Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints. 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. |
| Archive 1 | â | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Veneration
- The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
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)
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)
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)
- Qxz, the user who started the ads, is now User:Gurch, he's created a ad for one of my wikiprojects. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just saw this category, which seems to possibly be related to the project. Any opinions as to whether they should be included or not? John Carter 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, considering we have included a few Cao Dai saints in the scope, I personally wouldn't imagine that adopting a few articles that do already overlap with our previously established "orthodox" Christian base would hurt. I would support. Alekjds talk 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, considering the revision of the Portal:Saints recently, we might want to reconsider removing the Cao Dei saints as well. Personally, I have proposed again that there be a work group of Biography to deal with the majority of the non-Christian religious figures, but it has so far gotten rather little support. If such a group ever does get established, I think then we could reasonably limit ourselves to those parties included in specifically Christian lists of blessed people or those included in Christian liturgical calendars. John Carter 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- If that were possible, that would be ideal. Alekjds talk 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed.Murcielago 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, considering the revision of the Portal:Saints recently, we might want to reconsider removing the Cao Dei saints as well. Personally, I have proposed again that there be a work group of Biography to deal with the majority of the non-Christian religious figures, but it has so far gotten rather little support. If such a group ever does get established, I think then we could reasonably limit ourselves to those parties included in specifically Christian lists of blessed people or those included in Christian liturgical calendars. John Carter 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Prayer revisited
I think it might be a good idea to try to add the "official" prayer (or, in some cases, one of the "official" prayers) to the articles within the scope of this project to the majority of the pages of the individual saints. Certainly, in some cases we may have very little hard data to go with, and these prayers will often contain at least a hint of the reason the person(s) was/were declared saints in the first place. We might even (potentially) be able to add a "prayer" section to the portal. I think our biggest problem would be in trying to find some non-POV introduction which would make it harder to object to its inclusion. One suggestion, just to get discussion started:
- "The (church) has recognized (person) as a saint. It has also created the following liturgical prayer indicating what it believes to be the individual's "qualifying" characteristics: ...."
A very rough draft, but if anyone can think of any way to "polish it up" to make it more generally acceptable, I personally would love to see it. John Carter 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Before I am accused of bad faith I will highlight this edit of mine. The proposition seems to me to be a thoroughly bad idea. (Which means, of course, that the idiot whom I will not nameâbut think saints project and total idiot and you might just guess who I mean (certainly not User:Warlordjohncarter)âwill now do his best to challenge my every edit to the length of a river or the depth of a lake.) Oh my god! âIan Spackman 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- The specific cases I'm primarily thinking of are cases when the majority of the hard data we have is "(person) was killed by Diocletian", and there are a lot of them. In many of these cases, the prayer, if it dates back near the person's time, might contain something about the person which may not have survived in any other form, perhaps a reference to some data which isn't otherwise substantiated, for example. But, certainly, I would only think the addition would be called for in cases when the article would otherwise be short or lacking in details or when it may not be otherwise clear why the person is regarded as a saint in the first instance. Albrecht DĂŒrer comes to mind as an instance of the latter. And, yes, in some cases, Theodora and Justinian I come to mind here, to perhaps indicate that some of their actions which might be objectionable to one church (like maybe killing heretics) might make that person a saint to one of the other churches, perhaps the one that ordered the killing. Also, there is a precedent in wikipedia for such inclusion, as indicated earlier, as indicated on the John Andrews (Medal of Honor) page, where the text for his secular Medal of Honor citation is included verbatim. However, clearly, in some cases, like Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Mary (mother of Jesus), when their status as saints is generally fairly well known and understood, there I think such inclusion would probably be both redundant and possibly unnecessarily lengthening, particularly if they have several feasts. John Carter 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Having look through the archives at the old debates about this, I really think that this might not be the road we want to go down. It seems to me - as a general idea - to not be the worst thought; but in the particulars it is a real can of worms. I think of examples, even with my own tradition: Do we use the new ELW prayers (ELCA) or the new TLH (LC-MS), or do we use the older but still widely used LBW or LW prayers. And that's just among the Lutherans, then you start to consider: is it the Orthodox or Roman Catholic prayer, etc, etc, etc (not to mention the people who think that all prayers are to POV to be included at all). It seems to be edit wars just waiting to happen.
