Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 1 April 2009

• /Archive 1 to Nov 08

Re:BotREQ

{{Talkback|WP:BOTREQ}}§hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the 6th cent cat need to be removed from articles where the 5th cent cat is added? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all but if you have an easy way to be sure then go ahead and be sure.

Note that some that are in the 6th cent cat need to stay and of course do still add the pages on the 5th cent list to the 5th cent cat.--Carlaude 20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Scrach that. Please remove the 6th cent cat from pages on the 5th cent saints list as you add those pages to the 5th cent cat. I see now there are many I did not fix.

Also can you let me know when you are done? Thank you.--Carlaude 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

{{talkback|Stepshep}}§hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be everything from the original request done. Sorry it took so long. Been sick. I'll get to the add-on request later tonight most likely. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Stepshep/TB}}§hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checking, (I finally got to a computer that isn't a Mac), do I need to remove any categories whilst adding the unkonwn-century ones? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the answer is no-- just add unknown-century. --Carlaude 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem

§hep • 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian denominational families

From denominationalism

"Christianity and other religions have denominational families (or movements) and individual denominations (or communions). The terms are particularly used in reference to the various Protestant bodies and schools of thought. Some such denominational families and movements are:

• The Adventists
• The Anglicans
• The Anabaptists
• The Baptists
• The Catholics
• The Congregationalists
• The Lutherans
• The Methodists
• The Eastern Orthodox
• The Pentecostals
• The Presbyterians
• The Reformed

--Editor2020 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_4#Category:Buildings_and_structures_by_country

Hi - were you planning to do the split here? The admins & bots don't seem to be planning to. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then my computer died... and my wife asked me to not do any Misplaced Pages for a while... but I expect I will do it in time, if no one else does.--Carlaude 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ammonius Saccas

Hiya, I removed Ammonius Saccas from your list of 3rd century saints - I assume this is why Misplaced Pages Bots keep thinking he is a saint. :-) Singinglemon (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism

I'm not going to revert, but I ask whether the switch was wise.

Where I come from, Anglicanism is one faction of the Episcopal Church (one of their distinctive features is that they apply Episcopalian to the other faction, but the legal and canonical set-up is clear); the Anglican Communion is the largest body to which unambiguous reference is possible, without more circumlocution than this article would bear. The fragments not in communion with Dr. Williams of Canterbury exist, but are they so significant to make this particular piece of pedantry necessary, at the cost of unclarity? We are not denying they exist; and the present statement still leaves out all denominations which use the same list of Apocrypha: the Methodists, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Saint Categories

I noticed you have been moving articles from the category Ancient Roman Saints to Saints by century. I don't think that Ancient Roman Saints is a parent category, as it describes where the saint is from, not when. A saint from ancient Rome is not the same as a saint from modern-day Italy. --Bwpach (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't understand this edit on my talk page. It looks like you appeneded your sig to another user's message. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian saints in unknown century

Just for your information, you have caused this cat to be added via Shepbot to the articles on a significant number of Hindu saints, which is offensive (I have removed as many as I could find). You have also added it to several hundred articles on Christian saints whose "century" is perfectly well known, which is misleading. Please think through what you are doing more carefully.HeartofaDog (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see now this was not the best way since it genarated more false positives than expected, but I am weeding them out and planned to do so in advance. I aplogize for any trouble and offensive caused and will do better next time.

Let me know if there is anything else I can do.--Carlaude 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are so many "false positives" (or "mistakes", as we used to call them) that you need to consider asking User:Stepshep to run the bot in reverse to remove them. You can then add the cat manually to the minority of articles that fit it - which would have been the best way to begin with. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed a lot of these since I left the above, and I will do more (presumably you will too), so now it is probably easier to leave it - but please think carefully before running another one like this.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Saints/Blessed

Yes, I noticed that too. Needs further work at some future point, as it is a real difference.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian texts

These categories should only be used for works written, or at least compiled, in the century concerned. They are categories for texts, not manuscripts. There is no point in adding perfectly standard Gospel etc manuscripts. If you want to add by-century cats, Category:Biblical manuscripts would be the parent to use. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, your proposel to use the term "Biblical manuscripts" instead, or even "manuscripts," would not account for the many works that are not handwritten and thus not manuscripts. --Carlaude 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of "text" is perfectly clear. The text is the "work", ie the textual contents of a book as an abstraction - a text will remain the same in a reprint edition, a manuscript will not. Only manuscripts of textual interest should be included in the "Christian texts" tree. Most of those you added were standard Vulgate or Greek bible texts of interest from the artistic point of view but not at all from the textual one. I'm not sure what your last point means. We have different categories again for printed bibles. New texts that appeared first in printed form do of course belong in the text categories, as do ones on works that first appeared in manuscripts. The Christian texts cat seems fine to me - it contains no manuscripts without textual interest, other than those added by you, as far as I can see. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I find all sorts of items in Category:Christian texts. What would make something or identify something as a "manuscript of textual interest."--Carlaude 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a work, not an individual book. The Book of Kells is an individual book with standard texts, found in many copies that are far older, but the Book of Armagh is a book containing unique texts, so counts as a work. Of course I don't exclude Biblical manuscripts that have genuine textual interest to Biblical scholars because they contain the earliest versions, variants etc. Though in fact those have their own categories (well maintained by experts in my experience) and imo are probably best left just in those. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can probably buy a modern book called "The Book of Armagh" that contains the text of the manuscript. You can buy many different books called "The Book of Kells", but these (except for a full facsimile) only contain the art, and commentary. Let me know if the difference remains unclear. Unfortunately this does mean you have to look at the articles before adding them to the cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Drboisclair talk page re Lutheranism & the Deuterocanonical Books

Does Lutheranism have a view, or even a majority view, on the Deuterocanonical Books and the canon?

I know Lutheranism's view is not alaways the same as Luther's view and changes to Template:Books of the Bible‎ make it seem that all Lutheranism follow the Deuterocanonical Books as part of the cannon. --Carlaude 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lutheranism follows Luther in saying that the Deuterocanonical Books are not part of the canon; however, by "Deuterocanonical Books" I take it that you mean the Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1-2 Macabees, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach , inter alia). I think that you mean the "Antilegomena" of the New Testament--as opposed to the "Homologoumena". Lutheranism is united in accepting the Antilegomena (Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation) as part of the canon. Luther himself in his later years was more reverent toward these books. Note that in his translation of the Bible the Antilegomena appeared in their proper places in the canon. Does this answer your question? Lutheranism is rather solidly behind the Antilegomena being in the canon; however, Lutheranism is tolerant of those who might not accept the canonicity of these books.--Drboisclair (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for allowing me to join this discussion.--Drboisclair (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

copied from my talk page:

I am asking about the "Apocrypha of the Old Testament" (called Deuterocanonical depending on your view). Can you cite a soure for saying "Lutheranism follows Luther in saying that the Deuterocanonical Books are not part of the canon" -- so that I have a basic to correct Template:Books of the Bible‎.--Carlaude

Luther was the one most free and easy about the canon; however, that was only his personal opinion that he did not use as a criterion in his including books into his translation of the Bible. You find in his translation all 66 books of the Protestant canon. The Apocrypha is also in this edition, but it is not put with the books of the Old Testament as the Roman Catholics have in their Bibles. He made a distinction between the sacred canonical books and the apocryhal books of the Old Testament. Luther was inclined to exclude books from the 66 books, so he was not likely to include the Apocrypha at all. He questioned the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Esther because the former appeared to teach skepticism and the latter did not contain the name of God. What I am saying here is that Luther was more inclined to omit things rather than to include things, so he wouldn't have included the Apocrypha in his list of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

This is found in footnote 1, page 337 of Luther's Works, vol. 35: "Apocrypha: these books are not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read." (Weimar Ausgabe Deutsche Bible 2:547).

This is from Erwin L. Leuker, The Christian Cyclopedia, CPH, 2000 under the entry "Canon-Bible": "Luther’s dictum on the Apocrypha expressed in his tr. of the Bible 1534, 'These are books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading,' influenced subsequent generations; we find the Apocrypha excluded from the sacred canon in the translations gen. used in Luth., Angl., and Ref. churches (though the KJV originally included them)."

