations of the rankings. I feel this is certainly a more useful measure than the rather vague "not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Saints" - notability is a Wikipedia virtue, and I doubt we really have many pages on saints who are truly insignificant or unremarkable. I've thus placed most local saints in the "low" category (e.g. Benignus of Armagh), since the chances of their being looked up specifically are rather low. Was it okay to redefine "low" like this? It seems useful to me, but I'd love to have some input from more established project members.--TurabianNights 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion: various

Editors may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas (mythology) (not for the [{Douglas (mythology)]] piece, but for the co-nominated articles Lasair, Inghean Bhuidhe, and Latiaran. If these are included in any reliable calendar of saints, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them from the nomination on the understanding that WikiProject Saints will sort them out. Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I completely missed this debate. C'est la vie. --evrik 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran Calendar of Saints

The Lutheran Calendar of Saints I feel, could be improved by having the months placed in boxes like on the Calendar of Saints (Anglican Church of Canada) page. I feel it would make the page look and feel more organized. If anyone could do that, it would be greatly appreaciated (for I do not know how to do so). Thank you. --Josh777 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist

Is there an article for this feast? I have not found one on Wikipedia, because it is on multiple calendars and seems like an important date. If there is one could you refer it to me for the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) page, and others. Thank you, --Josh777 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Could an admin move Hippolytus (writer) to Hippolytus of Rome? The parentheses are unneccessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. --evrik 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gloriole.svg

An SVG version of Image:Gloriole.png now is available; I've replaced it into your templates shown here, but the actual saints articles use {{portalpar|Saints|Gloriole.xxx}} so it is beyond my scope to replace them all. Let me know if you have any troubles with the file. Blessings -- nae'blis 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating for St Leopold Bogdan Mandic

The Article, Leopold Mandić, has been extensively expanded (by myself) and i believe it is definately not a stub. We need to give it a new rating. THE MILJAKINATOR 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. --evrik 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homoeroticism and pederasty

[edit] Sebastian

There are some serious homoerotic problems with St. Sebastian. A gay section has been edited by me to clean it up, but it would be better to source it, and remove the rumor and innuendo. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Noted. --evrik 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pelagius of Cordova

User:Haiduc insists on inserting allegations of pederastic rape. --evrik 01:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic Savio

I suspect someone should check over Dominic Savio for accuracy. Were fake hall passes really a problem in Italian ecclesiastical schools over 150 years ago? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It might help to know that that info was put in by the user who started the article, and that said user is currently blocked indefinitely (for what, I don't know)... --SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• huh? The article was started by an on user ... wasn't it? --evrik ^(talk) 15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to Encyclopedist or one of his socks? I don't know if he was the anon who started the article, but he is blocked. At any rate The line has been there since the article was created, but it does sound like a joke. Does anything similar appear in the sources about the saint?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The same text appears in Don Bosco Technical Institute, Tarlac and was also pasted in by an anon editor, but not obviously associated with Encyclopedist. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Turkish saints up for deletion

Someone has nominated Category:Turkish saints for deletion at WP:CFD. I object strongly to this, as it is consistant with the other categories in Category:Saints by country. Please contribute your thoughts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The category needs to be cleaned up first, and then we can see if what's left is worth keeping. At a casual glance, most of them predate the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and therefore weren't "Turkish" by any reasonable definition.

But it's a problematic category anyway. Does one include, for example, a New Martyr of the Turkish Yoke who considered himself Greek, spoke Greek, lived in what is now Greece, but was at the time Ottoman territory? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it's problematic, but there's really and truly no better way to do this. All the other country categories include both people from the modern country and from the territory that preceded it. As I brought up over there, it's consistant with the other country categories: "French saints" includes saints from Gaul; Canadian saints includes saints from before there was a Canada, etc. Annoyingly, "Turkish" has two definitions, both someone who is Turkish ethnically and someone who is from Turkey, be they Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc. (by this definition, Yoke would in fact be Turkish). We really need a category for people from the area now called Turkey; the main cat Saints was choked with the likes of Saint Nicolas Basil the Great, and Margaret the Virgin. Additionally, there are a few strickly Turk-Turkish saints; I'm working on an article on Ahmed the Calligrapher. If anything, the category needs to be either kept and renamed, or kept and have most of the articles moved to a new cat with a new name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on the CFD page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayers in infobox (again!)

(Discussion was started in Template talk: Infobox Saint then copied to here to carry it on)

I would suggest that the section for a "prayer by the saint, or a characteristic prayer to the saint" should be removed. Having this section makes editors think it needs filling and often this means that an arbitrary prayer attributed to the saint is given undue prominence by being included in the infobox. This is causing unnecessary friction in a number of articles where some editors are adding prayers (for the good reason that there is a space in the infobox to do so) and others are removing them (for the equally good reason that it makes it look like wikipedia is actually encouraging veneration of the saint rather than merely reporting facts).

There are prayers specifically prescribed by church authorities to be used in veneration of particular saints but these can very easily be mentioned in the article text if needed, as can any particularly notable prayers penned by the saints themselves. Putting it in the main text gives more scope for explaining context as well. --Spondoolicks 14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I say keep the pryaer box ... but encourage people to not put a really long one there ... --evrik ^(talk) 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's a choice of prayers, why highlight one by putting it in the box? It makes it look like it's one of the fundamental pieces of info about the subject like name, DOB, etc. As Atilios tried to say in the John Bosco talk page, it would be strange to have a random selection of a poet's work picked out and placed in the infobox and it seems to me to be the same here. Anything you want to achieve by putting a prayer in the infobox can be achieved better by putting it in the text and adding more information. --Spondoolicks 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I put this into the template because it existed in the original infobox. There was actually an extended discussion of this on the project talk page, whether to include it in the infobox or not, that predated the creation of the template. The consensus (more or less) was that they were OK to include since they were illustrative of either the saint's spirituality or of how a faith community venerates the saint, but that to be useful for either purpose it must be attributed. This is why it does not display if the attribution field is not filled in.