- Perhaps the following might work as a suggestion. We make no "general rule" about the inclusion/exclusion of prayers, but a statement to the effect of: Where a prayer adds relevant information to the article about a saint - either about his/her life or cultus - it may be included, along with a direct explanation of relevance. -- Pastordavid 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can go with that. And it would make sense that if one specific prayer contained more info than another, that would be the one chosen. I do think that it would included in the "Veneration" section of the article, if anywhere. John Carter 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't generally like including primary sources in their entirety, be they song lyrics, poems, prayers, etc.; that's what Wikisource is for. I doubt very many articles will benefit from including an entire prayer, why not just discuss the prayer and its relevance without including it?--CĂșchullain t/c 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can go with that. And it would make sense that if one specific prayer contained more info than another, that would be the one chosen. I do think that it would included in the "Veneration" section of the article, if anywhere. John Carter 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The Saint award
|
 The Saint Barnstar
| |
| Award to a project who have done exemplary work on Saints!!!! Keep up the great work everybody!!! ⊠Sir Blofeld ⊠"Expecting you" Contribs 10:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)) |
- So, anyone have any ideas what we do with this? :) John Carter 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, group barnstar. We could put it on our Members page I guess. Alekjds talk 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I hadn't even thought of that. Good idea. John Carter 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, group barnstar. We could put it on our Members page I guess. Alekjds talk 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Saints Star Award | |
| The Saints Star Award. |
- What are you guys talking about? We have {{Saints Star Award}}. --evrik (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, of course there is already a saints award. I'm guessing that Mr. Blofield either did not know that, or wanted to make his own. The conversation above centers around what we should do with the award after having gotten it. Alekjds talk 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever you want. ;-) --evrik (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that but you guys deserve it anyway!!! ⊠Sir Blofeld ⊠"Expecting you" Contribs 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Redundancy
In the same vein, I just noticed that we have pages for Saint Cyril, Saint Methodius, and Saints Cyril and Methodius. Does anyone one think that we could merge these? As I think that neither is particularly notable individually, maybe making the page for both of them the one that remains? John Carter 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, given that their lives almost completely overlap (they have the same feast day and everything), I think that a merger to the SS. Cyril and Methodius page is warranted. The naming convention would probably demand that we change it to "Cyril and Methodius," I imagine, although perhaps that would not be necessary. Alekjds talk 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you check out the talk pages, such a merge has been proposed before, and met a fair amount of opposition. I think you could get such a proposed merge to work, but I would get some folks from the Greek orthodox tradition on board before proposing it. -- Pastordavid 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a point there, as Methodius survived sixteen years longer and became a bishop. Maybe we could propose merging Saint Cyril and Saints Cyril and Methodius, leaving Methodius, who did some other things later, a standing page as is? John Carter 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- ehhh leave it be. --evrik (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration
The new WikiProject Saints Collaboration is up for this month. Help us to improve this article, and make suggestions or voice your support for our next collaboration. -- Pastordavid 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
An idea about feast days
It was brought up a while ago on Portal:Saints about how we could organize a liturgical calendar schematic for presenting saints articles on the Portal page. My idea is that we could have a category for each feast day of the year. Of course different churches have different feasts for the same saint, but this could be representing by naming the categories thus:
- 1 January feast days (Western)
- 1 January feast days (Eastern)
- 1 January feast days (Coptic)
Et cetera. Also, we could have a little nav box on the "body" of each category page, with something on it like...
