Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 1 February 2017

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Christianity Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Consensus on Misplaced Pages on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Misplaced Pages. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about Christianity is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding tagging of broadly important articles

There has recently been some question regarding which assessment templates should be used on talk pages for articles which have demonstrable relevance to more than one Christianity based WikiProject. The one major problem I can foresee is the possibility at least in some cases of maybe ten or more Christianity groups tagging the same article. (And, for purposes of discussion, I would include WikiProject Bible in that number for material related to material relating to the New Testament, broadly construed.) That, clearly, would be less than productive. So, I am opening up to discussion maybe trying to set up some sort of rough rule of thumb rule.

First, I think it would be useful to establish an approximate baseline parameter for an article to be considered in such a discussion. At the very least, I would think a subject which has received significant coverage in reference works, particularly broadly encyclopedic reference works, related to any those topics which have dedicated WikiProjects or groups is probably deserving to be tagged by each of those groups, especially if the content of those articles varies significantly between the topics. I also think, for purposes of discussion, that it might be appropriately applicable to any topic which is important to maybe four or five such groups.

The options that come to mind to me immediately are

• 1) Maybe expand the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group to deal with all such articles.
• 2) Tag the article for one or more projects which have much lengthier coverage on a topic than others, and include all the rest in the Christianity banner.
• 3) Use the Christianity banner exclusively.

There are, I have no doubt, other questions to be raised as well, and I would welcome seeing them raised here to be dealt with if possible. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:BIBLE?

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bible#MOS:BIBLE?. Input would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to banner

I note that the Catholicism banner has or had code to allow for statements to the effect of "This article can be improved with material available from the Catholic Encyclopedia" or something like that. I myself wouldn't mind seeing the Christianity banner have some sort of similar functionality, particularly maybe referring to text over at wikisource, which might be best because we here can probably more easily add new material there than anywhere else for use here. We might also include some code to allow for special listing in the assessment grid as articles which can be improved in that way. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I am currently unaware of an article that needs this. Can you name a couple such pages? tahc 00:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I know of at least two encyclopedic entries on Abercius of Hierapolis over at wikisource, and our article on the subject is rather weak. wikisource:Index:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu contains a rather largish number of other articles, but I haven't gone through it all yet. There are a few other religious reference works over there as well, and at least a few general reference works which would presumably have articles on major religious topics as well. And a lot more reference works in the public domain which could be added if there were interest in doing so. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about this suggestion (at least in its present form) and it also touches on a wider concern: dependence on elderly materials which are out of copyright such as the Catholic Encyclopedia or the supporting articles of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) series, all of which are over a century old. Much of their content has become obsolete in the academic world. The Misplaced Pages guidelines here are WP:IRS#Age matters and WP:IRS#Some types of sources. Theology and ecclesiastical history have moved almost as much as science and medicine in the intervening century. For example, compare the Catholic Encyclopedia or NPNF on Arius with Rowan William's review of the debate over Arius in Arius (2nd Edn. SCM 2001) especially pp 1-25 and the 2001 appendix "Arius since 1987". In the absence of specialist knowledge, it is almost impossible for an editor to know which bits of information are still relevant. To refer people to out-of-date material in a banner appears to me to be counter-productive. — Jpacobb (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, totally agreement with you regarding possible dependence on elderly materials. There have been and are any number of topics which have been changed dramatically since the time when copyrights have expired. Ideally, I would think that the best way to proceed with any material from older sources would be to also check at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus and similar pages to check to see if we have newer material on the same subject, and whether the newer material is consistent with the older material. Personally, I would love to have a link to that prospectus page in the banner as well, and the related prospectus pages, for recent verification, and, if possible, have more material on them. And, I suppose, if there were to be a special indicator for "additional older material," another variation of that might be "older material (here) reviewed for insertion." John Carter (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Page: Category:Persecution by atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Deletion of Category:Persecution by atheists has been requested for review. Please share your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists, regardless of your opinion. The atheism article Talk page has also received a notification. Eliko007 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (Reworded for policy compliance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

Jesu

What does "Jesu" refer to? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Vocative of Jesus, therefore better rendered as "O Jesus". Also used poetically. For instance Bach's "Jesu, joy of man's desiring" could be rendered as "O Jesus, joy of man's desiring". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Project-Class Christianity pages
• NA-importance Christianity pages
• WikiProject Christianity articles