Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reformed Christianity/Archive 1

message: Hi all.  Presbyterianism is currently defined as a subcategory of Calvinism, which, according wo Wikipedia Category theory (IIRC), means that everything under it should be able to have the Calvinism label applied to it.  I'm wondering if there isn't some way to get a more useful set of Presbyterian categories, so I'm writing some ramblings here.  
If I had to do it, I'd be doing something like this:
* Presbyterians
** Presbyterian liberals
** Presbyterian traditionals (ie. I'm a Presbyterian because my father and grandfather were; Calvin? who's that?)
** Presbyterian evangelicals
Does anyone else have a better way of doing things?  I know there are subdivisions within what I said (ie. evangelicals include paleopresbyterians and neopresbyterians :) ), but I'm just trying to get it down in outline for now.  
-- TimNelson 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More useful Presbyterian categories? 

message: Does anyone know if Plymouth Brethren are Calvinist?  The page on them says they "include elements of Calvinism".  
--TimNelson 08:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plymouth Bretheren 

message: The question is, after we do assessment for a while, what do we do next?  I can see a few possibilities:
* Bring all the articles in the :Category:Top-importance Calvinism articles up to at least B-class
* Select an article or two, and try to push them to FA class
I recommend we do both :).  To start with, we should all vote on the article we'd like to see go to FA class.  Only one biography and one "other" will get elected each month for a FA push.  I'm not intending that any articles actually be elected, though, until May.  See the Collaboration section of the main page for details as to what I intend, but if you just want to vote, then:
* Vote for your favoured Non-biography Article
* Vote for your favoured Biography
In the meantime, after we finish assessing (see post above), we can work at improving all those :Category:Top-importance Calvinism articles that aren't yet up to B-Class articles.  
Note: I rate things as stubs if they don't have enough headings.  You have been warned :).  
-- TimNelson 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What next? 

message: Hi all.  I've restructured the main page a fair bit over the last week.  I've moved a fair bit of content out into subpages, but these can all be accessed through the navigation bar.  
Also, I figured the assessment stage, as a stage, is done.  Sure we'll continue with assessment, but the important thing is we've got a list of :Category:Top-importance Calvinism articles, and they are the ones that, to my mind, fit the criteria on the assessment page: "The article is one of the core topics about Calvinism. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are are included as sections of the main Calvinism article".  This gives us a bit of focus as to actual content creation, so I think we can move on from assessment as a stage to running it simulataneously in the background as part of the ongoing project work.  
I figured we should run the "Role-filling" stage I'd proposed simultaneously with the normal part of the project.  So I'll just add it to the todo list instead.  
What I'd suggest are the things to do at the moment are:
* Nominate or vote for your favourite articles so that they can be Collaboration of the Month; see Collaboration page for details.  First collaborations begin 1st May.  
* Fill the roles suggested in the Roles section of the main page
* Consider the formation of task forces.  I've decided to mostly scrap the minimum requirements for the task forces, now that I understand them better.  Those can be discussed on this page.  But if you want one I've already suggested (see above), please speak in its favour.  
-- TimNelson 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure, & stage change 

message: Any task force may be included on this list if:
* It looks like 2 or more people might be interested, OR
* Someone is interested enough to add it with their name next to it
===Suggested task forces===
* Presbyterian task force
* Calvinist Biography task force (hopefully in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography)
* Reformed Baptist task force
* Calvinist Denominations task force
* Reformed Presbyterian Church taskforce
** TimNelson
===Discussion===
Now that I understand task forces better, I'd prefer to form them earlier rather than later, so I'm scrapping all prerequisites except that someone be interested in forming the task force.  Is anyone interested in forming any task forces?  (Incidentally, we now have 22 members).  
-- TimNelson 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, I'm more in support mode right now and don't have the time and energy to take on a new role, but I'll help out where I can. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see.  And how is this relevant to the task forces?  -- TimNelson 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task forces 

message: Now that I understand task forces better, I'd prefer to form them earlier rather than later, so I'm scrapping all prerequisites except that someone be interested in forming the task force.  Is anyone interested in forming any task forces?  (Incidentally, we now have 22 members).  
-- TimNelson 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, I'm more in support mode right now and don't have the time and energy to take on a new role, but I'll help out where I can. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see.  And how is this relevant to the task forces?  -- TimNelson 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have just merged the little information from Calvinist terminology that was not already in the articles about Predestination (Calvinism), Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, and The Five Points of Calvinism into those articles, and redirected that page to Calvinism. If anyone is seriously interested in developing in glossary of Calvinist terms feel free to change that redirect into a article. Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvinist terminology