You know the drill. There's probably a more efficient template for that. Anyway, that's my idea. I acknowledge the tedious downside of manually completing this task (plus, what, creating 600-900 new categories if we want to fill out the Orthodox and Coptic calendars as well as the RC?), but I do think that it has many advantages. Alekjds talk 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- As an alternative, maybe just creating an individual page for each day of the year, with divisions for the individual traditions/denominations? Because, unfortunately, there have been a number of saints who either have different feast days in different calendars, have multiple feasts in the same calendar, and/or have had their feasts moved and/or discontinued, and the amount of categorization involved in doing all of this might be rather excessive. John Carter 02:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's already a set of articles for the Orthodox Church calendar that has been extensively filled in. See Eastern Orthodox Church calendar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of them. I also know of articles on several of the individual Calendars of saints. For what little it might be worth, I think the articles referenced by User:Csernica above may at some point, given their short length, be combined into one larger and more detailed article, and that perhaps a single page listing all the known observances by Christian denominations, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and whatever else, might be the best way to ultimately go. Said articles will have substantially more content, and will stand a much better chance of ultimately reaching Featured list or some similar status. John Carter 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I was just looking at those same articles (the Orthodox calendar by day articles) and thinking the same thing - that they need to be compressed to at least by month. There are plenty of examples of what the liturgical calendars "by denomination" look like, and I think, as John noted, that there is a chance for some of these to wind up being pretty decent articles. The articles that are "by date" are just too limited to ever be particularly useful. Pastor David â (Review) 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. If the day-by-day articles are too short, then I can't help but feel that monthly articles might be too long, especially if we're going to be exhaustive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking of a day by day article, but one article showing the observances of all the churches. Not individual articles for each of the various churches. John Carter 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. If the day-by-day articles are too short, then I can't help but feel that monthly articles might be too long, especially if we're going to be exhaustive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I was just looking at those same articles (the Orthodox calendar by day articles) and thinking the same thing - that they need to be compressed to at least by month. There are plenty of examples of what the liturgical calendars "by denomination" look like, and I think, as John noted, that there is a chance for some of these to wind up being pretty decent articles. The articles that are "by date" are just too limited to ever be particularly useful. Pastor David â (Review) 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of them. I also know of articles on several of the individual Calendars of saints. For what little it might be worth, I think the articles referenced by User:Csernica above may at some point, given their short length, be combined into one larger and more detailed article, and that perhaps a single page listing all the known observances by Christian denominations, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and whatever else, might be the best way to ultimately go. Said articles will have substantially more content, and will stand a much better chance of ultimately reaching Featured list or some similar status. John Carter 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's already a set of articles for the Orthodox Church calendar that has been extensively filled in. See Eastern Orthodox Church calendar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) That sounds good, too. Let's try this: individual day articles, covering all traditions - John, could you put together a test one of these in userspace (i have an empty sandbox page if you need it). As to the many orthodox "by date" pages, I will try pulling together a "by month" one in my userspace as well (it will take me a couple of days, I'll post here when I've got it). That way, we can all see what we are talking about. -- Pastor David â (Review) 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I personally like the "day by day" approach (per John Carter's suggestion), since I think month articles would become ridiculously long, but of course both should be considered given their merits as discussed above. Alekjds talk 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is sensible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is an early attempt at what one of these might look like. I acknowledge that they would probably have to be changed on an annual basis (taking into account movable feasts and the differences in calendars), and that a lot of information isn't included yet. But it at least gives an idea of what the final draft might look like. John Carter 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That looks good (you have gotten much further on your example that I have on mine :)). Would you mind if some of us jumped in and did some editing on the example? Pastor David â (Review) 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. John Carter 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Request article name change
The page Adrian of Nicomedia previously had no separate content relating to the wife of the subject, who actually survived him by some time, Saint Natalia. Given that there is now at least some content relating specifically to Natalia in her time after Adrian's death, I believe the page's name should be changed to Adrian and Natalia of Nicomedia. Comments? John Carter 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Be Bold. Go for it. Pastordavid 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration
It is time for changing out our Project Collaboration article. Currently we have three candidates for next months collaboration. If you have a suggestion for what might make a great collaboration, or would like to voice your support for one of the others, please visit the Collaboration page - a new collaboration will be posted in a couple of days. Pastordavid 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mother Teresa is our current collaboration. Pastordavid 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Current Collaboration
