Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list

message: The difference in goals between my original statement of the idea and the scope of the project as it exists is that I would've excluded the People, and the Movements/Traditions section.  Can we make these a separate section on the main page from the rest of the stuff?  
-- TimNelson 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in goals 

message: Add State church of the Roman Empire to section on history. 75.15.192.55 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no; that article should not even be a "high" importance article, much less "top".şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. While it was important for a time, that time is now over. The subject is included in the History of Christianity and that article (or subarticles) can discuss the subject to the degree required. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: add

message: The article itself has been gutted and needs to be rebuilt, but the topic has been fairly important, at least to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox traditions. There's also some interest in mysticism amongst various Protestant groups--I count Underhill in this tradition, but more recently, Richard Foster and his Renovaré crew have been pushing some of the major mystics as being good for Protestants as well (maybe that's because the Quakers have always had their own mystical tradition). Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  add: Christian mysticism 

message: The SNM is the only movement within Christianity itself that attempts to conform it to the original form of worship. I know its a small movement and quite divided, but its notability comes from the fact that it exists and has done for the 1930's. (SNMovement) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are way too many small movements in (or related to) Christianity to include them all in a list of this size. Since the 1930s is a short time for Christianity, and SNM has not had a large-- or even notible-- impact on the rest of Christianity. I am removing it and updating the list numbers unless or until there is any real WP:CON otherwise here.şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree it should not be on the list (for reasons previously discussed at Talk:Tetragrammaton)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Most strongly agree that it should not be on the list. It's of lowest importance: even many educated Christians are unfamiliar with it, it has no importance for Christianity as a whole (less than something like "Aramaic primacy" or "Griesbach hypothesis" or "Markan priority" - even "Sacred Name Bible" is more notable!), the entire thing is POV (it should be on the list because "it's the original form of worship"? I know about a thousand scholars who would disagree - the faculty at any seminary or the religious faculty of any college, and likely any scholar of the classics who acknowledges the fact that from about 45AD, Christians were largely Gentile, and, again POV and non-notable, it's being proposed by User:Sacred Name Movement. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The core topics are supposed to be those which are of the greatest broad-based importance to an encyclopedia dealing with the subject of Christianity. Also, in practice, the articles selected are those which, to some degree or other, are relevant to the greatest number of traditions within Christianity. The Sacred Name Movement, while an important recent movement, is not the only one which claims to be the original Christianity (I believe the Catholic, Orthodox, and Iglesia ni Cristo do as well. While it might be reasonable to create a work group to deal with the SNM, if there were enough interest, the impact of the movement on Christianity in general and on the bulk of the encyclopedic content relevant to Christianity does not, I believe, necessarily make it something that must be included in the top 100 articles. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sacred Name Movement]] should be on list 

message: I see that they are as per Adventism considered a subgrouping of that larger group, which is already included in the list. While I have no particular objections to its inclusion, I wonder whether it is more important than, say, the branches of the Holiness Movement, not yet included, like for instance the Salvation Army, which probably has had a larger impact on "Christianity" as a whole, or any other groups. Also, I tend to think, honestly, that the :Template:Christianity should be specifically limited to the articles in this list. Would that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Christadelphians are pretty small, and most Christians don't even know who they are. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think we should remove Christadelphians. tahc chat 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done deal. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding inclusion of [[Christadelphians]] 

message: As a personal view, at least, I think the biggest problem we might have here, other than the fact that the page isn't watched much (itself more than somewhat significant), is that the discussion isn't that easy to respond to. Maybe, and this is just a "maybe", the best way to proceed might to be to at least early on start a new discussion in a way which can be more easily and directly responded to. Considering we do have a current list as a starting point, maybe the best way to go would be to make specific individual proposals, maybe in subsections of some sort, of specific articles to consider for addition and why. Then, if and when we get to the point of the list getting too big, we can propose which of the articles included in the then-maybe-expanded list could be dropped. And, FWIW, I think that we might actually get some good out of this. I am at least starting to type up the various articles from the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics for inclusion in WikiSource. Although a lot of those articles are much longer than our own guidelines permit, and some of them will clearly contain dated information, that source is still regarded as one of the best reference works on religion ever written, and some say it is still the best, and that information might well help develop our own articles. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: How to proceed

message: I see that "Christian movements" has been moved at some point to List of Christian movements, and has never been a needed page here. It is utterly unverified with no citations; it is basically original research. It focuses on minor movements that are mostly idea-type movements, rather a movement that causes anyone to realy move (say, move to form a new church, ministry , or other organisation). We should remove it from the core topics list. Even List of Christian denominations would be better than List of Christian movements, but I would prefer to have either Christian denomination or List of Christian denominations. tahc chat 22:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections, I have made this change. tahc chat 21:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian movements

message: The article "Gospel"/"Gospels" (currently under discussion for a move) long ago stopped being about both the the Gospel and the gospels as particular written documents. Since Good News (Christianity) has been moved to the gospel, and the the Gospel is the message of Christianity, it is all the obvious replacement for Gospel on the list of Core Topics. tahc chat 02:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections, I have made this change. tahc chat 21:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gospel

message: Should the Christian Science movement, founded by Mary Baker Eddy, be among the core topics work group?
Jean Po (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Science 

message: :I propose (again) we add: Atonement in Christianity; Council of Trent; Second Vatican Council; Puritan; Mennonite; Presbyterianism; Quakers; Attributes of God in Christianity; Christian ethics; Christian worship; Ecclesiastical polity; Eucharist 
:I also propose we drop: Virgin birth of Jesus; Crusades; Early Christianity; East–West Schism; Christian apologetics; Christian prayer; History of Christian theology; Nontrinitarianism; Son of God; Christian art; Christian symbolism; Sermon; Mission (Christian); Catholicism; Christian tradition; Ecumenism; Oneness Pentecostalism
:Can you agree to any (or all) of these, Propositum? tahc chat 02:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ii

message: Because the term "God the Son" relates directly to the doctrine of the Trinity while the term "the Son of God" does not, I propose the link change: Son of God → God the Son in the Theology section. The link Son of God could be included in the first section. Greenknight dv (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We already link to Trinity. Son of God is also a much more extensive article than God the Son. For both of these two reasons I think keeping Son of God is better. tahc chat 08:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The parentheses seem to want to refer to the three persons of the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is never expressed as the phrase: "God the Father, the Son of God [sic], and God the Holy Spirit". Sorry if my English is not clear! Greenknight dv (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text: We don't look at grammer or other such things when designing Wikipedia templates. We pick article links based of which topics/articles are most important and highest quality. tahc chat 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different terms 

message: Oneness Pentecostalism is or could be covered in the Pentecostalism article. I think Oneness Pentecostalism is not very large, very distinct, or very old comareded to other things we could, but do not include, such as Quakers. Lets drop Oneness Pentecostalism from the list. tahc chat 13:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oneness Pentecostalism 

message: I would suggest, to add this article here the topic which is: Role of the Christian Church in civilization, Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization and Civilization in genereal.Religions in Global Society – Page 146, Peter Beyer – 2006Cambridge University Historical Series, An Essay on Western Civilization in Its Economic Aspects, p.40: Hebraism, like Hellenism, has been an all-important factor in the development of Western Civilization; Judaism, as the precursor of Christianity, has indirectly had had much to do with shaping the ideals and morality of western nations since the christian era.Caltron J.H Hayas, Christianity and Western Civilization (1953),Stanford University Press, p.2: That certain distinctive features of our Western civilization — the civilization of western Europe and of America— have been shaped chiefly by Judaeo – Graeco – Christianity, Catholic and Protestant.Horst Hutter‏, University of New York, Shaping the Future: Nietzsche's New Regime of the Soul And Its Ascetic Practices (2004), p.111:three mighty founders of Western culture, namely Socrates, Jesus, and Plato.Fred Reinhard Dallmayr‏, Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices (2004), p.22: Western civilization is also sometimes described as "Christian" or "Judaeo- Christian" civilization. And i think this topic is important to be added here since it's important in the  Christian and world history and since Until the Age of Enlightenment, Christian culture guided the course of philosophy, literature, art, music and science in the western world. --Jobas (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article still is still very biased toward the role of the Roman Catholic Church. It says very little about Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism. tahc chat 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's an issue, i think i can improve the topic and adding more about Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism influnce in Civilization. And i will began very soon. Anyway i think the topic is important in Christian and Western history. As i mention befor Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization and Civilization in genereal, And if there been issue in the topic as you said it says very little about Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism it can be solved inside the topic.--Jobas (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additions to the list 