I have come to be of two minds on the subject and therefore don't feel strongly about it either way. Perhaps it would be worth inviting wider participation in the discussion by re-opening it on the project talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look back at the discussion you mentioned (in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive3) and much of it seemed to be about whether prayers should be included full-stop and I don't think the specific problems of having them in the infobox were sufficiently addressed. I'm copying this discussion to the project talk page to carry on there (and I hope it doesn't get as messy as last time). --Spondoolicks 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not specifically, but the infobox was the context of the discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion drifted. Let's try to keep to the point this time. --Spondoolicks 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I pray to St. Anthony can we LOSE this discussion? I am sure he would not mind losing something for someone for a change... Dominick ^(TALK) 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lest I be accused of being unhelpful, I think that we include it in the infobox and have done with it. There are simple cultural, historical, and literary value in including a simple prayer. The anti-religeous editors will always try and remove it. I simply think our energy is better spent elsewhere. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that infoboxes are for placing individual facts and do not allow for any context. The prayers are being removed by people because they are placed without context and therefore it is unclear what they are there for. Putting them in the main text instead allows you to explain how it exemplifies some aspect of the saint's beliefs or whether it was prescribed by the church authorities or whatever other information is needed to put it into context. The trouble is that there are a number of different reasons why a prayer can usefully be put into an article, none of which can be explained if you just plonk it into the infobox. That is why they are causing revert wars and totally unnecessary friction. It is not religionists versus anti-religionists. --Spondoolicks 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are some editors who will object to the prayers no matter where they are placed. --evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that's not what this discussion is about. --Spondoolicks 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with some good reasons in the next few days why this section of the infobox should remain, I suggest we just get rid of it. --Spondoolicks 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, always ready to play the devil’s advocate, I would say that there is a very good reason to include a prayer there: there where it cannot be contextualized or explained. The motive for including a prayer—preferably in a bad translation and without a very plausible citation, but don’t worry: choose a random merely pious site and and the prayer will probably be rubbish enough—is to say: “If you are not prepared to get down on your knees now and repeat these words, meaning what you say, and understanding that if you do not really mean what you say you are going to Hell, then you will probably find that the rest of this article worthless.” There are a lot of interesting articles in Wikipedia and it’s very useful to be given the hint (since [4]) that Wikipedia is not the place to look for an un-biased account of Saint Peter. I can look elsewhere, or I can choose a different subject. Yes a prayer in the infobox is a very useul hint. ;) [Did I really wink?] [Yes I did.] —Ian Spackman 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I had my fun in my last post. But think infoboxes. If I were a mountaineer writing about K2 I’d probably want to find somewhere in the infobox to say: ”This is one hell of a fucking mountain”. If the infobox included an awesomness factor I could avoid profanity and just enter 5.73 billion percent. But I can’t do either. And, hang on, I am a royalist and I want to include the second verse of God save the Queen into the Lizzie II of England Box. But I am denied the opportunity. And the Fidel Castro article doesn’t give me the opportunity to indicate in his box how adorable he is. WTF? Does Wikipedia have to be so bland? Well, yes it does, really. It’s just an encyclopedia. Dull, but useful. (Or so we hope.)—Ian Spackman 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Except on the talk pages.

Well, it doesn't seem as if anyone is speaking up for them at this point, and I'm non-committal about them. One advantage of the infobox template is that the relevant arguments can just be removed from it and they will no longer be displayed; actually cutting them from the articles can be done at leisure. I'll make the cut in a day or two if there's been no controversy here in the meantime. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Lawrence vandalism?

Could somebody take a look at Saint Lawrence. I know nothing about the subject, but some of the things stated in the Martyrdom section seem likely to be vandalism. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Prayers

The prayer matter seems to be contreversial. OK, I can agree that an "example" prayer can be illustrative. However, Aloysius Gonzaga contained THREE prayers, and also rather long. What is this, a prayer book?!?! --Attilios 13:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit much. I notice that for some recent RC saints, their articles are rather more hagiographic than are tolerable under NPOV. I take this to be another example of that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also very dominating in the infobox about Saint Christopher. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marguerite Bourgeoys

I believe that this article is beyond stub status, (my opinion). It could use a good image of the lady in question if someone is interested. Happy edits! Stormbay 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the image and an infobox. Alekjds 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Middle" Calendar of Saints?

Hello!

I've been researching the Calendar of Saints for a computer program I work on in my spare time. I noticed we have an article for the Traditional calendar (Pre 1955-1962 reforms) and one for the modern calendar (after 1962). The Traditional article says that some Catholics still use that traditional calendar, but more commonly use the version completed after 1962. Unless I've misunderstood, that means there is a calendar between the traditional and modern ones that is in use but we don't have an article for it. I also can't find one online after doing some searching. Could anyone provide information on it?

{This is the statement, from the Traditional Catholic Calendar article: This calendar, or, more commonly, the further reform of 1962, is still used by traditionalist Catholics. }

Thank you, Liastnir 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Théodore Guérin

I saw a video on CNN.com about a man's eyesight returning to him after praying to Saint Théodore Guérin. Then did a bit more research and added info about Théodore Guérin's miracles to the article for her. I'd appreciate it if someone could look over the info and see if it meshes stylistically to the way the saints articles are supposed to look. Thanks, from an agnostic who was raised Catholic, Dismas|^(talk) 10:47, 22 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 16:48, 29 December 2006 (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 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD debate on Indian saint Gopinath

Does this "silent saint" meet the notability expectations of this WikiProject?? Mereda 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father Damien featured article review notice

Father Damien (Having been beatified in 1995, Father Damien is awaiting formal approval for sainthood.) 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. –Outriggr § 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROD on Saint Achillius

Article is a stub. PROD rationale amounts to no evidence that this individual is a notable saint. Original contributor notified, but hasn't contributed for months. Any sourcing would probably satisfy the prodder. As is, I'd tend to endorse as prod2, but you all might want to salvage. GRBerry 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification - Notability

Question: what constitutes Notability when dealing with a saint? Has the wikiproject already addressed this question, and if so where? If a saint who is observed only locally notable? What about a saint about whom very little info is known beyond name/date? I only ask for clarification as to what extent and how WP:BIO and WP:N are applied to saints, and to see if the topic has been approached here before. Thanks -- Pastordavid 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has, having looked over the archived talk pages. Actually, I tend to think that it is kind of a non-issue for saints. The impression I got is that any saint or group of saints who are included in a dictionary or encylopedia of saints automatically qualify on that basis. As someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles, I get the definite impression from the article pages that any subject that has an entry in an encyclopedia automatically qualifies as significant. Presumably, any such directory of saints including more than simply the name (like in Martyrs of Uganda, for instance) would on that basis qualify as significant. The same general rule seems to apply to all encyclopedic entries. John Carter 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximus the Confessor

This article hs recently undergone a major rewrite/revision, and I could use for others to take a look at it and make suggestion or provide a rating of the article. Especially (though not exclusively) anyone with a background in Eastern Christianity. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Olivier Briand / Joseph Olivier Briand

Could someone check my entry at Wikipedia talk:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Bishop regarding Jean-Olivier Briand? Thanks! Stormbay 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment of articles?

I'm trying to go through the various remains saints, beati, and venerati articles in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It would really help if someone were to perhaps assess them, as I am really not very comfortable with doing so myself. Thank you. John Carter 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• See reply on your usertalk page. Pastordavid 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Saints

I've done a little work to the above portal to put some content on autorotation as some other portals do. I'm also going through all the articles in the category to see if there are any more Did you knows and the like. But I would greatly appreciate help with the Quotes and News sections, as I have a feeling that they need to have their content acquired through means I don't currently know about. John Carter 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saints identified and distinguished

Dear WikiProject Saints,

there is some confusion regarding some Saints and New Testament figures bearing the same name. Some seem to be identified or distinguished without consistency. The main issue I am referring to is the different James (but Jude/Judas is also a problem).

My suggestion is to have one article for any person appearing in the sources under a single name and to note the further identies in the articles. Re the Jameses that would mean having an article on James the Great, James the Just, James the other Apostle and James the Less. The problem is that currently, the other Apostle James is found under Saint James the Less.

I have created an article solely on the James the Less mentioned under that name and place it under James the Less, and stripped down Saint James the Less (I also did some much needed clean-up in this article) to the biblical personage of James, son of Alphaeus, including of course later traditions referring to this Apostle. A better place would be James, son of Alphaeus, but I didn't want to do this without having raised it here.

Another issue is the naming of these Saints. Should we include the term "Saint" in those article names? Is Saint James the Great really the best name for him, especially since his epithet actually means the Greater or Major (as opposed to a Minor) and not the Great (Magnus).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page and the Saint James the Less talk page. Pastordavid 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your questions on Wikiproject Saints: James the Less is almost universally identified with James of Alpheus. It is the minority opinion that links James the Less with James the Just (the brother of Jesus).

As for Saint in the article title. I have actually been moving articles away from that, per naming conventions for saints. However, the apostles might be worth keeping Saint in the title, as the few exceptions mentioned in the naming conventions. I say your choice - put it on the article talk page, and handle it the way you see best. Regardless, Saint James the Less and James the Less probably need to be merged.

As for James the Great, I don't know that that is the best title for him. I would actually go with James of Zebedee myself, since that is how most people know him (e.g., James and John, sons of Zededee). Hope this helps and doesn't just muddy the waters. Pastordavid 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read your question. I agree. Lets go with articles for (1) James the Great (whichever title), (2) James of Alpheus, (3) James the Just, and (4) James the Less. Then have (4) explain the various identifications with 3 & 2. I would be consistent across the four in the use of "Saint" in the titles (all or none). Pastordavid 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pastordavid (and whoever it may concern),

thanks for your replies, which I have moved here to keep the discussion in one place.

To address the easy things first, I think I would opt for leaving out the Saint from the article titles, for brevities sake. Certainly not because it conflicts with my POV - I think all these are saintly men. As for the Apostles that sound too short then we could include Apostle in their title (just as Matthew already is titled "Matthew the Evangelist").

Now, I agree with your proposal in the second posting. Actually, I would prefer to make the "John, son of Alphaeus" the main article for the Apostle, despite him being frequentl called "Jacobus Minor" in tradition, as this is his biblical name whereas the "Minor" only comes in through the identification with the son of Mary of Clopas. However, because of this naming in tradition, a workable alternative would be to proceed from the article James the Less and have first a section purely on his being mentioned in the NT (what the JtL article currently does) and then deal with the identification and then with the tradition about the "merged" saint. The remaining problem is the Apostle template: whom shall it link to?

I never was happy about having James the Less and Saint James the Less. My initial plan was to have James the Less and James, son of Alphaeus but I drew back from that, thinking it too big a change (not the least because of many redirects) to do on my own.

As for the name of the more famous Apostle James, I would opt for "James, son of Zebedee" too, as that is his name (and this would nicely correspond with a main article on "James, son of Alphaeus", if we decide that way. It we must chose a "Jacobus Major" name, I would prefer one that includes a comparative unless "the Great" is really really really the universally used expresseiion in English speaking countries.

One more thing: I think titles should say "X, son of Y" (even if the sources only say X of Y) unless there is a real doubt about this (as with the Judas Jacobi or Mary of Clopas).

Oh, and another one regarding the identification. The one between the son of Alphaeus and the son of Mary of Clopas basically universally sipped into tradition (also because we know nothing about any of the sons of Mary of Clopas) despite the difficulty about the father's names. The identification with the brother of the Lord only came later (though I think Papias already has it) and was only partly accepted. So from the perspective of common views it is not the choice to identify A with either B or C but to identify A/B with C or not. However, if I may state my personal view, I think that James the son of Mary of Clopas and the brother of the Lord may be the same (because of the peculiar form of the name in Mark) - I say may be, I haven't thought this through to the end yet - while I personally would reject the identification of Alphaus with Clopas and their sons with each other. But that's just my view and not what the articles need to present.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can cover everything:

• I agree, leave "Saint" out of the title.
• Four Articles: Zebedee, Alpheus, the Just, and Lesser.
• I agree on the qualifiers for the article names: "son of Zebedee" and "son of Alpheus"
• In my opinion, put the "apostle info" in the Alpheus article, as that is the NT designation - cross linking in the Lesser article should clear this up
• Have the Apostle template link to wherever the "apostle info" is at.
• The article on "the Lesser" would basically cover the dispute over who is meant, with cross-links to the main articles.
• I would need to look over the info more to agree or disagree about Clopas.

If you need help fixing re-directs on one of these articles, leave me a message. I should be around. Pastordavid 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Agreed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this thread. This same problem came to my attention last night, and I pretty much just threw my hands in the air over it. I think the confusion over the exact identification of certain figures is at least partly because they differ across traditions, usually relying on the word of different Church Fathers as authoritative. These should IMO be explicitly described in the articles rather than in the passive voice as is now usually done.

The rest of this looks good to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top and High importance Saints articles

In copying the criteria for inclusion in the Saints portal from elsewhere, I found that one of the criteria for inclusion might be Top- or High-importance articles. Right now, we don't have many of these, and given the comparatively few articles that are GA or better, I have no doubt that it will be a factor for at least some of the candidates. I would greatly appreciate it if any members were to indicate somewhere which articles they believe qualify as either top or high importance. I would be even more grateful if we could have articles nominated for inclusion on the portal by members of the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and other Protestant denominations which recognize saints, so that we would have the most representative sampling. Please see the current nominations at Portal:Saints/Selected biography, Portal:Saints/Selected article, Portal:Saints/Selected picture. Thank you. John Carter 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of the project—I was until someone removed my name from the list and I thought that life is too short to get too worried about this little Wikipedian battle—but I lurk here now and again and would like to add an atheist’s perspective to the admirablly ecumenical post above. (I am not unbiased, of course, I will reveal clearly my Italophilia!) Francis of Assisi seems to be an obvious candidate. Not only is his particular spirituality impressive even to those of us who tend to reject the spirit on principle, and not only is his charisma in popular culture impressive and attested—from The Little Flowers up to the Rosselini movie (if you haven’t seen it do: I promise that it will not compromise your faith!)—but also the institutional need to capture his tradition is of historical interest. Secondly Carlo Borromeo. To us humanists he—quite unlike his relative Federico—seems fantastically repulsive: some explication of his sanctity would be of great interest. Thirdly a charismatic medieval preacher: Bernardino of Siena, say, or Vincent Ferrer. A Billy Graham/Rolling Stones figure, but more interesting. (Think of the excitement if one of those two were to appear in your town tomorrow.) Finally someone totally obscure—Rita of Cascia, for instance. Someone whose existence would have been long forgotten had not the church happily have found (possibly dubious) reasons to prolong its memory. —Ian Spackman 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Borromeo and Francis are added. Bernardino, Vincent, and Rita are all just Start-class articles, and I am very hesitant to include articles which aren't at least B-class. However, I will attempt to find analogous individuals to these three and include them. John Carter 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the key qualification for "top" importance saints (and this is noted in the current assessment guide) is clear notability outside the "saints" field; or, to put it another way - notability in the secular world. I would imagine this category would remain pretty slim. Some I would be sure to include in here: the twelve apostles, the most influential of the church's doctors, etc. Not every Pope/Patriarch belongs here - most would be high-mid (and even a couple of low), only the most influential.

"High" importance is a little muddier. I would say it this way - extremely notable within the field of saints; known but not necessarily notable in the secular world. I would put the majority of national patron saints in here. My rule of thumb: it's always better to start too low. A discussion can happen on the talk page, and a saint easily be moved up the scale; but it is often difficult to "downgrade" a saint that started too high.

FYI, importance, as I understand it, is independent of quality. You can have a stub-class article that is top importance; or a featured article that is of very low importance. Please don't make importance an issue of article quality. Hope that helps. I'll be glad to help with rating importance. If you want to keep on trucking with quality ratings, I will focus my energy/time on importance ratings. -- Pastordavid 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge importance is independent of quality. However, right now, there look to be at least 20 top-importance biography articles, not including high-importance, so we can try to include articles which are at least of a given quality standard within that category. The same conditions may not apply to the regular articles, though, as I don't think there are that many of them. I also think that a slighly clearer definition of the scope of the project might be in order. Right now, I get the impression that the project deals with biographies and, as it were, saint classification articles (Doctor of the Church, Equal-to-apostles, lists of saints recognized in various churches, and suchlike). But are things like the Acts of Andrew included or not? I would think so, but can't be entirely sure, particularly with the more dubious works of that type. I will continue to go through the assessments (generally based on other existing assessments or things like inclusion of a stub template) to try to find more articles of high quality, but would welcome any help in determining the importance aspect, particularly on the higher quality articles, to help make selection for the portal easier. PS: I see now Charles Borromeo only qualifies as mid-importance, and that he will likely be removed from the biography list when the assessments are completed and we can see better the quality and importance of other candidates. John Carter 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of Project

I know that this project deals with articles relating to the lives of Saints. However, does it also deal with articles relating to the works of those individuals or not? Someone has just created, evidently, a page on De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), and I am curious as to whether this work by a saint would qualify for inclusion. On the basis of that decision, I would know whether articles like The City of God qualify as well. I would also greatly appreciate information from the rest of you as to whether articles like Utopia (book), and other presumably non-religious, works by saints fall within the scope of this project as well. John Carter 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My vote, for now, is no. We can start adding things later -- but that is a huge collection of writings to consider. I think there is enough on our plate already. -- Pastordavid 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. Just wanted to know so I could know what to include on the article list. John Carter 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting things on other pages

There is currently a discussion at the talk page for Saint Methodius about whether the article should be moved to Methodius, Apostle to the Slavs per naming conventions, or stay as Saint Methodius as the most well-known name/title. Input would be appreciated.

At the Christianity talk page and the Roman Catholic talk page there is a discussion going about the use of the Category "Christian denominations" and sub-cats. -- Pastordavid 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queer Reading of John the Apostle

The above referenced heading has been added to the article above recently. The heading seems to me to perhaps not meet wikipedia guidelines regarding clarity. Also, the subsequent comments of the person who added the section seem at least to me to indicate that this is an interpretation of the subject, which may or may not deserve a primary heading in the article. I personally think (and I acknowledge that this is strictly personal) that it might fit into a larger "Interpretations of John" section, but perhaps not deserve a separate main heading. Any comments regarding this subject are welcome, preferably on the article talk page. John Carter 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. -- Pastordavid 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Testament Saints?