Our current collaboration has just been awarded GA-status. Congratulations to all who helped out! More work is still needed, so stop on by Mother Teresa, and let's see if we can't reach FA. Pastordavid 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It is time, once again, to change out our collaboration. Our last collaboration, Mother Teresa, was raised to GA status. Please consider dropping by the collaboration page to vote for this month's collaboration, I will select a new article for us sometime late tonight or tomorrow. Pastordavid 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Notice
One of the articles in the scope of our project is a featured list candidate. Please express your opinion. Pastordavid 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The article above is a candidate for being transferred to Wikisource. If anyone can supply information beyond simply the quotation, it would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Version 1.0 articles
The version 0.7 release of wikipedia is slated to have about 3,000 articles. I believe that the articles in our scope, and relating to Christianity in general, are woefully underrepresented. The Virgin Mary had not been included to date, and Moses still isn't. I would greatly appreciate any nominations for inclusion in the next release version below, based on either their importance or their quality. Nominations of Start class can be made on the basis of great importance, B class or higher on the combined bases of quality and importance. Thank you. John Carter 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Current Collaboration
Our current Wikiproject Saints collaboration, Bishop Henry, is listed as a Featured Article Candidate. Please voice your opinion about the article. With the current collaboration already up as a FA nom, I will probably change out the collaboration article a little early this month - right now Saint Peter looks like it will be the collaboration. Pastordavid 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for input on Portal:Saints
The time to update the portal is approaching. Anyone who has a particular item they'd like to see in the portal for next month should indicate as much by Friday. Thanks. John Carter 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- No one has worked on the portal in almost seven months. It's embarrassing. Philly jawn (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Identify a saint
Can someone identify the saint in this image Image:Italian breviary c. 1380 women.jpg? I would like to update the info in the Commons. Thanks. - PKM 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Saint Maurice#Request for Comment:Image in Infobox about which image of the subject should be used in the infobox. Any comments are welcome. John Carter 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Chronological list of saints
I've recently gone through the chronological lists of saints and converted the tables to wikitable format. I have the feeling that the tables are incomplete or inaccurate. This would be a possible task for someone from this project to work on. Psychless 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding "completeness", I personally have no doubt whatsoever that they aren't complete, consiering the thousands of saints, beati, etc., out there. I know personally that there are several thousand listed in various reference books which I know aren't included yet. Regarding accuracy, accuracy is a big issue in the purported lives of several of these people, many of whom are recorded as having been involved in events which many/most of us consider extremely unlikely. I can try to work on them, but no guarantees on when I'll get to them. Any help from others would also be greatly appreciated, particularly regarding referencing the information included. John Carter 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Request
For article on Saint Moses the Hungarian. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Category for deletion
I have proposed Category:Decanonized saints for deletion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28. It is a long-time problem category that can't be fixed any other way beyond deleting it. Please weigh in with your opinions.--CĂșchullain t/c 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Money for writing, chicks for free
The above contest has been started which will give five people who have done the most article improvement US$100. each. Several of these articles fall within the scope of this project, including Abraham, Albrecht Durer, Augustine of Hippo, Benedict of Nursia, Columba, and several others as well. The full list is Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles. Granted, the paraphrase of the Dire Straits title above isn't all directly relevant to the contest, particularly the last half, but I figured it might get a few more of you to look at this comment. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
New award being given out to projects
I'm not sure how many of you know this, but I think that right now this project is one of the few that has ever received an award or barnstar as a project. I mention this because there is a new triple crown award specifically for WikiProjects, at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle#Special edition WikiProject triple crowns. Each of these awards will be specifically made for the winning project. Many of you know that I haven't actally written even a single GA myself yet, so I'm not particularly useful in this regard, but if any of the rest of you can point out articles that you have written which might qualify this project for that award, I'd love to see the project get one. Please include any qualifying information below, and if we've got enough I'll try to submit it. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've got a regular 3x crown, which relates to the project. If four other editors have 3x crowns on the project, we qualify for the special wikiproject edition. Pastordavid (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the project level award is intended to foster collaboration. So if several editors collaborate on the same GA and FA, they can each qualify as long as they each contribute at least 10 citations (please provide diffs so I don't lose my hair verifying the submissions). The only thing that needs to be unique to each editor is the DYK. Best wishes! It'd be a really interesting thing to Photoshop an award for you. DurovaCharge! 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Multiple saints collaborations?
