Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Christianity Project‑class | |||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Interview for The Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Christianity for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please consider answering the questions; we would love to run this interview soon. Thanks! Go Phightins! 01:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this earlier. Would having the answers put in later this week be enough? I should be able to do something marginally competent by then. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @StAnselm:, @In ictu oculi:, @Adjwilley:, @Astynax:, @Ad Orientem:, @PiCo:, @Jeffro77:, @BlackCab:, @Mmeijeri:, @Evensteven: @Johnbod:, @Neelix:, and, well, anyone else I might have easily missed in the quick review I made here, any input any of you might have would be more than welcome as well. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: and @Dougweller: might have some interesting comments to make as well. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to move Methodism to Child Project
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Methodism Jerodlycett (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The Return of the Ret. Prof.
Anyone feel like chiming in at WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE? John Carter (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification
Hi John, I actually did not leave, but took your good advice to review WP Policy. Although most of our disagreements have been worked out, clarification is needed regarding the 50 CE date for Matthew. I agree with John that it would be good to have others join in on the debate WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have closed the discussion per WP:NOTHERE. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding notability of Methodist bishops
OK, I've been out of the game regarding notability for some time now. Draft:Jeremiah J. Park is a current draft space article relating to a living Methodist bishop. Have we ever determined anything regarding the presumptive or inherent notability of Methodist bishops? John Carter (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- It would seem note; they fall in the crack between the two groups mentioned at WP:CLERGY. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I (though the author of the draft, and probably biased on this) feel that they are notable as the leaders of the Methodist churches. We don't have popes nor cardinals, we have bishops. It seems that Catholic bishops tend to get a pass, even though from a rough count there are more Catholic bishops in the US than Methodist bishops (in the major denominations of it) in the world. The UMC has fewer total bishops than the Catholics do in my home state of Pennsylvania. I'd put ours on the level of cardinals, not bishops. Again I am somewhat biased. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm virtually certain they are myself, which is why I asked a rather obviously leading question about including the UMC in the text of a relevant page [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Question regarding United Methodist Church bishops here]. But it probably would be a good idea to get support from at least someone else before including it and maybe having some objections later. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Need extra eyes at Kip McKean and ICC articles
Hi all, I'd like to request that a few of you please add Kip McKean and International Christian Church to your watchlists. Over the past year or so I've been dealing off and on with a user who is a former member of these churches this church, he seems to have an axe to grind, and seems interested in covering the accusations that the church is a cult. This is well beyond my expertise (as if I have any) and extra eyes would be helpful in maintaining NPOV and helping to take some of the burden off my shoulders. He tends to come by, write a lot of stuff on the talk page, then disappear. His most recent input is here. Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just have to ask, how biased are you? As a Methodist and a son of a pastor in the UMC I do actually have a bias I have to keep in mind (see the conversation about bishops), so I'm not accusing you (I've not even looked at either page yet, nor know anything about either of those). Jerodlycett (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Jerodlycett:, I'm only watching these articles in my capacity as a wikignome. I believe what brought me there originally is that this user placed a {{help me}} template on one of the talk pages and I happened to be cruising Category:Wikipedians looking for help. I don't have a connection to this church or any other. My bias is centered squarely on the other editor, because they have been be engaged in a long-term pattern of soapboxing at both of these articles' talk pages. I brought him to ANI for this reason, and that was his second trip—he's been soapboxing since 2010. If there is sufficient reason to include info about cult accusations, I'm all for it (if it is not UNDUE and it fits NPOV), but I would prefer that editors with more experience in the topic make the determinations. My default position is to ignore him when he posts, but since that's not entirely fair to him, I'm asking this WikiProject to take a look with clean eyes. He's recently posted again here and I just discovered that he's also been active at Talk:International Churches of Christ, which now I have to watchlist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Working on an article and would love collaboration
I already made a major revision to Urbana (conference), an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student missions conference, and I plan on continuing to expand, cleanup, and add more reliable sources to it in the next few weeks. I would love some help if you'd be interested. I especially need someone who is good at writing to fix my less-than-stellar prose. Reply here if you'd like to volunteer, or simply be bold and edit. Thanks! ~EdGl! 03:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Category:Christian denominational families
You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 10#Category:Christian denominational families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories on church councils
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 22#Church councils accepted by Protestantism where I think the input of WikiProject Christianity members would be helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
UK/US parish churches
I notice that most UK parish churches have articles, whether or not historic buildings, while in the US we almost never make such articles. I'm a little curious why. I could argue more easily for including the US. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would respectfully reply that abuse of standards is not a good argument for lowering them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good question, difficult answer. I tend to think, at least on a personal basis, that the various parishes in the UK are probably more historically significant, and that perhaps the editors of the UK tend to be more willing and able to find readily available sources for writing articles on parishes other than their own. Unfortunately, while I agree that there are almost certainly enough diocesan and archdiocesan newspapers to establish notability for most parishes, I also know from experience that finding those diocesan newspapers can be a bit more problematic, particularly for those outside of the editor's particular area. And I think that maybe, as in my own archdiocese, which recently merged several parishes together, the possibility of merging/renaming of parishes, and former "parish churches" becoming "chapels," or subordinate churches within individual parishes, is another problem. There are at least a few of those in town here, where older "ethnic" parishes have been merged into regional parishes. And these, of course, are in addition to the often much shorter history and fewer readily available, obvious sources. Having said that, for a lot of parishes in the older states of the US which probably have more material on the net written about them, I don't think it would be unreasonable to see more developed, if we had editors interested in doing so. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- For the merging, see {{Infobox organization}} and the merger option. Jerodlycett (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good question, difficult answer. I tend to think, at least on a personal basis, that the various parishes in the UK are probably more historically significant, and that perhaps the editors of the UK tend to be more willing and able to find readily available sources for writing articles on parishes other than their own. Unfortunately, while I agree that there are almost certainly enough diocesan and archdiocesan newspapers to establish notability for most parishes, I also know from experience that finding those diocesan newspapers can be a bit more problematic, particularly for those outside of the editor's particular area. And I think that maybe, as in my own archdiocese, which recently merged several parishes together, the possibility of merging/renaming of parishes, and former "parish churches" becoming "chapels," or subordinate churches within individual parishes, is another problem. There are at least a few of those in town here, where older "ethnic" parishes have been merged into regional parishes. And these, of course, are in addition to the often much shorter history and fewer readily available, obvious sources. Having said that, for a lot of parishes in the older states of the US which probably have more material on the net written about them, I don't think it would be unreasonable to see more developed, if we had editors interested in doing so. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can I get a definition (or example) of a parish? I come from the UMC and if we use parish, it's to refer to the church and the church body together, so I don't think I'm using it the same way. Jerodlycett (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"Most" UK parish churches certainly do not have articles, & most that do are historic. We have 40,000 medieval churches (at least in significant part) in England alone, & few of these have articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's a very good point and one that we, on the other side of the pond, might tend to forget. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ret. Prof. and the Gospel of Matthew
I invite input from parties who have previously been involved in the numerous related discussions over the years to review the material at WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE and offer their opinions on the optimum way to resolve this long-standing problem. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- The 50 CE date is a very recent issue??? In any event I agree that fresh input is a good thing! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- PS The wording almost sounds like you are canvassing for an attack on me???- Friendly warning, that could be misconstrued as WP:NPA. The editor had no such wording. You should have notified this project yourself, honestly. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)