Heinrich Schmid compiled the doctrine of what are known as the 16-17th century Lutheran dogmaticians in a book known as The Docrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. This work points out that second generation Lutherans like Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) and Matthias Flacius (1520-1575) made a distinction between the Homolegoumena and Antilegomena of the New Testament, but this distinction was ignored by the later Lutheran dogmaticians (1577-1714). This is from Schmid's book: "§ 12. Of the Canon and the Apocryphal Books.": The written Word of God consists of the Word of God of the Old and the Word of God of the New Testament. In the collection, however, that contains both of these, we find also other writings, which we do not call the Word of God in the same sense. We distinguish these two kinds of writings in the following manner, viz.: we call the first class canonical books, i.e., such as, because they are inspired by God, are the rule and guide of our faith; the others, apocryphal books, i.e., such whose divine origin is either doubtful or has been disproved. Although both kinds are found in the Bible, only those of the first class are admitted as a rule of faith, whence they are called the Canon (catalogue, or number, of the canonical books), while those of the other class may contribute their share to the edification of believers, but are not to be regarded as the Word of God, and from them, therefore, no proof for any doctrine of the faith is to be drawn. Whether a book is canonical or not, we are then to ascertain by the signs whereby we recognize the Word of God in general as such, as of the divine origin, as inspired. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is more conclusive evidence than anything else of the divine character of the contents of a book; next to this come all the other kinds of evidence which we have enumerated under the head of the Authority of Holy Scripture (§ 8, Note 10) as the external and internal criteria. Among the latter, the testimony of the Church in the earliest ages in regard to the canonical character of a book is of special importance, for it is assuredly a matter of the highest moment if we know that a book was acknowledged as canonical already at a day when its origin could be most accurately ascertained. More particularly do we need the testimony of the earliest ages of the Church in deciding historical questions, as to the name of the author of a book, as to the language in which it was originally composed; for by the testimony of the Holy Spirit we may indeed become assured of the divinity of a book, experiencing its power in our own hearts, but He bears no testimony as to questions of this kind. As canonical books of the Old Testament we acknowledge: (1) Genesis; (2) Exodus; (3) Leviticus; (4) Numbers; (5) Deuteronomy; (6) Joshua; (7) Judges; (8) Ruth; (9) I and II Samuel;(10) I and II Kings; (11) I and II Chronicles; (12) Ezra and Nehemiah (or second Ezra); (13) Esther; (14) Job; (15) Psalms; (16) Proverbs; (17)Ecclesiastes; (18) Song of Solomon; (19) Isaiah; (20) Jeremiah; (21) Lamentations; (22) Ezekiel; (23) Daniel; (24) twelve minor prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. As apocryphal: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, I, II, and III Maccabees, III and IV Ezra, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Syracides. As appendices: Epistle of Jeremiah, annexed to Baruch, Appendix to Daniel, Supplement to Esther, Prayer of Manasseh." This is on pages 80 and 81 of Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, trans., (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 80-81. Instead of getting more liberal the Lutherans are more conservative in adopting the generic Protestant canon of the 66 books of the Bible: 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament. I hope that this is helpful.--Drboisclair (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I might write something like this: "Lutherans following Martin Luther himself never included any of the Old Testament Apocrypha in their Old Testament canon. They followed the traditional Protestant canon of the books of the Bible." I would then have this to back up that statement in a footnote: "Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, gen. eds., Luther's Works, The American Edition, 55 vols., (St. Louis and Philadelphia: CPH and Fortress Press, 1955-1986), 35:337; Erwin Lueker, Christian Cyclopedia, (St. Louis: CPH, 2000), sub "canon-Bible"; Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, trans., (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 80-81."--Drboisclair (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Category:Parishes rename

Hi Carlaude, I'm happy to support the proposal. Some interesting discussions above, BTW. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts

I wish you would consult with local editors before setting up all these categories! I can't recall ever seeing you actually edit an article in this area. It was specifically decided not to create this category sometime ago - either at Cfd or in talk, I can't remember which. Among the problems are that it includes Hebrew manuscripts. I think I will remove it from Category:Illuminated manuscripts as being unhelpful there. In the Christian tree it obviously should include the various types like Gospel books as sub-cats. But these are all in that tree by other routes. I may apply at CFD to delete it, now or at some point in the future. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts it was made at 02:21, 19 April 2007 by Cydebot (Robot: Moved from Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. Authors: Andrew c) they edited by you until June 2007. --Carlaude 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

oops - sorry! - I just looked at the top of the history. There are problems with category, which I now recall giving up on some time ago. I think I lost a rather confused CfD nomination to do something with it. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian genre types