message: I propose adding Sacred tradition to this list.  I know it's only a start-class article, but it's very important, and the top-importance Christian tradition is only start-class itself.  In the Catholic Church (and in the Orthodox Church, according to the article; I don't know first-hand), the sacred tradition is as fundamental, if not more so, to the Christian faith than the Scriptures/Bible.  It would best be added in the "Bible/Foundations" section.  According to Catholic theology (and from the article, Orthodox theology, too), it is backwards to conceive of the Bible as the basic "foundation" of the faith, or worse, to exclude it from the "foundations".  Obviously this doesn't apply to every denomination's theology, particularly sola scriptura Protestantism, but considering that Catholics and Orthodox together constitute a supermajority of Christians globally (about 1.5 billion of 2.2 billion, or about 70%), it deserves inclusion.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 09:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody?? Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 01:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing of sacred tradition speaks to it being "Top" importance term nor article to Christianity. Even to the Catholicism (currently listed as only "High" importance to in that  WikiProject), magisterium seems like a (diffferent but) more used term. tahc chat 14:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that so?  It's more fundamental than the Bible in the traditions I've mentioned.  If it's only listed as high importance in the Catholicism project, then that's a mistake.  You're right that the Magisterium is different and probably more frequently talked about, but it is less fundamental than both tradition and scripture. Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 15:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging . Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Tradition is important mainly for the traditionalists who constitute much less than 1% of Christians. Propositum (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add an article to the list 

message: I propose replacing Son of God with the new Son of God (Christianity).  The former now only includes a summary of the latter.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 09:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. In fact when this sort of thing has happened before ([x] to [x (Christianity)], I might have even made the change without a discussion. tahc chat 16:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to replace an article 

message: I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Talk:Christianity page is to discuss improvement to just one article: Christianity. It is not the place to discuss changes for any other page. Different list of denominations have different purposes, so if you want to change the "denominations" of the templates, then you have to talk about it here. tahc chat 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I moved the above post from User talk:Chicbyaccident. As a reply: if you think this edit was so controversial, then I really wonder why? Because Eastern Christianity is linked. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

message: Please don't make changes to Template:Christianity or Template:Christianity footer.
If you think changes are called for then bring them up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. tahc chat 17:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the above post from User talk:Chicbyaccident. As a reply: if you think this edit was so controversial, then I really wonder why? Because Eastern Christianity is linked. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list 

message: Both Jesus and Christ are currently on the list, but both of them point to the same article: Jesus. Shall we remove Christ, or replace it with Christ (title)?
:We should change it to Christ (title), since the Christ pages seems to have been moved to that new name. tahc chat 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jesus]] and [[Christ]] 

message: (N.B. I've retargetted other redirected links directly to their targets to prevent people from copying redirect links to templates per WP:BRINT. There is also some inconsistencies in naming conventions: cf. Apostle (Christian), Son of God (Christianity) with the various "N in Christianity" titles.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  new topic 

message: Non-Trinitarian groups are not Christian because they deny the Trinity, which is a huge part of Christianity. These people are intentionally misleading people or they are ignorant or naïve to the truth.
Seth Red Star (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seth seems to be asking for these four to be dropped: Nontrinitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saint movement, Oneness Pentecostalism. I will agree to this, barring good reasons otherwise. tahc chat 21:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question is, would those groups describes themselves as otherwise? The very reason the Trinitarian label has come to exist is to differentiate between the two opinions. It is possible to be a "Christian" without being a Trinitarianbut according to who, is the real gist of the issue. According to St. Arius, and many others prior to the Nicene Creed, they would say they are Christians. Multiple Roman emperors have also adhered to Arian strain whilst considering themselves Christian. Scholars and devotees can have varying opinions, and that is a issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT. DA1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to assume that Arianism is non-Trinitarian. Is Arianism a form non-orthodox Trinitarianism or is it a  of non-Trinitarianism? I think this is open to debate. tahc chat 23:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not omniscient, but according to Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs, Nontrinitarianism#Early_Christianity and Arianism#Beliefs; seem to state as such. If I'm mistaken in my assertion, I would hope the aforementioned articles be edited as well. Doesn't even mentions this debate, just straight up calls them non-trinitarian. DA1 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Trinitarian groups are not Christian 

message: There seemed to be a good link to Western Christianity as a subsection-header link to 'Western' on the  template, at least the article itself seems to cover the topic of 'Western'. 'Eastern' is already linked. The  side-template has the same situation - 'Eastern' is linked to Eastern Christianity, while 'Western' is unlinked although the page 'Western Christianity' exists and seems in fairly good shape. So if this needs to be nominated for this list in order to use the article as a link, I'll do that, as it seems a logical link to that section sub-head. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, any objections? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My former attempt to accomplish that was undone by , but I still support the proposed improvement. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably reverted because it wasn't on the list, which is a valid reason and keeps the integrity and concept of the list intact (which reminds me of one that snuck over the line and should probably be formally nominated). So this 'formal' nomination probably will/has passed. The article does need expansion and work to be a full encyclopedic page, but it seems good enough for an introduction as of now. This neck of Wikipedia seems a bit scant of editors, hopefully more good ones will show up. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Christianity