One of the difficulties in dealing with a collaboration for a project like this one is the rather difficult scope of the project. We effectively deal with a section of the content of five distinct WikiProjects, WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WikiProject Lutheranism, and WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as some additional content within the scope of our parent WikiProject Christianity. As a result, parties interested primarily in one branch of Christianity, from any of our related faith-specific projects, might have less interest in working on an article relating primarily or exclusively to some other faith. I wonder what you all might think of changing the collaboration from one monthly collaboration to five simultaneous collaborations, one relating primarily to each of the five traditions above. At least initially, I think there are probably 50-100 articles that are going to be very important to more than one tradition, and that we might get more input this way. I have also taken the liberty of contacting the projects mentioned above for any input they might like to give on this matter. I would think, rather than monthly, we might permit a collaboration to remain until and unless it receives, say, at least a GA nominataion. I would welcome any input, positive or negative. If the response were to be positive, I would think that we might be able to start sometime in January with the multiple concurrent collaborations. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with dropping the monthly idea, but I think we should try to work on the 50-100 or so common articles before setting up separate colabs. Is St Paul GA? How about St Augustine? St John? St Thomas? St Ambrose? There are many saints that everyone would like to see go to GA. -- SECisek (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's more or less the intended reason for the proposal above. My real intended purpose was to make it the case that all five collaborations would be nominated for GA (or, potentially, FA, as the case may be), before new collaborations begin. The reasoning is partially due to articles like Mark the Evangelist, Athanasius of Alexandria, and others where the subject is an extremely significant figure in the history of the Oriental Orthodox Church and Christianity as a whole, but one who would still very likely not be among the first ones proposed. Then, when all five collaborations (or maybe more, depending on how many other churches, like the Arian church, declared individuals saints) have reached their intended nomination, new articles would be nominated for all five groups. Doing it this way would permit each related project to maybe concentrate on their own chosen nominee initially as those articles are developed, but still hopefully draw a bit more attention to the others. And I do think actively involving the other projects to this degree might help speed up the improvement process. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Naming Conventions and links
Hi, My question is regarding naming conventions. I was editing Cainnech of Aghaboe and thought that i would link from other pages where he is mentioned (such as Kilkenny) where he is referred to as St. Canice. There is a redirect from St. Canice to Cainnech of Aghaboe but should the kilkenny page use the link [[Cainnech of Aghaboe|St. Canice]] or [[St. Canice]]. Maybe it makes no difference but if there way a best practice it would be helpful; and maybe this is a silly question but anyway,thanks Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, it's preferable not to link to a redirect page, but rather to the article page itself. So, in this case, depending on how you want to do it, you could do "Saint Cainnech of Aghaboe", "[[Cainnech of Aghaboe|St. Canice]]", os any similar variation. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- At the same time it is generally preferable not to change redirects into direct links, per WP:R2D, and it is particularly meaningless to do so by using a piped link.--Doug.(talk âą contribs) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Digital Patrologia Latina
May be of interest: there is a digital edition of Migne's Patrologia Latina available, along with a whole lot more material at www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/_index.html which may be of interest. In Latin of course. Someone (probably) associated with that project has been adding links to the relevant articles. Seems unobjectionable to me, but this has caught the eye of the ever-vigilant spam monitors, and here we are. This could be usable for inline cites, for further reading sections, to create bibliographies for Medieval Latin religious writers, etc. Hope this is useful resource, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Coordinator?
It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A Question of Style
there is a straw poll underway at Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Capitalization_of_.22Church.22 regarding the style guidelines for capitalization of church bodies. Pastordavid (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
List of articles needing cleanup
We now have a list of articles which have been tagged by this project with one or more cleanup tags at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Cleanup listing. Please feel free to do any work you can to address the existing problems there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup listing, feedback
Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.
On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?
As a side note, if the listings are too long when generated for the entire project, I can also generate them for individual workgroups, which might be easier to handle.
Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there interest in helping create categories of saints by century (please). I think it would be useful for the Christian history categories as well. I have a list set up to start (it is more complete than Chronological list of saints and blesseds) and it can be done fairly easily this way (using HotCat). --Carlaude (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Lives of the Saints, by Sabine Baring-Gould
Sabine Baring-Gould wrote a sixteen-volume work on saints called Lives of the Saints. It was published in 1872-76 and is thus in the public domain. Scans and ocred text of this work are available (see s:Author:Sabine_Baring-Gould#Biography).
If anyone from this project is interested in adding this work to Wikisource, and thus making the text of it available to Wikipedia, contact me here or on my Wikisource talk page s:User talk:Psychless. I'd be happy to help you get started. Psychless 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a rum old wold
Or is it? Is this for real? (I note that some of it is sourced to something by Rumwold somebody, from a very obscure sounding publisher.) If it is, I think it might be a contender for particular exposure on 1 April. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Milestone Announcements
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)