message: Hello everyone, Meshsa here (the translator?) I have added a few thing in the terms of the project translating from french/german/spanish/italian to english. If there is anything you see and you like me to translate relevant to the project please let me know, either by leaving a request in the Translation page or on my talk (though preferably on the Translation page. Cheers Meshsa 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For everyone's information: the project translation page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/Translation -- TimNelson 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Presbytery in North America. Can anyone find any sourcing for this - and write a proper stub to avert deletion.--Docg 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed Presbytery in North America 

message: Hi all.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group.  One of the ideas behind this is that people from all the Christianity WikiProjects can participate in these articles without having to add the banners for all 16 or so related WikiProjects to them.  
-- TimNelson 11:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity core topics task force/work group 

message: There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project proposal 

message: Please lend your thoughts to Category_talk:Calvinist_ministers_and_theologians. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization: Reformed or Calvinist?

message: I recently merged these two articles. There was an objection that was raised and a request was made to seek feedback here. Please offer commentary on the talk page, for or against.
--Mcorazao 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger: "[[Christian Church]]" and "[[One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church]]" 

message: Friends,
I would appreciate assistance at Template:Books of the Old Testament.
*Context:
**Wiki has navigation templates for Tanakh, NT and Qur'an, but a shocker for Old Testament.
*Events:
**I corrected an error which claimed Anglicans include the apocrypha in the Old Testament.
**I provided Article 6 of 39 Articles for any interested parties to check.
**My correction was reverted by an anon user.
**I attempted to resolve things by simplifying the Old Testament template to the books of the Hebrew Bible.
**I created a new template for the apocrypha, which actually gives more space to cover that complex grouping.
**My simplification was reverted and then protected by an administrator without any prior discussion.
*Result:
**The misleading and convoluted OT template is now protected.
*Comment:
The administrator simply acted unilaterally and then hypocritically abdicated responsibility to consensus, having not attempted to gain consensus for her own action. There was no engagement with the source that had been provided. It is important that errors of judgement and bad examples like this be called "foul". However, it's no big deal, we want admin to keep doing their thankless, helpful work.
*Request:
**Please visit the talk page and contribute if you feel comfortable doing so.
*What I have claimed:
#Tanakh is Jewish name for the books we call Old Testament in Jewish order
#Hebrew Bible is ecumenical name for undisputed canonical books
#Old Testament is name for 39 books in traditional Christian order
#Apocrypha is Protestant name for non canonical books of OT accepted by various non Protestant groups
#Deuterocanonical is description for Apocrypha among groups that accept those books
#Anglicans do not consider the Apocrypha to be canonical (hence not deuterocan.), nor part of the OT
I guess most of us normally mix in circles where these issues are not contentious, either people have been educated in them, or they don't care about them. Since Wiki is asking for consensus regarding these things, could you please come and point out these things already have documented scholarly consensus, which is the responsibility of Wiki editors to learn and reflect in their work, rather than debate anew. Sola Scriptura. Alastair Haines 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance at [[Template:Books of the Old Testament]]

message: Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

message: I was surprised to see that the Great Apostasy was under WikiProject Calvinism. I'm pretty sure that article was originally created to document the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' view of the early church. Do the editors here think that it should be part of this project? Wesley 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the section entitled "Reformed Perspective" is nearly 3 times longer than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints section and 25% longer than the whole Restorationsist section, I think the tag is warranted. (In fact the Reformed section is longer than the other 2 main sections.) I have tagged it as part of WP:Christianity also. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Apostasy 

message: There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "stories" of the Bible merit separate articles? 

message: Anyone like or hate the current cat structure? :Category:Calvinist_artists_and_writers is being considered for deletion. :Category:Reformed Christian Americans was recently added. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category structure

message: If there are any people out there with too much time and not enough action. Please feel free to drop by the supersessionism article. I've just about finished a complete overhaul. It has a small section on Covenant Theology. I'm sure however mind-numbing your life was prior to looking at the article, you'll thank God for it after spending time with the article. I'm offering this opportunity to help you grow in godliness. ;) Alastair Haines 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bored, restless, time on your hands?

message: TimNelson prompted me to look again at a stagnant discussion at Talk:Presbyterian polity about the terms "Congregation" and "Parish". I've had a look at the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government and found a definition of a congregation, but I don't have any definition of a parish. Anyone? Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 06:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parishes in Presbyterian Polity

message: I updated the look of the project and corrected some things like the collaboration to reflect the reality on the ground. My work isn't done, so save all your complaints and compliments until the end. -- SECisek (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: New barnstar for the project. Be bold and show some recognition! -- SECisek (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar