Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
NA This page does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Opening template for Cathedral Stubs

I'm planning to create a template for RC Cathedral stubs, as it doesn't seem very fitting to give them church stubs. Ideas? I'll need a thumbnail too.. Ariedartin JECJY 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Look forward to using it. -Murcielago 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It has been done. I used the image in the Ulm Münster article. See it at Template:RC-cathedral-stub. Sorry Murcielago, but the Saint Francis Cathedral in Santa Fe is a bit small for a thumbnail. Ariedartin JECJY 15:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
no hard feelings.Will start using the template! Murcielago 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Project template

I was wondering if there's a reason why Template:Project Catholicism 101 isn't used more often. Most other WikiProjects place templates like this on all of article talk pages associated with the project, yet this one is only used on four pages. Might I suggest that we expand its usage? —Mira 09:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's start by slapping it on every single talk page of cathedrals, churches and chapels of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in Wikipedia. That's a good way to start. However, we must realise that many articles do not solely concern the RCC and may be shared with other scions, such as Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both of which have several very striking similarities to the RCC. As such, they may not undisputedly come under this WikiProject. Ariedartin JECJY 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to do this, I think the popes, bishops, dioceses, etc. could all be marked. It's a pretty big task in and of itself. As for multiple-topic articles, I think that articles could reasonably come under the realm of multiple WikiProjects, see Talk:Catholicism for a good example. Just because we mark an article doesn't another project couldn't do the same thing. And in fact, if we think that an article belongs in another project, we could add their template for them. —Mira 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if no one has any objections by then, I'll probably start working on this tomorrow. —Mira 09:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. But won't it be very cluttered if we end up with multiple WikiProject templates? Especially now that there's a WikiProject Anglicanism? Ariedartin JECJY 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's just going to happen sometimes. It's not terribly unusual to have a bunch of templates at the top of a talk page. See Talk:Aztec or Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for somewhat extreme examples. —Mira 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As one of the major contributors to the Aztec article, it is a bit of wry irony to come here and read that Talk:Aztec is one of the more extreme examples of "template-itis".I admit that there are a number of templates on that page but I am at a loss to figure out which templates are extraneous.
Anyway, the real reason that I came over here was to suggest that you look at WP:AZTEC, specifically section 4.1 (Article rating and assessment scheme).This was set up for us by User:CJLL Wright who did it for WP:MESO.It is also being used for WP:MILHIST.
WP:AZTEC only has about 30 articles so the rating scheme is a bit of overkill but it will be more useful as we move towards 50-100 articles.
WP:MESO has 250+ articles and WP:MILHIST has 10,000+ articles.
I think this rating scheme will be a great asset to this project.I'm sure User:CJLL Wright would be willing to help us get it set up if there is a consensus that we should do it here.
--Richard 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say they were extraneous, I actually meant that sometimes articles fall into many categories and need to have many templates to identify them. As for the assessment, it looks like a good idea, although a lot of work, seeing as we haven't even identified the articles that "belong" to this project. —Mira 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the rating system is "a lot of work".The "work" is in determining which articles belong in the project.Like anything else in Wikipedia, nothing is "cast in concrete".If someone decides an article should be in the project, someone else can just as easily decide that it shouldn't be.At the end of the day, it's about consensus.

Since including an article in the project just means that it gets included in lists of articles to be considered for improvement, it's no big deal if an article gets included when it's only marginally related to Catholicism.

I'm trying to think of a suitable example.Lessee, there have been a bunch of movies about people pretending to be Catholic religious (one with Sean Penn and Robert DeNiro and another with Whoopi Goldberg).Are those part of this project?Maybe, maybe not.I would say "No" but someone else might disagree.The point is...It's not really difficult to add it in the project.Nor is it difficult to take it back out if the consensus decides that it shouldn't be part of the project.

I would suggest that we institute the rating scheme right away.All it requires once it's set up is that every Talk page with a project template supply two parameters, one for quality and one for importance.If no parameters are supplied, the article is considered "Unassessed" which is no big deal.

To me, I'd rather start the scheme now before all the project templates have been added to talk pages.That way, we only have to hit all the articles once.Otherwise, we have to hit all the articles once to get the templates w/o ratings in.Then, we would have to visit them all again to add the rating parameters.

The main thing to consider is the point of the rating scheme is to identify those articles that need the most work.This is a great time for us to start that identification effort.