I note that Abraham is listed as a Saint on the Martyrologium Romanum, but isn't categorized as a saint. Should we try to include OT figures who are considered Saints by one or more Christian groups in this project or not? The articles which I think might most benefit from such attention are those about individuals from either the deuterocanonical books or other so-called minor figures in the OT. John Carter 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this one, and I think not for right now. I understand the rationale for inclusion, but most of those figures are covered by 2-4 wikiprojects (most have some combination of Bible, Judaism, Mythology, and Christianity). I would be interested in adding those who are memorialized on Protestance liturgical calendars before we started adding OT figures. -- Pastordavid 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic Savio a possible Good Article?

This article looks better than most of the B articles I've seen. Does anyone think it might qualify as a Good article candidate? John Carter 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good ... but it does seem a little on the long side. I would consider either trimming or spinning off before nominating. But that's just me.

Also, we have a number of A-class articles that are not currently GAs. Perhaps we should looks at nominating those before we start nominating the B-class ones. -- Pastordavid 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just thought ... you may also want to have the article go through a peer review before nominating. -- Pastordavid 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Template

Did someone change the talk page template?? -- Pastordavid 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey John, could you add the "importance" tag back so that it is visible on the talk page? -- Pastordavid 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of saints

If all the names are added to this list, it will quickly become unworkable. How would the rest of you want to proceed? I would suggest breaking it up by the existing listed churches, so that we would have instead a List of Anglican saints, a List of Eastern Orthodox saints, etc. John Carter 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. McGivney‎

The article on Father Michael J. McGivney‎ has been added to the project. His cause is before the Vatican, but as yet he has not been beatified. Does he still apply? --Briancua 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "saint" in the non-Catholic churches is a lot looser than it is in the Catholic church. Most of the people who Catholics consider to be at Servant of God status or higher would very possibly qualify as saints in some other churches. To help remedy the potential inequalities involved, we (that is, I) am now trying to tag all those articles about parties who have reached at least servant of God status in the Catholic church with the banner. This way, if and when the process of canonization goes further, we will know where the various existing articles already are and be able to expand those requiring expansion and create those which don't already exist. We (that is, I) am also adding those commemorated on the calendars of saints of other churches, including the Lutheran churches, again in an attempt to at least potentially decrease the likelihood of the project being accused of taking a particular point of view. Also, I think that we may in this project might be a bit better at finding some sites relating to people in the process of being canonized than others might be. However, if you believe that the article should not be so tagged, you are clearly free to remove it or make any other changes you feel called for, like always in wikipedia. Hope that answers your question. :) John Carter 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

We already have a few categories for specific kinds of saints like Category:Doctors of the Church, Category:Papal saints, and the like. Should we try to extend the number of such categories or not? And, if so, where? I personally think some of the big grouping (martyr, for instance) would probably be virtually useless, but something like Category: Abbess saints might be a bit more useful. Other opinions? John Carter 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of Anglican saints category

It has been suggested that the Category:Anglican saints, be renamed, for the purposes of accuracy, Category:Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion, or some similar name, as that name more precisely reflects the name of the source. Thoughts? John Carter 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is now also a discussion of renaming the Calendar of saints (Church of England). Please go to the talk page there to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly at Talk:Calendar of saints (Church of England) there is a proposal to rename that page as The Commemoration of Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion or similar. If there support to rename the category, the next stage is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Chrysostom

Editors on this project might be interested in the John Chrysostom article. There is currently discussion over eight of his homilies (relating to Jews/Judaizing Christians), and what they should be named. Input would be welcomed. --Grimhelm 18:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witchcraft section in Martin Luther

Someone has recently added a section on Martin Luther and witchcraft to the above page. The content was later removed by another editor, and reinserted by the content's creator. The disagreement seems to be about whether the content is "extraneous" to the article. There is now a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the subject, Any comments regarding the inclusion of this material in this article, and how much article space to give it, would be more than welcome. John Carter 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Candidate

A saint article, Maximus the Confessor is a current Featured article Candidate. Comments may be left here. -- Pastordavid 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cao Dai saints and potential expansion of project

I noted two of the three listed saints of this religion have already had the project banner laced on their pages, so I added it to Victor Hugo, the third saint, as well. I note that Lê Văn Trung is refered to by the title of Venerable on the Ngô Văn Chiêu page, although I have no way of knowing whether that title is honorable or formal. Also, I note on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Category:Christian saints, that it was suggested that those who are currently classified as "saints" of other faiths be referred to by the specific internal name, be it Bodhisattva, Arhat, Sant, Avatar, Alvar, Tzaddik, Wali, etc. Do the other members of this project believe it would be a good idea to rename any categories these individuals might be placed in and perhaps add those new subcats to the Category: Saints, and, also, would they like to see the scope of the project expand to include them? John Carter 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think we have more on our plate than we can handle as it is right now ... I wouldn't really want to add more. Most of our membership, tools, language, and guidelines are geared for Christian saints. This would have to all be reconsidered. -- Pastordavid 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement here about trying to add too much to the project's plate. However, we do have the problem of the Cao Dai saints being added to the project by others. I note that there has been a proposed work group for the Biography project to deal with religious figures. Should we perhaps try to maybe encourage the development of that work group, which would probably be a bit better at dealing with the subjects of non-Christian "saints"? John Carter 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true we've got a lot to handle, but this is something that needs to be taken care of. Perhaps we should change our project name to "Christian saints" to make our focus clearer, and encourage the bio project to take care of the non-Christian saints in the way John Carter suggests.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Renaming it wouldn't be the worst thing. --evrik ^(talk) 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would support renaming to WikiProject: Christian Saints" -- Pastordavid 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category renaming discussion

This category Category:Paintings of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been proposed for renaming to Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary. Join in the discussion on its entry on the Categories for discussion page. IvoShandor 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible renaming of Project?