message: What about determining - thus harmonising - the presentation/listing of denominations also in List of Christian denominations by number of members, and List of Christian denominations with this core list along with denominations sections of the affected 2 templates? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding one or the other would be fine, but not both. List of Christian denominations seems to be the better choice to me. tahc chat 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Christian denominations for sure, listed on the templates as 'Christian denominations'. As for the other, one option could be adding the 'number of members' article as a subsection of 'Christian denominations' on both the list and the templates. I'm neutral on that one, and it seems more like bookkeeping than being relevant to inclusion as a core-topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposition of major denomination list(s) 

message: For details, please see Talk:List of Christian_denominations#Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal of [[List of Christian denominations by number of members]] into [[List of Christian denominations]] 

message: Although I sympathise with the idea of collecting a possibly broad distribution of discussions into one place, I am not sure this very location and its curent "Core topics work group" form inside of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity is optimal, considering the extent of its percussions. What about morphing the objects of this work group into either :Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or an Wikipedia:Essays for convenience, availability, and usability? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to the application of this topic list 

message: Nominating John the Baptist for the list. John and Joseph seem like obvious choices, and both are now formally nominated. John falls outside of being an Apostle or Church Father (both groups are in the core list), and, like Joseph, should be covered by individual inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Argument for: John literally created Christianity. As with Joseph, John's page doesn't get linked in either of the two large-group articles listed on the templates, the apostles and the church fathers (a total close to 50). So his page would have to be entered on the template as a direct link, hence the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most literate people would consider John the Baptist to have neither literally created Christianity nor figuratively created Christianity. While John's page doesn't get linked in those two articles his is linked in others in the template, such as Jesus, Early Christianity, and Baptism. tahc chat 17:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he announced Jesus as the chosen one, etc., and then retired, his job being done. John is arguably the first Christian, and when he asked other people to pay attention to and follow Jesus he put together the religion's first followers. John called Jesus' coming-role and historical importance spot on (at least in many viewpoints). Those few minutes in the water and on its shore could arguably be called the very beginning of Christianity - the kickstarting of a religion - and because of that his page should be on the Christianity core list, wouldn't you think? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

text: It is not clear what John relationship with to Jesus was vis-a-vis if John became what we normally mean by a follower of Jesus. That fact that some of John's followers in Acts 18:24-19:6 still didn't know about Jesus makes the issue seem much more complicated. At the very least your view is OR. tahc chat 16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your good faith post is mistaken. John didn't follow Jesus, and pretty much began to retire after saying that Jesus was the Messiah (a core Christian belief first proclaimed by John, i.e. John created the founding principal of Christianity). The biblical texts you point out say that the people were baptized by John, not that any of them were John's followers. Those texts go on to say that when Paul questioned them, and found out who baptized them, he then told them about John's comments on Jesus' role and that set their journey into Christianity into motion. Original research? No, John's major and formative role in the religious proclamations and traditions which founded Christianity is clearly outlined in the gospels. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination, [[John the Baptist]]

message: *Add. Relence per part of the holy family, as argued. And please dismantle this second level meta-hang up core list of article content and templates. It effectively borders WP:OWN by means of us few users who intervene here. Please see RfC below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I would like to propose it again, since the former discussion was not conclusive. I have to point it out that this idea is the core of Christianity. It means that Jesus Christ is infinitely good for us, so we should trust in Him and be good too. This is also a huge movement of Church renewal, practiced by hundreds of millions and still growing. Propositum (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine Mercy 

message: The Assyrian Church of the East is not proportionate to Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic, the latter are sets of autocephalous and autonomous churches, and the former is only one autocephalous church, whereas the Church of the East is the collection of all Nestorian Churches, including the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, and the Caldean Catholic Church.——梦叙天 (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Church of the East only was - it was one church. PPEMES (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding [[Church of the East]] 

message: made a change to replace Virgin birth with Nativity. The rationale was sound as there is a link in the latter article to the former, although it's not in the lede. The former has the link to latter near the bottom of the article. :Template:Jesus lists both. I suggest we add Nativity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the Nativity article has fuller detail and includes the related links. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until there is a larger consensus, we should not be changing it. A few more weeks should be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's 3 versus 1 with no one else interested after 5 days. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  See :Wikipedia:Consensus, :Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers, :Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and I'd like some input from  before proceding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Given the small number of comments we often get, I concede there is sufficient consensus. tahc chat 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you mind making the change then? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes sense to change virgin birth to nativity of Jesus 

message: good evening, I added a topic in the sidebar because it is to complete the section so that others can find shortcut references easily  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwarestatistik (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity sidebar