--Richard 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Per Richard's suggestion, I'd be happy to help implementing the assessment scheme for this project. It's not too much trouble to implement, and once it is set up a bot automatically updates the listing, statistics and log on a daily basis. The only work for the Project members after that is to record the assessments for each article, something readily done via two simple parameters in the project's banner template on the articles' talk pages, and the ratings will be categorised, listed and statistics compiled automatically.
For the system to be useful, the project members would also need to work out some guidelines for assigning relative priorities ("importance") to the articles, the general idea being that in your importance rankings you identify your "core" articles (those few which would be a must-have for an 'abridged' encyclopaedia), your high-priority articles, your 'general interest' articles and your specialist, or even obscure, articles. How you do this is up to you, but in general it's best not to flood the higher-priority categories (there should notionally be relatively few Top priority articles, a few more High priority articles, even more Mid-priority articles, and so on).
You'd also need to work out what to do with the data once it starts being compiled- for eg, after you've rated a few you should be able to identify from the listing which of your higher-priority articles are in need of the most attention, so you can concentrate your efforts on bringing those up to scratch. You can also easily track the day-to-day changes in assessments via the auto-generated logs.
If you like, I can set up the system so that you can try it out, and see if you think it will prove useful. If so, it can be retained and virtually the only maintenance needed will be to continue adding and updating the assessments as you go. If not, it could just as easily be decommissioned. Regards,--cjllw | TALK 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, let's go ahead and see how it works out for now. I'll get out a message to the other project members to see if they want to weight in. —Mira 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, as a trial I've now implemented the rating and assessment functionality in the WP:CATHOLIC project banner, and created the categories which are needed to make the whole thing work. I've also created an Assessment subpage for your project, modelled on the one I created for WP:MESO, with links, instructions and criteria guidelines. Feel free to amend the text, layout and guidelines for assigning the ratings values to suit your project's specifications. I've included a view of this Assessment subpage on your main project page, but you can display/link to it however you wish.
Once the bot makes its next run (sometime after 0300hrs UTC), the following pages should be automatically created:
These pages will be updated on a daily basis by the bot.
For a preview of what these look like once a number of articles have been rated, see these examples:
All you need to do now is to assign appropriate ratings to the articles, via the parameters and criteria described on the Assessment subpage, and also add the project banner with the parameters set to other articles you may be interested in. For articles which already have the project banner but have not as yet been rated, see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles. What you do with the generated data is completely up to you, naturally. I rated a couple myself as a test, feel free to change the ratings I applied as you see fit.
I've also created a category, Category:WikiProject Catholicism articles, which will (automatically) contain all of the articles which currently have your project banner attached to their talk pages, for an overall view.
If you've questions concerning the running of the bot (User:Mathbot), contact its owner, User:Oleg Alexandrov. If you've questions about the rating and assessment scheme in general, see the folks at the Version 1.0 Editorial Team- the genesis of the scheme comes from there, I believe. And if you've other questions re the enhanced template or other aspects, let me know. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't wait to dive in, it actually seems like a fun thing to work on.

Thank you very much for putting in the work on setting this up. —Mira 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Mira, you're quite welcome. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia conversion

I just had an idea about converting articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I noticed an editor had simply dumped the text straight out of the C.E. without formatting it, without wikifying, without updating the language, without removing the POV, etc (against the Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics guidelines). And I realized that doing all that for the one article is a pretty extensive task for one editor, and having a number of editors help out could always be beneficial. On the other hand, I think having an unfinnished conversion in the main article namespace is in poor form. So I thought, why not make a subpage of this project devoted to a 'holding cell' for converting text. Maybe we could get a queue of articles going, and have a group of editors work on the conversion one at a time. Once the article is up to speed, we then can add it to the main namespace and move on to the next article to be converted in the queue. Would this work? Or are there not enough editors around to devote time to such an endeavour? Or are there any other/better ideas?--Andrew c 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.JASpencer 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea.I did one once and it was so big it had to be split into two articles Animals in the Bible and List of animals in the Bible.It was a lot of work.Perhaps we could nominate and vote on topics, just as we do for the CCE, but rather than have a set time limit we would move them along as soon as they are completed. --Briancua 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm currently trying to list all the red links by subject - it's on the Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics main page.We should perhaps focus on the more churchy topics.However I could use some help on sub-categorising the topics, I'm going through Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat People at the moment. JASpencer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal From Queue

I put up the Knights of Columbus up for the Collaboration Effort while I was trying to bring it up to featured article status.Its already made FA status so I would like to remove it.There are other Catholic articles that need the work more.Would anyone object to my removing it from the queue? --Briancua 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me.I say put your suggestion on the Collaboration talk page, and if no one objects by Friday, to take it off the queue. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism

There has been a proposal to merge Catholic in to Catholicism. It is being discussed at Talk:Catholicism#Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. It has unanimous support at present. Any input is welcome. --WikiCats 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reorganization of WikiProject

As you may have noticed, much of the project's main page has been moved around or split off into subpages. I don't really have a great explanation for this, other than that this project has seemed to lack organization, and I was hoping to provide some. Much of what I did was modeled after the Military history Wikiproject, as they certainly are one of the most organized WikiProjects around. I would really like to hear your feedback. —Mira 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, your reorganization seems to be an improvement.I compared the current version with the version immediately before you began changing the page [1].The only thing I found missing was the Policy and Membership section at the beginning.I take it that you didn't like that section?Perhaps it was too pedantic?
--Richard 12:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought about how to save it, but decided that in the end it was redundant to basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have no objection to putting it back, it just seemed unnecessary. —Mira 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I liked having the current colaboration project at the top of the page.Would you object to putting it back? --Briancua 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No, not really. I think I was just overdoing it on "clutter." It's the neat freak in me. —Mira 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow!I just looked at the current version of the WikiProject on Mesoamerica and was really bowled over.It's pretty cool.I think the scope of this project covers enough articles that we could benefit from that level of organization?Any interest in moving this project in that direction?This should really appeal to the "neat freak" in MiraLuka.
--Richard 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

name change?

My intent here is not to get into another semantic debate, but theres been something nagging at me and with the recent reorganization of the project this seems like a good time to bring it up.I don't think Wikiproject:Catholicism 101 is a good title.I think we go way beyond 101 here to upperclassmen level courses at least.I would suggest that we rename it "Wikiproject Catholicism."This is in line with what the Anglicans do with their WikiProject Anglicanism.Any thoughts?--Briancua 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The "101" has always seemed a bit odd to me. The only reason I didn't bring it up is that I'm usually fairly lazy and didn't want to do the work.

—Mira 04:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I absolutely agree.I've hated the "101" since I first found this project a month or more ago.Do we also want to propose changing it to be "Roman Catholicism" or do we want to opt for peace and tranquility?Me personally, I don't care one way or the other except that I think it should be consistent.
--Richard 05:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little gunshy here, but I think that a change to Roman Catholicism is probably best. Please don't hurt me.

—Mira 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mira, I dont believe for a second you are as innocent as you claim.Your agenda has been showing from the beginning.I'd respect your opinion if you gave just a shred of evidence that you have actually read CC vs. RCC.If you could actually engage the issues based on WP conventions and policies, we could at least get a conversation going.So far, all you have offered are the opinions of your grandmother, mother, and your own when you used to go to Church.This does not pass for a legitimate conversation on the matter.Are you afraid of actually engaging the issue with your intellect?

"I'm a little gunshy here, but I think that a change to Roman Catholicism is probably best. Please don't hurt me"

is a completely inadequate, even infantile, response to people who have put an enormous amount of effort into this issue.In fact, this is a fine example of passive aggression--asserting a position while begging others to not make you explain yourself.Vaquero100 06:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why are you picking a fight over a non-main page article?You are just wasting our time.But, if this is what it takes to make clear WP conventions and policies and how they apply to the Catholic Church, bring it on.Vaquero100 06:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mira, if you never has a problem with "Roman" why do you go out of your way on your userpage to make a link like this: Catholic Church.Here is another of your edits in the same vein: [2]Vaquero100 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go with making up things about my supposed "agenda." I have no agenda. You also say that you "dont believe for a second [I am] as innocent as [I] claim." Can you see why I would be gunshy, with comments like that? Perhaps "please don't hurt me" was a bit over the top, but it was intended to lighten the mood a little. I believe I have explained my position on this issue quite adequately, although if you wish to continue discussing that with me, I ask that you take it to my talk page, as I do not think this is the appropriate location for such a discussion.
You'll also note that I did not propose this renaming, Braincua proposed removing the "101," and Richardhusr asked about adding the "Roman." I think that this is a good idea, although if this is going to become an issue, I'm not going to push it. I am not picking any fights, I only responded where comments were asked for.
And if I must explain my user page, I did not use "Roman" in that place because only a few words before, I have the phrase "history of the Roman Catholic Church." I felt that made it sufficiently clear which Catholic Church I was referring to. In addition, the edit you are pointing to is from when I was new - I had accidentally typed the links backwards and I was fixing them. —Mira

07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this conversation, there seems to be agreement on removing the "101", but not on adding "Roman." If no one has any objections, then I'll probably move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism sometime tomorrow night (which is really about 18 hours from now for me). Unless, of course, someone beats me to it. —Mira 10:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
One concern - now that the assements have begun, how will that affect the templates?Will we have to go through each template and remove the 101? --Briancua 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If the template is also renamed from {{Project Catholicism 101}} to {{Project Catholicism}}, a redirect can be left until a bot can make all the changes. As for the text, most of the templates are transcluded, so changing the template content is easy. Only subst'ed text would need editing. Gimmetrow 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, although I have AWB, and I wouldn't really mind changing the project templates using that. (Goodness knows I use it enough on userboxes). The problem I see with moving {{Project Catholicism 101}} to {{Project Catholicism}} is that the latter is a redirect with multiple edits. I think an administrator will be needed to help out with that. —Mira 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you all have probably noticed, the project has been moved to its new home. I think I caught and moved all of the subpages as well, although a few redirects still need to be bypassed. The two major things that still need to be moved are the project template and the project category. I'm going to list the category at WP:CFD for speedy renaming, but I think the template will have to wait until after the TFD on it is closed. —Mira 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch this in time, but I fully support it. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of strategy and terminology pages

In reorganizing all of this, I've been left wondering what the purposes of the Strategy and Terminology pages are. The only use I've seen on either of them have been attempts to move discussions being held elsewhere to these locations. I've proposed a new purpose for the strategy page, and believe it has potential in that capacity, but I don't see the reason or need for a separate terminology page, when that could be dealt with in a style guide. Thoughts? —Mira 10:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on using the Strategy subpage as a Style guide.However, this difference of opinion may be due to definitions of what a "style guide" should be.The WP:SAINTS page provides a useful point of reference.I see the purpose of the Strategy subpage to cover the kind of topics covered in the "Basic Rules" and "Structure" sections of WP:SAINTS.
However, those sections cover "organizational strategy", NOT "style".Style should cover things like capitalization of "blessed", "venerable", etc.The Infobox could also be discussed in the "style guide".If there is enough "style" info to warrant a separate page, then the style guide should be placed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Style Guide subpage.
As for the Terminology subpage, I would suggest that page would be good for covering the use of certain terms.Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology for an example of how this page can be used.I don't know if WP:CATHOLIC needs such a subpage but that's what it would be for.
I also looked at WP:MILHIST and noticed that this project has no discussion of the goals, scope and structure of the project the way that WP:MILHIST does.
--Richard 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Dealing with the last sentence first, I think that would be a good idea a discussion of goals, etc. would be a good idea. As for strategy/style guide, I see what you mean by differentiating between the two, but I wonder if it's a good idea to have a page for each. One central location might be better. A terminology page, looking at the example you show, would be an excellent place to discuss Catholic vs. Roman Catholic, but again I wonder if it warrants its own page. Lastly, the things I think would belong in a style guide are the general conventions that seem to get lost on the talk page here. Things like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Style for people who are both Popes and Saints. Now I wouldn't mind three separate pages, but I also don't really see the need. —Mira 13:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If we are in agreement as to what is strategy vs. style vs. terminology, then I don't much care whether these are dealt with as sections of the main project page, all in one subpage or in three separate pages.We can start with one approach and then factor out stuff when it gets big enough to warrant a page unto itself.I think the only reason the three subpages are in this project at all is that they are called out in the generic template for WikiProjects and so the section describing the three subpages was inserted by default when this project was created.
--Richard 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement, then. Any opinions as to where this new page would be? (I think it would be reasonable to direct the other existing page(s) to whichever one we pick.) —Mira 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Catholicism" and "Roman Catholic"

Some of you may be interested in the following, posted a few days ago to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. Note that the category renames are processed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_11 rather than the category talk pages. Gimmetrow 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of you have been caught up in the naming debates concerning articles touching on Catholicism and the attempt on the part of some editors to render Catholic and Roman Catholic as synonymous terms.This has a bearing on our work, since Anglicanism has a Catholic component, and the question of ambiguity and the extent to which Anglican information can be included in such articles, as, say Catholic minister or Catholic spirituality can or should be included is relevant.I invite you to review Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name for the relevant discussion, which is ongoing. I wanted Anglican editors to be aware that I have tagged the following articles and categories for requested moves:

* Category:Catholic liturgy → Category:Roman Catholic liturgy I have suggested on Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name that Roman Catholic editors post a similar message on the Catholicism 101 WikiProject.My preference obviously is for inclusivity with regard to the terms "Catholic," "Catholicism," and "Catholic Church," but I would be content even with greater clarity and specific guidelines.I invite you to contribute to the discussion with a view to a mutually satisfactory resolution.Cheers! Fishhead64 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The level of deception that Fishhead will stoop to is beyond belief!He has intentionally sent readers of this page to vote on a bogus vote page for the two Categories in question.He actually voted twice on each issue to make people think the false vote page look legitimate.This is the worst abuse I have seen in the months I have been editing on WP.What's more, he threw this request for deletions up on the boards because he was losing the argument on other pages.And this is not the first time he has pulled these kinds of stunts on pages related to Catholic topics.He tends to be polite in his communications and on other topics, but with regard to Catholic naming disputes he is ruthless.Vaquero100 04:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As always, thank you for keeping a cool head and assuming good faith! </snark>I explain below the reason for the confusion - but kudos for an interesting interpretation of my motives.In fact, no one is winning the argument.It's a stalemate, because no one is changing his or her mind. Fishhead64 07:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To find the location of the actual voting, follow this link:Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_11#Category:Catholic_religious_life_to_Category:Roman_Catholic_religious_life.The Category: Catholic liturgy issue is posted just below.Vaquero100 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The CfD link is right up there in the part I posted. The indented part is from Fishhead's post to WPP Anglicanism. Gimmetrow 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hostile Article Movesnow voting

There is an ongoing campaign (mostly by Anglicans hostile to the Catholic Church) to erradicate from Wikipedia the name of the Catholic Church.User:Fishhead64, an Episcopalian minister, has proposed to rename these articles and categories to "Roman Catholic," with the claim that "Catholic" is ambiguous.

His next move may be to force a complete renaming and re-writing of this WikiProject because every reference on it to Catholic or Catholic Church is "ambiguous" in his opinion. "Roman" in this case is not a compliment but is rooted in 450 years of Anglican slurs against the Pope and the Catholic Church such as "Papist" and "Romish."

For a complete presentation of these naming issues based on WP conventions and policies, please see CC vs. RCC.

Please consider voting on the following talk pages (the above links by Fishhead64 do not take you directly to the talk pages):

Thanks,Vaquero100 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage editors participating in these discussions not to simply go with a knee-jerk reaction. Carefully consider each proposal on its own merits. I would also suggest that these kinds of messages, while welcome, should be worded more neutrally in the future. —Mira 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I am not hostile towards your Church, nor do I wish to eradicate the term "Catholic Church" in reference to your Church from Wikipedia, merely to contextualize it in cases of ambiguity.Vaquero100's hostile comments concerning my communion do not do justice to the exemplary ecumenical cooperation between our communions represented in such things as the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission.I have numerous Roman Catholic friends and colleagues - lay, clergy, and religious - and I am frankly shocked that he continues to impugn both my motives and my good will.
Further, I apologise that I had to remove the two categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion at the request of an admin.I explained the necessity of this action at WP:Requested Moves, and intended no "dirty trick," as Vaquero100 alleges in the discussion there.
Finally, I am an Anglican priest, not an Episcopalian one. Fishhead64 07:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs. Catholic in intro

I'm taking this to the talk page because I'm not going to get in a revert war on a project page. Vaquero100, I simply do not understand your objection to using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church," especially in contexts (such as this) where it is neccessary to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and the extensive list of churches at Catholic Church (disambiguation). Furthermore, this has been decided; the page remains at Roman Catholic Church, with Catholic Church redirecting there as a convenience. That does not mean you have free license to change links to go through the redirect. I also note from your talk page that you have been blocked for this type of behavior. I urge you to accept consensus, and spend your time working on improving articles instead. —Mira 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MiraLuka, if you haven't done the reading on this topic yet, then you need to.Your introduction of "Roman" which was snuck in in the middle of a pile of edits is simply provocative.There is an ongoing debate on this issue and it was uttlerly unnecessary for you to bring this debate to this page. If you need to fight this out here, too, then we just may have to do that.Vaquero100 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MiraLuka, judging from your own words on your userpage, you are an atheist former-Catholic. I am sorry about that.I hope that your work on WP will not be motivated by any antipathies this might suggest.

The page has been here for many months without dispute.It is you who have introduced the tension and further injured any spirit of cooperation.It was your intervention that was unnecessary. I hope that you, too, will find better uses for your efforts thant to needlessly provoke debates with Catholics.Vaquero100 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to worry or be sorry. I'm perfectly comfortable with my beliefs, thank you. I have no antipathy towards the Church, in fact I am fascinated by the historical aspects of it, which is why I joined this WikiProject. I do not see that my intervention was unnecessary, I see it as correcting a possible ambiguity. Nowhere did I suggest moving this page, because I realize the possible disruption this may cause. I changed the display of a link. Note that the link before I edited the page was [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholicism]]. The link already pointed to Roman Catholic Church rather than Catholic Church. I am not trying to needlessly provoke anyone, although I would note that this project is not a "Catholic Club," but rather a place for interested Wikipedians of all faiths to coordinate the editing of Roman Catholic related articles. Furthermore, I fail to see what is wrong with the term "Roman Catholic Church". I considered myself a Catholic until about two years ago, and I referred to myself as either Roman Catholic and Catholic interchangeably, depending on the context of the conversation and who I was talking to. My mother and grandmother, both life-long Catholics, also see nothing wrong with the term "Roman Catholic." —Mira 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's try to keep calm here.I think including Roman makes the project's scope easier to grasp.I self-identify as "Roman Catholic" and don't know of any Roman Catholics who take any umbrage at the label.If anything it clarifies that I'm not an Eastern Rite Catholic (like a Maronite), and I wouldn't be a part of the "Maronite Catholic" wiki-project if it existed because I have nothing to add to it.My $0.02.-Murcielago 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's nice that so many Catholics don't take offense at the term "Roman Catholic."It is a good, but naive thing.The institution, however, does not see it that way. WP is reporting on the institution which calls itself the "Catholic Church."The personal feelings of mothers, grandmothers, ourselves in our past or present lives have no bearing on this or any other WP article.What matters is what the institution calls itself.That fact that the institution's self identity is disregarded on WP in favor of the POV of others SHOULD cause offense regardless of one's personal feelings because the courtesey called for by WP conventions and policies extended to every other entity is being systematically denied to the Catholic Church.When the Catholic Church is singled out in such a way, as it often is, one needs to wake up see what's really going on!
WP is an intellectual exercise and should have nothing to do with emotional arguments.Unfortunately, this is an emotional issue, and unfortunately for Catholics, most of the feelings run against the Church among English speakers.Anglo-cultural anti-Catholicism is on the rise and this many month debate is really about the denial of WP policy specifically in this case in order to not honor that actual official name of the Catholic Church.Vaquero100 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Vaquero100. I could not agree with you more.In the past couple of weeks I have read a lot of what has been written by you and by others on this topic.You have well reasoned arguments succintly and clearly stated on your "arguments" page. While I agree with you on this topic, please take this bit of advice in the charitable spirit in which it is intended: as my father used to say, "you will catch more bees with honey than with vinegar."Perhaps some don't give your arguments a real chance because they are turned off by your anger--though if I were at this as long as you have been, I might be just as enraged.Still, brother, pray more and edit less.A fellow traveler.....on the other side of St. Joe's Lake.--Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link back to Roman Catholic Church before I saw this discussion here.I guess I'm not as careful, considerate and conciliatory as MiraLuka.I don't want to get in an edit war either.I should have been more careful but now that it's done, I'm going to leave my revert of Vaquero100 in place.
Here's my rationale.It's just plain dumb to get all wrapped up in insisting that the text say "Catholic Church" when it links to the Roman Catholic Church article via a redirect from Catholic Church.I would understand your point better if you could muster a consensus to rename the Roman Catholic Church article to Catholic Church.If you can't muster that consensus, then why are you fighting to win this minor battle over the intro text to a project page?Win the real battle on the "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church" naming controversy and then implement the final agreement here.I have no problem acceding to whatever the final agreement is.Until then, it only makes sense to maintain consistency between the project page and the mainspace.
P.S. I think Vaquero100's edit summary and commentary above characterizing MiraLuka's edit as "provocative" is unfair and lacks civility.It also fails to assume good faith.
--Richard 05:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Applying the term "Roman Catholic Church" to the church which is most commonly known in the world as the "Catholic Church" is contrary to the guideline WP:NCON. There are people who believe sincerely that this body does not have the right to the latter name, but as WP:NCON points out, WP is not here to impose value judgments based on such beliefs; rather WP places great weight on what is the most common name. Chonak 07:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that people here "believe sincerely that this body does not have the right to the latter name", nor are they "trying to impose value judgements". What these people "believe" is that the phrase "Catholic Church" can have many meanings, and must be preceded with something else to distingush it from the many other Catholic Churches. By far the most common of these something elses is "Roman." Unless of course, you'd prefer Wikipedia to make up a new term? —Mira 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we please NOT rehash this topic here?This debate has been beaten to death over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church.This project should follow whatever consensus has been reached there.My understanding was that the consensus is to have the article at Roman Catholic Church and a disambig page from Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church.However, that's not the current case (I'm not sure why).The current case is that there is a redirect from Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church.I don't much care whether this project page says Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church as long as we don't confuse Anglicans into thinking that this project has anything to do with their church.Seems to me that saying that it's about the Roman Catholic Church best achieves that objective.
--Richard 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't mind me, I'm a little tired and cranky. Richard is right, that discussion doesn't belong here. Please ignore my previous comment. —Mira 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict....

I think it's pretty clear that this project has to do with the Roman Catholic Church, which is why I agree the debate doesn't belong here.For those who are interested in the book-length discussion of the various nuances, please enjoy Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name at your leisure. :) Fishhead64 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Fishhead has set up camp here now too.Anyone interested in a pesentation on the issue strictly from the standpoint of Wikipedia conventions and policies, you will find it here: CC vs. RCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) 13:13, July 14, 2006

While I agree with Vaquero in principle, I have to echo Richard's comments of 05:40, 14 July 2006.Win the main battle on the main article, and then we will follow suit.We don't need to rehash this argument here, when it has been delt with elsewhere and when it just distracts us from all the work we have to do with this project.We've got some great momentum going now and I don't want to lose it over something like this.--Briancua 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Catholics might have cause for despair looking at the Wikipedia: for every Catholic who just wants to add content there's seems to be a dozen agenda-driven atheists, ex-Catholics, anti-Catholics, etc. who want to play games. The obsession with adding "Roman" to every single reference to "Catholic" in the Wikipedia is only the tip of the iceberg. patsw 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know how to reply to that other than to remind you to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. —Mira 02:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Mira, if you dont know how to reply, then dont. Pretty simple.The guy is making an observation.He is entitle to his opinion and to express it.He was not rude and did not single anyone out.Do we really need to police eachothers thoughts?Give us a break. Vaquero100 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Accusing people of being, and I quote "agenda-driven atheists, ex-Catholics, anti-Catholics, etc. who want to play games" certainly seems rude to me. —Mira 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
MiraLuka, I wish to echo Vaquero100's advice: you need to read the debate over "Catholicism" vs. "Roman Catholicism" over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church.You appear to have inadvertently and innocently walked into the minefield.If a mine goes off every once in a while, it might help if you understand why.
I do believe that Vaquero100 and others have mistakenly lumped you in with Fishhead64 and others who are pounding on the "Roman Catholicism" drum.That is a failure on their part to assume good faith but it would also help if you understand the context in which these statements are being made so as to avoid setting off people's hair-trigger sensitivities.
Finally, I will comment that I find the level of invective and vitriol exhibited in these Talk Pages ironic for a discussion among Christians.Well, maybe not.Us Christians seem to have a 2000-year history of disputing what Christianity is about.
I like the adage ... "It is better to love than to be right."I wonder if that's possible here.
--Richard 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice, and will certainly read through it if and when I get a chance. —Mira 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Richard, I would hope that good faith is being assumed on my part as well.Certainly both the motives and the goals being attributed to me by patsw are untrue (I am Catholic, not anti-Catholic, and I have no desire to eradicate the use of the term "Catholic Church" in reference to the communion headed by the Pope).I challenge anyone to find instances of personal invective or denigrating comments concerning the Roman Catholic Church in anything I have posted concerning this discussion or in any edits touching on Catholicism. Fishhead64 16:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Fishhead, you are not rude, in fact you are quite polite as you make you way around WP erradicating the name of the Catholic Church at every opportunity.You refuse to engage WP naming conventions and policy because you think you have some kind of a "birthright."That's ridiculous. WP conventions are clear and they favor the Catholic position, not the Anglican one.Whether or not one is anti-Catholic has nothing to do with politeness.The Devil himself knows when to be polite to get his way. Vaquero100 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Read what I actually write at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name.I emphatically, clearly, and absolutely believe "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" can be used synonymously in Wikipedia.I assert that there need to be guidelines, so editors don't go treading in, say, Catholic devotions erroneously believing that the article pertains to Catholic devotions. Fishhead64 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


For my part, I think we ought to use the term "Catholic" whenever possible."Roman" is a modifier that LIMITS the term "Catholic church" to a specific locale, a specific people, a specific empire.Further, the Church we all know we are talking about does include Eastern Rites which were decidedlynot Roman.Calling the church "Roman Catholic" is a convenience and a theological accomodation to those who believe the Church is false.I am emphatic, and so is the Church itself.In no official literature does it call itself the "Roman Catholic Church," period.Perhaps the only Wikipedia page that warrants the limiter "Roman" is on the page Catholic and even there only as a crutch to differentiate the Church from other newcomers.

If an group is named X, and a new entity appears and calls itself X, in standard nomenclature we limit the NEW entity to X2.In the case of the Church we have done precisely the opposite, as new entities called "Catholic" are permitted to so do while the Church is the one required to adapt its historical name.In reading articles on the subject herein, I have found historical support sadly lacking.This is my new Crusade, thank you very much. Amicuspublilius 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles-François Baillargeon

I was intending to start an article on Archbishop Baillargeon. I found that there already was one but that it was a redirect page to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Quebec. Is there a reason why I shouldn't remove the redirect and put the article there? I don't want to thwart some greater plan. (also, this may not be the spot to ask the question). If anyone has an opinion, I will hold off for a couple days. Cheers and thanks in advance. Stormbay 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason why you couldn't start an article. The redirect probably just exists because no one had enough information to actually write one. —Mira 02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Latest Assault on the Name of the Catholic Church

Fishhead, has added yet another article to be removed to another "Roman" title.This move and all others that do not recognize the name of the Catholic Church are clear violations of WP conventions and policies.Please help put a stop to this disgrace.Every other institution on WP get to name itself, except for the Catholic Church.This is clearly anti-Catholic bias.

Please see Talk:Catholic devotions] for the vote. For a review of this issues based on WP policy, see CC vs. RCC Vaquero100 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you feel very strongly about this, but I can't help but feel that notes such as this, while a good thing to have, should be worded as neutrally as possible. —Mira 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Martyrs

I presume that in your missionaries section, editors will be looking to link and otherwise improve the articles on the eight people involved above. While doing so, someone may be able to clarify Jean de Lalande. At various sources he is listed as a layman assisting the Jesuits while at others he is referred to as a Jesuit priest. If it matters, it would be nice to find a definitive reference and edit the article as appropriate. I was unable to find a reference that swung me one way or the other. Thanks! Stormbay 17:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Project Catholicism 101

Template:Project Catholicism 101 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Mira 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Papal conclave

Papal conclave is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Auxiliary bishops

I have noted that several of the pages on particular diocese/archdiocese list all of the bishops who have administered that diocese.I am also aware that there is a history of individual bishops who think that the work might be too much for them to request and often received auxiliary bishops.It occurs to me that it is possible that the most significant events oin the life of an individual bishop's life might have been in the time he was serving as an auxiliary bishop (if he did so).Having said that, no specific instances like that come to mind.Do the rest of you think it would make sense to list all the auxiliary bishops who have served a diocese as well as the regular bishops?If so, how? They could either be listed separately (say in a listing below the main list) or listed with, perhaps, two bullets instead of one, making it clear that they function under the main bishop.I would welcome any responses.Badbilltucker 13:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic University of America and The Knights of Columbus

I question whether this article is encyclopedic enough to stand on its own, or if pieces of it should be merged into the individual articles. See WP:ORG for details.--SarekOfVulcan 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Church's Name

Apart from the controversy over naming WP pages and projects with "Roman" or not, I feel like it might make an interesting article to document what names have been used by whom with what intent for the Catholic Church through history. Though polemical in tone, Vaquero has put together a lot of information and arguments here. -- Meyer 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Two CFDs

Two categories relating to this project are currently being considered for renaming:

A rename of Category:WikiProject Catholicism 101 to Category:WikiProject Catholicism in order to match the recent change of the project's name has been proposed here.

A rename of Category:WikiProject Catholicism members to Category:WikiProject Catholicism participants has been proposed here.

Please join in the discussions. —Mira 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bible

Bible study

I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bible versions

It'd be a good idea to write, for each translation of the Bible, if it's in British or American English, and to provide a link to a page giving the list of countries whose bishops conference have approved the use of that version in liturgy, if any.

Does anyone know which version is approved for use in liturgy in the U.K., Ireland, English speaking Africa? --Henri de Solages 05:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of Biblical Quote Template

As you may know, there is a template for refrencing Biblica quotes.The idea is that one simply clicks on a passage, when used as a refrence, and is taken there.For example: 14:12.Sometimes the link goes to a huge list of Bibles, for example: Mark 7:1-4.

  • First, I would like to know how to link to a particular Bible - is there a list of the abbreviations for the various translations?
  • Second, there is a great lack of conformity in the use od this feature.Sometimes no link is given, sometimes the link goes to the list, and sometimes to the passage.Should we go through all the catholic pages and impose a uniform policy here?Personally, I find it annoying to be linked to a huge list.
  • Third, if we do, and we link all passages to a certain translation, should all the catholic articles use the same translation, for uniformity (maybe Douai-Rheims)?
  • Fourth, is it just me, or is the website with the quotations rather ugly, both in color and script?

Lostcaesar 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd note that there is some discussion going on at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible which may be relevant, and also that determining which translation to link to has been one of the larger controversies, as I recall. —Mira 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I use the translation found on the US Catholic Bishops conference whenever I quote from the Bible.--Briancua 03:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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 Catholicism WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.Thanks! Walkerma 06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for submitting a list.Sorry I'd missed the fact that you are already using the bot, it was getting very late! Cheers, Walkerma 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A page for Attention?

The page, Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal, may be of some interest to the project. It may be a candidate for expansion, merging, or whatever. I'm sure you are aware of it but, if not, this is a "heads up". Cheers! Stormbay

Mother Theresa POV

It would do a lot of good for this page's criticisms to be distributed throughout the article rather than concentrated in one section. This, I think, is the Wikipedia guideline. There also seems to be undue weight as the section of the criticism is the longest. I don't think the critisms against her is the most important part of the article.--Nino Gonzales 02:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church distinction between meat and nonmeat

There's an ongoing discussion right now on Talk:Beaver about the distinction that the Roman Catholic Church draws between meat and nonmeat for the purposes of the Ash Wednesday/Good Friday/Fridays during Lent prohibition.It seems that there is some authority (based on a passage in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica) that animals that are regarded as principally aquatic (including fish, and presumably including beavers) are treated as nonmeat for this purpose, and it seems that there is some authority (see citations in the Beaver article and additional references in Talk:Beaver) that the Church continues to adhere to this distinction.The notion that "the Church thinks that beavers are fish" seems too silly to some.Come check out the discussion at Talk:Beaver.Spikebrennan 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaplet of Divine Mercy

This article may interest someone. it needs work and is uncated at the moment. Stormbay

I've added a category, but I don't really know enough about the topic to feel wholly comfortable editing it. —Mira 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I have been referring articles here that I spot that probably have some significance for the project. Is this the best spot? Stormbay 18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is. —Mira 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Roman Catholics

This may interest someone in the project (or not). Cheers! Stormbay

Contacting the Vatican News Service- to ask them to release their images as GFDL

A lot of the pope images that we use are fair use, and the rationale isn't that great for the images. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about this - if someone who speaks better Italian than me could contact these people (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_index_ita.html) and get official permission to use their images under the GFDL. Does anyone feel up to this challenge ? Megapixie 05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my Italian is nonexistent -- I'm a danger to myself in a restaurant.The Vatican has always been insistent on intellectual property protection for its materials (people just didn't notice until recently).I think that the GFDL will not be acceptable to them, as it does not allow for restrictions on commercial use or modifications, which I am rather sure that they do want to restrict.Perhaps a Creative Commons license along the lines of atribution/noncommercial/no-derivatives might be acceptable, with some careful work.CC licenses have been accepted as legal and enforcable in the EU in at least one court case.But it will take some discussion with them, and therefore, it's fair use up until then. --ClaudeMuncey 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

François-Louis de Pourroy de Lauberivière

This ia a new stub that may be of interest to this project. Stormbay

Latin Mass Society of Australia

I saw this show up in RCP and wonder if it should be cleaned up and kept. Can someone take a look at it and see if it's a notable group worth keeping? Looks like a traditionalist, pro-tridentine, somewhat sedevacantist group not currently in good standing with the church. Article badly needs cleanup: POV, apparently written by a member. Per the article, also goes by Society of St Pius the X. Fan-1967 13:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Aulneau

Jean-Pierre Aulneau was Jesuit missionary and martyr who may be of interest to this project. (I have posted a few of these type of notices here. If they are annoying; tell me to stop. If they are being read and will potentially be useful, please let me know. Thanks and "happy editing!" Stormbay 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing you should probably do with these articles is place Template:Project Catholicism on the talk page. That should alert people to the existance of the articles. —Mira 20:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It is easy to alert someone when one comes across something. I just want to make sure someone who might edit the article further is actually reading the page where I am posting. Jean-Pierre Aulneau, for example, is not in the Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Missionaries listing. Should he be? and that sort of thing..thanks again! Stormbay 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about the Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics project, but my understanding is that it is a list of articles that need to be created, not articles that already have been created. —Mira 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Salvation

User Danras is wreaking havoc on this article, particularly the Roman Catholic section.Could someone look at this?I'm not much of a wikipedian myself, but this has been bothering me greatly.His comments on the talk page betray his intentions.--Antelucan 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A RfC was made[3] to resolve a revert war involving Danras against Lima and myself.The section in question should fall under the scope of this project, and I would appreciate your input (additionally, please consider the in-need-of-attention Salvation in Catholicism article).--Antelucan 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vatican II era in the Catholic Church (1961-1978)

This title was listed in the to-do list. It seems, however, to be a rather strange way to identify the given era. It suggests, falsely, that either Vatican II ended in 1978 or its implementation did.Dcheney 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pope Paul VI, the Pope who ratified Vatican II, died in 1978.Maybe Popes John Paul I and II are considered the start of the post-Vatican II era. -- Cat Whisperer 02:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

English parish nano-stubs

I've come across large numbers of almost content-free stubs on English RC parishes (or perhaps parish churches -- it's not entirely clear which.I've made two rather overlapping lists according to how they're stub-tagged, here, and here.Could someone have a look at these articles and tidy them up somehow:perhaps by expanding them somewhat to have some meaningful content, redirecting them to a "list of" article, or at the least, stub-tagging them more consistently.I'm also going to leave a note at the UK Wikipedians' notice board.Alai 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Status

One of the things we could consider doing is making a list of B Grade article that could be nominated for Good Article status.There must be quite a few articles in this category.

JASpencer 22:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Joan of Arc

Hi, I'd like to ask some editors from this project to evaluate Joan of Arc and its talk page, particularly the Visions section.This FA has come under criticism from a particular editor who thinks it is religiously biased.In the interest of fairness I'm seeking input from both Catholics and atheists.No specific expertise about Joan of Arc is necessary - just seeking fresh eyes and general impressions.Please leave reactions on the article talk page.Thank you. Durova 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral Stubs

Hello. Has there been any concerted effort or plan to improve the many cathedral article stubs?CF18000 09:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Actually, Judging from the cathedral lists, most of the pages have not been created yet at all. In the following list of cathedrals in Chile, only one of these exists. Perhaps there could be an effort to remedy this situation?

  • Catedral San Marcos in Arica (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Inmaculada Concepción in Iquique (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral San José in Antofagasta (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral San Juan Bautista in Calama (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Nuestra Señora del Rosario in Copiapó (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de la Mercedin La Serena (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de San Rafael in Illapel (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de San Felipe in San Felipe (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de Santiago in Valparaíso (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral San José in Melipilla (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Metropolitana de Santiago in Santiago de Chile (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de San Bernardo in San Bernardo (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral El Sagrario in Rancagua (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral San Agustín in Talca (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de San Ambrosio in Linares (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral San Carlos de Borromeo in Chillán (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Santa María de los Ángeles in Los Ángeles (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Nuestra Señora Inmaculada Concepción in Concepción (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de San José in Temuco (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Sagrado Corazón in Villarrica (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Nuestra Señora del Rosario in Valdivia (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral San Mateo Apóstol in Osorno (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral de la Virgen del Carmen in Puerto Montt (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Nuestra Señora del Rosario de la Cordillera in San Carlos de Ancud (Roman Catholic)
  • Co-Catedral Santa Teresita in Puerto Aysén (Roman Catholic)
  • Co-Catedral Nuestra Señora de los Doloresin Coyhaique (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Sagrado Corazón in Punta Arenas (Roman Catholic)
  • Catedral Castrense de Nuestra Señora del Carmen Obispado Castrense de Chile (Bishopric of the Armed Forces) in Santiago de Chile (Roman Catholic)
IMHO an article on the diocese should come first, in which the cathedral can be mentioned as one of the sections - see e.g. my article Diocese of Surat Thani. I don't think all the cathedrals are notable enough to have a separate article, especially in those countries which have very few catholics the cathedral is often just a normal church which happen to be the largest or most central one of the diocese. andy 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic bishops of Canada

You might consider a Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Canada since the more general cats. are large. Thanks! Stormbay 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

James Louis O'Donel, (1737-1811), the first Roman Catholic bishop of St. John's, Newfoundland has his own article if someone wants to link him somewhere. Stormbay 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Article for Consideration, please comment

I think there should be some kind of page that defends the church. Some kind of apolgetic page to defend the truth of the Catholic Church. It should say that Catholics are Christians. What were geting now among Evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, and other such churches are considering Catholic and Christian as two diffrent things. Catholics are Christians and we need the evidence and proof to show people on Wikipedia. Please I think that a article like this needs to be created. Please take this into consideration. Please comment on what you think by this.

Papal Tiara FAR

I've initiated a minor FAR for Papal Tiara. I hope that someone from this WikiProject can address the concerns I've raised there. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice for naming standard for articles on dioceses and archdioceses

I was wondering if I could get some advice regarding a proposal I have made at Talk:List of Roman Catholic dioceses to in some way standardise the naming of articles on dioceses and archdioceses. Thylacoleo 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)