It has been proposed that for the purposes of clarity this project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please indicate your opinion below. John Carter 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

• Support - for issues of clarity, because many/most of us members are probably less than qualified to address matters of holy people of other faiths. John Carter 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Request for clarity - I applaud your desire to refocus the project, but consider: a saint is someone who cares more about the whole world than himself (just as a patriot cares more about his country than himself or a "family man" cares more about his family than himself. I don't know for sure that only Christians have shown this level of love, and I hesitate lest "we Christians" become "too proud of ourselves". But I'm glad you asked for the straw poll, because now we are focused on the scope of the project, and that's always a good thing. --Uncle Ed 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As noted above, I believe that the various categories for "saints" of other faiths would probably be best renamed to use the word actually used by those faiths, whether it be Avatar, Alvar, Wali, or whatever. Certainly, I would have no objections to seeing biographies of holy people of other faiths given the same sort of treatment as Christian saints. However, I do note that many of us, myself included, are not particularly qualified to work on articles relating to Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, or other saints, generally because of comparatively less knowledge about the religious background of these individuals. Also, I would really question whether those other faiths would want to use the same infobox as the Christian saints. For such biographies of holy people, I think it might work better if task forces within the WikiProject(s) for that specific religion were created to deal with them, as those editors would likely know more about the other subjects relevant to the biographies than the predoniminantly Christian editors in this project do. John Carter 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the project is chiefly oriented around Christian saints, and the title should be clearer. --Grimhelm 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- it is more descriptive of the work we are actually doing. - Pastordavid 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Other religions appear to have adopted the term "saint", possibly because there is no other synonym in English. Sort of similar to "Church" (<Greek "Lord's {house)"); originally a Christian term, now used by the Church of Satanism, Church of Scientology, Wiccan Church of Canada, etc. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as I said above (now below). We can't ignore the articles for non-Christians who are considered saints. The only other option is to change the scope of the project to include them, but we have a great deal on our plate already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- let's be clear that this effort is focused on Christianity. Majoreditor 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- I agree, the vast majority of the world knows the word "saint" in association with Christianity. I think the change is justified.--Lord Balin 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- per Majorediter - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Definitely clarifies the saints about which we are writing Amp 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I note that the "oppose" votes fall into two groups: a small minority that wants the scope of the project to include non-Christian saints, and a larger group that claims there are no non-Christian saints. I think the second group is just wrong, and the fact that there are so many more of them than the first group seems to make the first group's project unlikely to happen. --Trovatore 09:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support We need a project for Bhuddist saints, too. imars 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Given the current actual focus of the project, "Christian saints" is much more appropriate. Also, renaming it this way allows WPs to form for "Buddhist saints" or "Muslim saints" (I don't know what the special names for these would be), and without having to deal with the encumbrance and possible POV issues of the articles being policed by a slew of people mostly interested in Christian hagiography. Alekjds ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support More description.Aatomic1 11:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

• Oppose - there are no non-Christian saints. Maybe Saints should be a sub-category of Category:Holy people. Christian saints is a tautology. - Kittybrewster 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, saints are christian virtually by definition; usage in application to non christian holy figures is so rare and controversial that "christian" can be regarded as redundant. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't see the point in limiting the project. In addtion to those mentioned by our Martian brother/sister below, there are Sufi saints and Jain saints as well.-E. abu Filumena 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While trying to figure out how to spell redundant I discovered that it was already here. The fact that there is a Category:Non-Christian saints suggests that folks already realize that Saint = Christian. Carptrash 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Saint" is a word coined by English-speaking Christians, from an Ecclesiastical Latin term applied to people in its currently understood sense exclusively by Christians until relatively recent times Then it became misapplied by bigoted English speakers who didn't want to take the trouble to learn what words (generally not cognates for "saint") natively used by different religions for their memorialized holy people. "Muslim saint" or "Jewish saint" makes as much sense as "Christian wali" or "Christian tzadik". At least some Muslims and Jews would certainly be offended by such usage, as I'm offended by the converse. (Neither "wali" nor "tzadik", nor the Hindu "sant", Buddhist "arhat" or "bodhisatva", etc. are cognate with the basic sense of "saint". TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I wasn't trying to indicate that there was a virtual identity between terms of various religions, and my apologies if that impression was given or received. However, those terms were the ones referenced in a previous discussion cited above, and I was only including them on that basis. The fact that there are such pronounced differences between the various faiths, as well as for the various terms they use, is to my eyes one of the best reasons to try to separate out the various biographies of holy people, so that editors who have knowledge about the specific details of the various religions are the ones who contribute to those biographies. As noted above, my own comparative lack of knowledge of many of these subjects I think disqualifies at least me, and possibly several other editors, from competently working on biographies of holy people from other faiths, whether they erroneously occasionally use the word "saint" or not. John Carter 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Saint" does have a specific meaning within Christianity; other faiths typically have other names for their revered religious figures. Common usage doesn't justify the change. Even though many books are referred to as the "Bible" for this or that subject, we still have a plain "Bible" article. There should be a simple 'see also' section for religious figures in other religions that might seem superficially similar to Christian saints. Wesley 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Let`s keep it as it is. It will do us all good to realise there are people who have achieved a kind of sanctity from other religious traditions than our own...Andycjp 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeThe term comes from the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, where it is used to refer to all the holy people of of God. This is our own (wikipedian) definition of Saint ([5]). I think that the term Saint is directly related to Christianity. Any other use of the term is borrowing from us (christians) and therefore they should have to make any amendments of clarity.Rowlan 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject of saints exists here as a supercategory that while a strong majority of Wikipedia saints are Christian, there is still a negligible existence of other saints here to merit breakaway wiki-projects at this time. I think the current Saints Project should be all-inclusive for now. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. After having read through the arguments for both sides, I agree that "Saint" is an exclusively Christian term, so the title of the project should be kept, and the focus redefined to reflect the exclusively Christian nature of what a "saint" is. Alekjds ^talk 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Merkurix. There's no need to be exclusive, let's handle all saints for now. If it gets to the point that some other group of non-Christian saints has enough critical mass to warrant a separate WikiProject, then they can be split off as a child WikiProject in the future, but I don't think it's a big enough problem that we need to separate things out right now. --Elonka 19:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alekjds. --South Philly 14:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

• evrik ^(talk) 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Pointless change. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment - please note the already extant Category:Cao Dai saints, Category:Sikh saints, Category:Non-Christian saints and Category:Hindu saints for evidence of use of the word in other contexts. John Carter 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As Pastordavid said above, "Most of our membership, tools, language, and guidelines are geared for Christian saints". This would have to be changed to treat the non-Christian articles in the way they deserve, and this would take time and effort when we have a lot to deal with already. The only reason we've been able to put it off for so long is the dearth of articles on non-Christian saints.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Will the other project be called "Non-Christian Saints"?--Mike Searson 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, we have contacted the Biography project for the purposes of encouraging the creation of a religious figures work group. One had in fact already been proposed there earlier. We have, however, yet to receive any response. If you want to encourage such a group, please leave a message on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. John Carter 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not what I asked; I'm sorry if I was not clear. If we create another project called "Christian Saints", where will the Saints of Non-Christian religions go? If there are sub projects based on denomination "Sufi saints" for instance, I would support it. However, I would not support saints of Non-Christian religions claiming the title "Project:Saints" while Christian Saints are pushed off into a subset of the same project. --Mike Searson 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Edit to Add...I see there are categories already for Non-Christian Saints...I would probably support this change if "Project:Saints" is removed altogether and the projects are by denomination/faith, etc.--Mike Searson 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Will we be changing Categories like Category:French saints to Category:French Christian saints? (if this change is made?) --Polylerus 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Although the Category:Indian saints, which has more non-Christians than Christians in it, looks like it is a headache of that sort waiting to happen. John Carter 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see why it will be a problem, we'd just keep Category:Saints by country in the main Category:Saints rather than in Christian saints. It wouldn't be specific to religion that way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To explicate my oppose vote above a bit further, I also contend that "saint" violates WP:NPOV since it assumes that the word and its sense "holy" is and ought to be normative for all religions, when this is certainly not the case. For Muslims, "wali" is short for "waliullah" which means "friend of God". Jewish "tzadik" are "righteous". Hindu "sant" means "one who knows" and is cognate more with "sage" than the "saint" it superficially resembles. "Bodhisattva" means "enlightened being". "Arhat" means "worthy one" to Hindus, Jain and Buddhists; the last apply it almost exclusively to the Buddha himself. None of these denotes "holy" even if they imply it, and I strongly believe it's incorrect to use it merely for our own linguistic convenience. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Totally agree, Csernica. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  I also agree. That is why I believe that the articles dealing with people from other religions should not be handled by the members of this project. As stated above, I would have no objections to, and probably actually welcome, the projects relating to other faiths to actively work on the biographies of relevant parties, as they would be more likely to know more about the subjects. Also, please note that the only category I created was the Category:Non-Christian saints, and that I only put those articles of individuals who were already classified by others as saints in it. Again, I would welcome seeing the projects related to other religions take up those articles instead, and leave us to those which deal with the faith tradition the majority of the editors of this project know best, which seems to be Christianity. John Carter 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  And I was with you right up until the part where you pull out the rule book to support your POV. Well, I guess it's our point of view, but still . . . . . . . . . ....... let's have this discussion without the rules, okay? Carptrash 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  If you can give a good reason why we should apply a Christian label to people in other religions, where those religions do not use a label of the same meaning themselves, I might change my mind about that. But otherwise, does it not impose a Christian (or at least a Western) POV to do so? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Reponse - Personally, I myself question why and how these people of other faiths were categorized by the incorrect word "saints" in the first place, as it is a misuse of the word. However, I really don't think it should be the job of this project to attempt to define how and when the word can ever be used in wikipedia. If we were able to change the content of the Saints article, as well as adding the word "Christian" to the project's name, then I think that we would probably be able to reduce the chance of this discussion happening again. And, again, I personally think it would be best if either the Biography project made a workgroup for general religious figures or the projects of other specific faiths created biography task forces to deal with individuals those faiths consider whatever is their approximation of "saints", to eliminate such discussions as this ever taking place again. John Carter 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's not a misuse of language, it's the normal evolution of language that the meaning of words shifts to encompass related new concepts. See e.g. corn in BrE (where it means any cereal, but originally did not include maize, which was unknown in Europe) and AmE (where it now nearly exclusively denotes maize). Or engineer (how many software engineers have anything to do with engines?). I'm certain a linhuist could give a lot of better examples. --Stephan Schulz 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It really depends on what the scope of the project is. If it restricts itself to Christianity, I see no reason not to rename it. If it is about all peple considered Saints by some religion (and there is plenty of evidence that these exist above), leave it. --Stephan Schulz 09:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Considering the points brought up above, perhaps we should first sort out the content of the main Saint article before considering the scope of this project. --Grimhelm 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Response - If I felt at all competent to do such editing, I would do so myself. Maybe we could contact the members of the projects for specific religions for their input regarding the content relating to individuals from their traditions? John Carter 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Totals to date 12 support the change, 9 oppose the change, 2 are neutral. I don't know enough to know whether that is sufficient to support the proposed change or not. Please advise. John Carter 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I would say that there is not enough support for a name change, we are pretty evenly divided. However, given the comments that accompanied peoples votes, perhaps the following would work as a compromise:

1. Keep the name the same.
2. Explicitly define "saints" as we deal with them as a Christian concept (there is nothing that says our definition, for sake of the scope of our project, needs match Saint).
3. Let other faiths handle those who would be equivelant to saints in the way that they deem most appropriate.

Thoughts? -- Pastordavid 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. The only thing I might consider adding would be maybe changing the Saints article to more explicitly reflect the evidently serious differences between the words used by other faiths and the word "saint". I could live if that didn't happen, though. John Carter 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support this proposal. And yes, something does need to be done about the Saint article. --Grimhelm 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm down with that. Though I don't know that the "saint" article needs changing- we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary- as such we should strive to record topics and list them under a recognizable name, rather than try to record names and then list all the various definitions of that name. In other words, rather than trying to shift the focus of the "Saint" article to make it include every possible use of the term "saint", we should instead focus on the concept it already deals with (i.e. extraordinary dead Christians), and perhaps add another section redirecting the reader to appropriate articles for individuals of other cultures also called saints. Similarly, our article on African Americans doesn't talk about every American who happens to have roots in Africa just because the name might imply it, it's about a specific ethnic group.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What I was thinking of might have been along the lines of "for roughly equivalent people in Hinduism, see alvar and avatar", or something like that. That way, readers would know that there is information about such people on wikipedia, but at different pages. John Carter 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

FYI:
There are currently backlogs in Category:Saints articles needing infoboxes (about 340 articles) and Category:Saints articles needing attention (about 66 articles). -- Pastordavid 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also many, many more which haven't been tagged as such yet, said the bringer of bad news. John Carter 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work through a few of them. Majoreditor 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John of the Cross/John of Avila

Just browsing around and I noticed that there are separate pages for John of the Cross and John of Avila. I read over each to make sure that they are the same person and am quite certain that they are. I am not adept at editing Wikipedia, so I thought it would be best to bring this to someone else's attention. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Avila—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.23.67.55 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the helpful comment, but John of Avila (1500-1569) and John of the Cross (1542-1591) are different people. Although their bios have overlaps, they are distinct Spanish saints (neither of which is to be confused with John of God). -- Pastordavid 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Comment

One of our articles, Isaac, is currently going through peer review, comments on the article can be made here (it has passed GA since the PR started, but I'm sure comments would be appreciated to help get the article to FA). Also, although not within the scope of the project but I'm sure of interest to many here, Vatican City is also having a peer review, comment here. And, Maximus the Confessor is still in the FA process, and votes/comments can be made here. -- Pastordavid 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of Interest

There is currently a discussion about whether or not to rename/move Paul of Tarsus. -- Pastordavid 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration: Saint

The discussion about the proposed rename above got me thinking: we need to do some work on Saint. We don't seem to often assign collaborations, but I think this would be a great one. As our "parent article" (for lack of a better term), we should strive to get it to at least GA. -- Pastordavid 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to contact the various specific projects involved in the current article to help get their input as well. It might involve removing some content, but that's fine by me if that's what they want. John Carter 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I have been assessing the importance level of saints articles, and have put together some notes (I thought it might be a bit too long for this talk page). It would be helpful to me if those with an interest could check them out and reply. -- Pastordavid 02:43, 16 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 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar?

Anyone know how to create a sidebar, like this one, which we could use to provide links to all the project's secondary pages directly from the top of the main project page? John Carter 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...No, but I'd be willing to take a crack at it. Give me a few days to tinker with it and see what I can come up with. Good idea by the way. -- Pastordavid 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar is there ... also doing some other maintence, rearranging, etc on project pages. -- Pastordavid 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Teresa

I have taken a crack at improving the article on Mother Teresa. I'm going to remove the article from Category:Saints articles needing attention and start working on another one. We may be able to reduce the backlog Pastordavid mentioned if anyone else wants to help out. Majoreditor 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hierotheos the Thesmothete

The article on Hierotheos the Thesmothete was a real mess. I think it's now in tolerable state. I've removed it from Category:Saints articles needing attention. Majoreditor 03:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Great cleanup of a very messy looking article (good additions to Theresa as well). -- Pastordavid 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I have done some general updating of the main WP Saints page (unrelated to the current discussion about the scope of the project). Have a look around and see what you think -- If you see a problem, please fix it. Hopefully, this will make things a little easier to navigate. -- Pastordavid 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming question

I have just started a new page on the saint known in Italian as Evasio and in Latin as Evasius. (No, I didn’t expect you to have heard of him!) I am not sure which name is preferable in English. Also I am not sure whether the name should be prefixed by “Saint”. In general, of course, the policy is to avoid that word in titles. And I support that in general as articles about real people should be primarily regarded as biographies and should use their secular names. But in this kind of case where the historicity of the individual—is he fact or fiction, I mean?—is extremely doubtful, but where the cult is clear and (moderately) interesting, perhaps it is better to include the S-word? (When someone moved my pedantically named Baudolino (hermit) to Saint Baudolino I thought: That’s against policy, but it’s certainly an improvement!)

I won’t be able to reply to this shortly as I am going to be away from Wikipedia for a bit. But I would be happy if you simply moved the article (if necessary) to whatever you think best. Currently he is at Saint Evasio. Cheers! —Ian Spackman 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm going to be bold and move it. He's listed under Evasius at Catholic Forum, the Dominican Martyrology, Catholic Encyclopedia, Orthodox England, et al., as well as the Almighty Google. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 12:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ian Spackman 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone here make an ad?

Template:Qxz-ads/All shows a variety of advertisements for various WikiProjects. Lord knows we could probably use one as well. Unfortunately, purty much everything (including basic spelling) is pretty much beyond my own abilities, so if anyone else feels qualified to make one for this project, or maybe for the Christianity projects in general, Religion projects, or basically anything else that might increase the traffic to this page, please feel free to do so. John Carter 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Qxz, the user who started those ads, left in just the last few days (I was actually getting ready to ask him just such a question). unless I'm mistaken, Azatoth helped Qxz on some of those. I think he'd be the next person to ask. -- Pastordavid 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint of the day

A proposal has been made on the talk page of the Portal:Saints for a possible daily update to at least some of the content of the portal. I think that this is a fine idea, but also think that I would want input from others as to which content to feature on which date. I have therefore set up a page for such discussion at Portal:Saints/Saint of the day for interested parties to nominate content related to individual saints they would like to see featured on the portal, and one which particular day, if one is preferred. I am here thinking particularly about possibly including individuals on the days of their feasts, if they have one. Any member of this project is more than welcome to make any nominations they see fit. Please feel free to make any specific suggestions there. John Carter 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting us know. --evrik ^(talk) 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation styles

I often run into the same sources when looking for citation for stub-level saints articles. Since I found myself looking up the same styles over and over again, as well as tiresomely checking back to copy-paste old "ref" formats, I started a Notepad list of styles for particular sources. While redoing my user page a few days ago, I thought it would be more convenient to make a user page for myself with these styles, in case I run into a sourceless saints article while not at home. So I thought I'd share it with you all: Saints citation styles for commonly encountered sources.

A few caveats however: first and most importantly, these examples are all for specific articles. You would have to modify them appropriately in order to use them correctly. It would be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Citation templates in conjunction with these, in case there are additional appropriate fields to be included. And secondly, remember that this my user page. These styles for are my personal reference. You may not like them, in which case you may continue to use whichever style of citation you please. However, if you find a problem with one or have an issue or concern, please, do bring it up to me on the citation styles talk page. Thanks. I hope these are useful. Alekjds ^talk 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. It is worth noting, on a similar topic, the change in citing ancient sources in the last 40 years. Since much of the material we use is PD, it contians the older format for citation of ancient sources: Title in Latin, book and chapter in roman numeral, regular numbers for lines. For example: Adversus Haeresies, II.IV.2. However, the modern scholarly standard is to refer to the english title, and use regular numerals; thus: Against the Heresies, 2.4.2. Just a little reminder to all. -- Pastordavid 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)