I saw this category popping up all over the place, and wanted to write you to see your intentions. It seems rather arbitrary right now, mixing music, art, literature. It also included a lot of articles that either aren't genres in any sense of the word or aren't specifically Christian. I'm very concerned with the current state of the category, so I'm writing to see your intentions and if I'm missing something, or perhaps we can work to clean it up so it is more specific.-Andrew c  18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been cleaning up Category:Christian texts for a while and find articles that are not on any particular text, but on a type of text. You will note that several are in only one (other) category. Maybe I went overboard adding music types also.--Carlaude 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Acts of the Apostles (genre)
• Christian theology
• Christian philosophy

Butting in - personally I can see the sense of collecting types of literary texts, & have added a couple myself. I'm not so sure about things like Gospel music, though obviously it has lyrics, and fields of study like Christian philosophy. That and C theology are the main articles of their own categories, so are in other categories via those cats. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But what about something like "Gospel Book" or "Psalter" which is a format of presentation/art book, not a genre (the text of the literature doesn't change, just the illumination of it). Then we have a literary devise like a parable, is that a genre of literature? Then areas of studies, like Biblical criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, Christian apologetics, Christian philosophy, Christian theology, Eschatology, Hagiography, Homiletics, etc. Then we have "New Testament apocrypha" which is a category, not a genre really. I'm still having a hard time seeing the connection between what's left, like what do apocalypse, papal bull, lectionary, creed have in common? One is an actual genre of literature, one is type of document from an official, one is a way to organize scriptural readings, and one is a generic term for a statement of religious belief. Perhaps my mind could be set at ease if we had some sources. Do any of us have books that discuss Christian genre? I know in Ehrman's New Testament, he discusses genre, but it's things like "Hellenistic biography". Maybe I'm getting stuck on the word "genre". I get the general idea why this category was created (types of "texts" were being included in the "Christian texts" category). Maybe we could rename this category to be more inclusive... Is there a more centralized place we could continue these discussions?-Andrew c  19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we want a category for these things and I do not see a better word that "genre"-- but I am open to a better word or phase if there is one. Genre is a word that is used in more that just one way. --Carlaude 19:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do we want a category for these things? What do they have in common? -Andrew c  21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Exactly. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

They are all different types of texts. A place to go to find a form if you do not knoe or recall the name, a place to see what lacks such an article, etc. --Carlaude 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Category:Types of Christian texts would be better. As Andrew says, a Gospel book is not really a genre, just (sometimes slightly different versions of) the same texts. The great majority of these and psalters were not illuminated btw, though obviously illumination, textual interest or language versions is what generally makes individual books notable. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind a rename to Category:Types of Christian texts. --Carlaude 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of your last work in area of categories unfortunately was not correct, especially in the articles Biblical criticism, Textual criticism. Do you really know subject of these articles?

Yes. --Carlaude 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes? In that case I should ask: Who categorized this articles? Your brother? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Biblical criticism and Textual criticism are each fields of study, a process (or processes), and type of writing resulting therefrom. --Carlaude 16:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Apocalyptic literature is not stricte Christian genre (it is more jewish genre). It was used in Persian literature too. You also missed books with texts. It could be much better if you will suggest your ideas to local editors. "I wish you would consult with local editors before setting up all these categories!" Johnbod is right. You can use talk pages. Do not categorize biblical manuscripts any more. We do not want chaos. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is not "not strictly Christian" either since part of it is also Jewsih. But these types (such as Apocalyptic literature) are types of texts that are Christian texts (such as Christian Apocalyptic literature) .--Carlaude 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is why we need discuss controversial categories. By the way, you discovered easy way for enlargement number of edits. Perhaps we need Category:Collecting manuscripts, there are several articles like: Bodmeriana, Oxyrhyncha etc.Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are tring to say here. Since putting "Category:Bible" within "Category:Christianity" does not seem to be controversial, this should not be either... but we can still discuss it now. "Category:Collecting manuscripts" is has no clear purpose and so not, yet, of any use. Not sure what you think I "discovered" either--Carlaude 16:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is suggested on some other wikis to discuss categories before providing them, even if they are used by other wikis. On de-wiki categories are very rational (just like Germans). I am impressed. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Again about categorization

On fr-wiki Utilisateur:Xilophone on the basis of my articles created Categories:

• fr:Catégorie:Document conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale de France
• fr:Catégorie:Document conservé à la British Library
• fr:Catégorie:Document conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale russe

In last case only on the basis of my articles, including the article fr:Bibliothèque nationale russe. Usefulness of this categories is not high, but I did not protest, because it was not bad idea. Categories like: pt:Categoria:Manuscritos do Novo Testamento, it:Categoria:Manoscritti del Nuovo Testamento or Category:Greek New Testament uncials are more usefull. Perhaps you want create these categories for en-wiki. I will not protest. Good luck... and do not fight with Roman Catholic Church on en-wiki. Why do you persecute catholics? I know people - it was in 1977 (or 1976) - he is a preacher, for whom Catholic children killed sohn in the school, but he never in his preaching attack Roman Catholics. He has a lot of love for catholics. My ancestor (Paweł Szymaniuk) - it was in in 1920 - was killed by Catholics (I am not Catholic, and I am not Pole, though I was born in Poland). It is not easy for protestant in catholic country, you have many obstacles in school, in army, in work places (in last 20 years many changes). Sometimes we are very aggressive, oh yes, but it is not good way. I try to love them. I try do not vandalise Roman Catholic pages, though sometimes temptation is really very strong. Did you read irish verse in the article Codex Boernerianus? In 9th century. Very interesting. God bless you. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not persecute catholics nor vandalise Roman Catholic pages. I gather you are tring to be helpful as another protestant, but maybe you should make more constructive comments. --Carlaude 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I see my mistake fr:Catégorie:Document conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale russe was created by me. I used way of Xilophone. I do not remember every of my edit. But there is another problem. I see we need "Category:New Testament manuscripts" for articles like CSNTM, INTF, Family 1, Family 13, Jerusalem Colophon. Articles f, f have wrong category for now. I am intendign to create several articles about families and subfamilies of manuscripts. These articles will need "Category:New Testament manuscripts". I want discuss with several other Users about this Category, especially with Alastair and Andrew c., because they are edit on this field. We do not need multiply Categories. I think we need cooperate. Some of your categories were good. Really. But we can not do that in great hurry. You need ask local editors. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Former churches vs. former church buildings

I removed the former cat from the latter because "church" in this case refers to an actual organization or congregation, not the building. Churches can move out of their buildings without ceasing to exist; and buildings of defunct churches can be used by other churches. Sometimes the categories do overlap (see Canterbury Presbyterian Church for one example), but they often don't. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you again. But this got me to thinking that maybe we'd be better off making the categories more distinct by renaming "former churches" to "defunct churches" which per the naming conventions we usually use for cats would make it clear that we're talking about churches as organizations that have ceased to exist, as opposed to buildings neither they nor any other religious body is currently using. If you think this works, let me know and we'll take it to CFD. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I took you lack of reply as a lack of objection. You still seem to not state why object.

Daniel Case -- You cannot change the scope of a Category on you own. If you to make Category:Former churches about just local churches bodies that no longer exist then rather than churches congregations and buildings that are no longer church buildings -- then you need a to hold a WP:CFD. You also need

• a better description than "Churches that no longer exist"
• a new name, such as Category:Defunct church congregations
• and place to put articles about a both (Former congregations with the same name as a building that is no longer church buildings) such as the Hagia Sophia

The third point would seem to be the main sticking point, IMO. --Carlaude 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to support a renaming at WP:CFD, so I will open one soon. As for your third point, see WP:OCAT#NARROW. For that reason I do not see such a category as necessary or desirable, and I doubt the CFD regulars would, either. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing a 3rd such a category-- just that you have to make clear where to put such pages. In other words, you want them moved in with "Category:Defunct church congregations" or in with "Category:Defunct church buildings". The great advantage of the current system-- the system you want to change-- is that it has a place for these many many "both-and" pages.--Carlaude 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I started the renaming discussion I think would be more sensible. The problem with your proposal, as I've said, is that it doesn't account for more instances than you think where the church has moved to another building but continues under the same name, while its original building remains either vacant or repurposed but known under the same name. Let's continue these discussions at CFD. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding template "Catrel" to Christian denominations and Christian denominational families.

That's great!--Editor2020 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Communities in Ceredigion

I see you finally got your rename of the category sneaked through. Could you now spend some time filling Category:Communities in Ceredigion with some content as I had to remove the previous content as not fitting the category as the articles were about former church parishes. Agathoclea (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename Category:##th century XXX to Category:##th-century XXX

This is to the correct form. Currently there are categories using both forms. Once the renames are completed they should all be in a single form. Given the number of changes this will take some time. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion about this was over the grammar syntax, once it was settled it really is a speedy since it is a typographical error. Having a group of categories nominated and discussed in a full nomination really supports this position. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was a CfD you should referenced it in the speedy request.--Carlaude 02:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The full discussion was referenced in the first speedy nomination. I don't see a need to mention that in the next 1,000 nominations. If I add that in, will that be good enough for you to strike out your opposition? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you are still thinking there was no discussion at CfD. The discussion was here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglican portal image

At the request of Secisek, I have reverted the image of Thomas Cranmer displayed on {{Anglican Portal}} to the one of Canterbury Cathedral. The change was made without discussion, which is irregular for something like this. You may wish to join in the discussion there. fishhead64 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian history category

What is up with edits like this? It appears you are trying to force the items to appear in a certain order? Is this standard practice? Is it even necessary, and what is wrong with alphabetization (with maybe the one or two top tier articles being bumped to the front). In addition to me believing this isn't necessary, what is going to happen when a new user adds another article to the category without knowing your ordering scheme? And such situations may require that every single number be changed to account for the new article's placement in your scheme. It seems like an interesting idea, but I'm contacting you to see if there is some bigger rational behind it that I'm missing, or perhaps simply persuade you that it isn't worth it. Thanks.- Andrew c  15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

Carlaude, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you, Carlaude. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal

I added another proposal. Let me know what you think. I moved the Canterbury pic to the Anglicanism stub template, where it can be a little larger and clearer, so I do support moving it off of the portal link. I am sorry if it seemed like I was "blocking" the move, but I wasn't making any suggestions because I really thought it was fine as it was. Of course I would, I designed it. I would also like to discuss a category scheme for all of the Christianity trees since it seems to intrest us both. A number of them are quite a mess and I have been attempting to rationalize them to some extent.-- Secisek (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anglicans by nationality

See Category talk:Anglicans by nationality. This has grown beyond my talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlaude, I know you initially made a comment about the categorization of Anglicans and Anglicans on Secisek's talk page. A formal discussion has begun if you'd like to make any comment there: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15#Anglicans_parent_category_(-ies). Thanks. Good Ol’factory 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Carlaude . I urge you to review my responses to your comments on this matter with an open mind. I have addressed each of them. This comment: "You fail to cite a single source for your bogus claim that 'major theologians agree that the Five solas are the marks of the Protestant churches.'" seems to suggest that you think I am making this up as I go along - or I am making an argument based on how "I feel" rather than one based on what I have read on the subject. We currently have articles such as Pastoral Provision, Anglican Use and Book of Divine Worship which concern the Roman Catholic Church which are presently in a subcat of Protestantism. What does that category mean when it includes articles relating to the Roman Catholic Church? I want your support, I really do. Please revisit this and think it over. -- Secisek (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It means that the article relates to both Anglicanism and the Roman Catholic Church.

You may note that Martin Luther is under Category:Roman Catholics as a former Roman Catholic since he was a Augustinian friar. Would you also want to remove him from Category:Augustinian friars or remove Category:Augustinian friars from Category:Roman Catholic friars? --Carlaude 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They are related to both but none of those subjects should be in a sub cat of Protestantism - and one small change corrects this. Further many of you recent response are not constructive and endulge in cheap rhetorical devices. I had always assumed you were knowledgeable on the subject. I am sure you know I am, as well. Let's try to keep the discussion about what is published in second and third party WP:RS about the categorization of Anglicanism as a Protestant tradition. There is a common mistake that Anglicanism is a denomination. It is a bracnch of the Christian Church. There are Protestant Anglicans, Roman Catholic Anglicans, Anglicans who believe they are both, and those that think they are neither. I think this is a misunderstanding on you part. -- Secisek (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean cheap rhetorical devices like calling a great point a "straw man"? or cheap rhetorical devices like repeatly pretending you have cited sources for your views?--Carlaude 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing "great" about your point that compared apples and oranges. The discussion speaks for itself. I provided verbatium quotes from noted sources. You attempted to discredit those sources even though you clearly did not bother to even access them and see what they said for yourself - and I know this to be the case because you kept foolishly misattributing one of the quotes that I had clearly stated the origin of.

Talk about unproductive discussion: you accused me of trying to remove every reference to Anglican Protestants from Misplaced Pages on the same page that I pointed out a number of articles related to Anglican Protestants. That was of course, because your position has no consesnus to speak of in name-space.

No matter, I have conceded the point for the time and I will revisit it later this year After we see just how many more Anglicans get readmitted as full Roman Catholics in good standing. It is my hope you will stay in cat-space. You can have it. "Oh we agree then? Good." -- 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legendary rulers

Please stop adding the legendary monarchs found in the category British traditional history to the historic rulers by century categories. I've undone some of these edits but have no time to wade through the 100 or so characters found in that category. It should be your responsibility to so and undo these edits. I'm sure your edits were made in good faith, of course, but hope you will agree that placing figures from legend - or even fiction in the case of some of these, invented by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century! - is not acceptable. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I wont add any more Kings labled mythical or only known from Geoffrey of Monmouth. --Carlaude 06:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcellinus (magister militum)

Category rulers for Marcellinus ???

He has been roman general not emperor or king. Like any roman general in second half of 5 century he has been first after God (and not after emperor) in his province, but still he was not ruler of independent state. Marcellinus was always loyal to emperor.--Rjecina (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My revert ???

I have noticed that you have reverted your edit.

Maybe for you will be interesting to see articles Aegidius and Syagrius where situation has been very similar to Marcellinus.--Rjecina (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have solved table problem. Definition Roman ruler of Dalmatia is changed with Military governor of Dalmatia. Maybe this definition is not best... If you are having better idea can you please change definition ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

King of Judah

I see...hmmm, okay! You have me convinced! Sorrry for the outburst earlier, had to relook it up myself! Guess I better stick with the military articles, instead of treading hot water here....Take care!
RekonDog (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Appius Claudius Caecus

I may be missing something but ... Appius Claudius Caecus is already in "Category:Roman Republican consuls" so isn't adding 4th-century BC rulers both redundant and risking swamping that cat with consuls?Dejvid (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was missing something - I didn't appreciate that it was as a dictator rather than as consul that he got classified as a ruler. I'm don't think that dictators should be classified as rulers (democratic election and all that) but I concede that it is a workable convention. Hence it is with a little hesitation I mention that you were correct as both father and son (according to the article) were dictators.Dejvid (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Church

Thanks for your edits to this disambiguation page; unfortunately I don't think your edits are helpful. Disambiguation pages are a special kind of page that are designed to assist readers in finding the article they want. The link Orthodox Church assists with this, in that people arriving at this page may be looking for that somewhat nebulous concept. That the term being disambiguated may reasonably be used as a name for the topic under discussion at the target page is the only requirement for inclusion. Moving this entry to Eastern Othodox Church denies the reader the opportunity to find the Oriental Orthodox Church for example. If the associated descriptive text does not correspond to the description in the target article, by all means improve it. If in your opinion the current organisation of Misplaced Pages articles is somehow wrong, please work with other editors to alter the articles themselves; once it has been changed, the disambiguation pages can be updated to reflect this new status. The guidelines for the content and style of disambiguation pages can be found at WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB Thank you, --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigtrygg Silkbeard

Is it really worth including the Category:10th-century rulers in Europe and Category:11th-century rulers in Europe in the Sigtrygg Silkbeard article? Those categories already include the sub-category, Category:Viking Age monarchs (which includes in turn Category:Monarchs of Dublin). --Grimhelm (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Category:Viking Age monarchs from Category:10th-century rulers in Europe and Category:11th-century rulers in Europe.--Carlaude 03:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Arthurian legend

Hi. I removed Category:6th-century rulers from Category:Arthurian legend. The first is referring to persons and the second is a collection of films, books, fictional characters connected to the Arthurian legend. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages parsed

I have parsed the list of pages as requested by ShepStep on your results page in an SQL dump which will give you flexability on how you want the lists to end up. --Nn123645 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reformed church category

Actually it isn't exactly a "synonym" with Calvinism, as the page Reformed churches indicates. The purpose in creating the category was to more conveniently place the various extant ]s into a single category within Calvinism, which, I believe, I did. In fact, I find your recent, honestly inaccurate statements on the category uncalled-for, unilateral, and, honestly, unsupportable, particularly with the clearly false and misleading statements you added. I am therefore asking you to revert them so that a fuller discussion, which I am more than willing to have. Please refrain from such clearly false and prejudicial statements in the future. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)