Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Clement of Rome#Requested move 3 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Clement of Rome#Requested move 3 March 2024]] 

message: + To whom it may concern:
Good afternoon! I am new to trying to create an article for Wikipedia and have been having a hard time trying to do it on my own. A friend told that I should reach out to a Wikipedian and then another friend mentioned your WikiProject Catholicism section. 
I am hoping that one of you would be so kind to write an article for the movie that I wrote and produced entitled Trinity's Triumph. I have added all the pertinent information in this section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Film,_radio_and_television#T%E2%80%93V
Please let me know if you need more information.
I pray that one of you will be able to help me.
SJJPF (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a platform for your advertising. Articles about films have to pass WP:NFILM and your subject does not. While I was able to find sources about the movie, almost all of them were interviews of the producer or were written with input from the producer, so none of them (from FoxNews to National Catholic Reporter) provide any claim of notability. The good news is, you made your film. Perhaps in the next decade or two the film will become the subject of multiple independent reviews. Until then, there's nothing to be done here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing an article for a Catholic movie entitled Trinity's Triumph 

message: Hello all. User:GeralfD has been adding interminable lists of individual houses of worship to the articles relating to Malaysian dioceses; see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kota Kinabalu and Roman Catholic Diocese of Keningau for example. I removed some of these lists but I realize I do not know what the Project Catholicism's stance would be. I leave it to you, thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reaching out to ask. WP Catholicism defers to EnWikipedia policies and guidelines, so your removal of such extensive lists of unverified content falls well within the standards of WP:V. As best I can tell, lists of individual church buildings that lack independent references (or any references at all) are not encyclopedically relevant. If you'd like help cleaning, please ping me at my talk page! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I went ahead and reverted their additions. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Even if sourced, are not these exhaustive lists of parishes contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Maybe any such lists ought to be limited to  current or former parishes or parish churches. Notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni).  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, churches with articles - not potentially notable churches, which could be anything - should be ok in places like Malaysia, where there won't be too many. It wouldn't do for eg Italy or France. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Malaysian dioceses

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024]] 

message: i found a concerning post from may 2023 in the talk section about the ratlines claiming that the work of one author cited, a man named John Loftus, was dodgy and the author was a conspiracy theorist. one book by this man was cited by a historian called Michael Phayer, who is also cited in the article.  are questionable i then found this post in the reliable sources noticeboard that concluded the source was extremely unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404 - Wikipedia
yet the article parts in question have not been removed, which is strange considering the page is on this wikiprojects watchlist of articles people have tried to tamper with in the past
Bird244 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of this post appears to be Ratlines (World War II). Rutsq (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable sources used in Ratlines page 

message: There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The responses from many FTN regulars do not exactly inspire confidence that FTN is capable of reflecting on the recent policy violations associated with its culture. What kind of next steps are available? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard 

message: I've made a GA nomination for Catholic Church in Sichuan. This is my first GA process. If anyone has time to review this that would be great. Many thanks. Uriel1022 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested. Why not? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review request 

message: This page is in quite a state. Unreliable/non-independent sources, skewed interpretations, odd omissions. Currently, Hell in Christianity's Catholic section has a more robust and balanced approach to the topic. I'd like to make this page a more useful resource. Is there anyone who would like to work on improving the article with me? 
Ideally, I'd like to split the article's work into sections. I think the current section breakdown is... fine, but could probably be improved. If anyone wants to work on getting this, at least to B status with me, please ping me and we can work out a plan! ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hell in Catholicism]] 

message: It's bizarre that I can't find any treatment of this on Wikipedia. At minimum, Appeal (law) and Jurisprudence of Catholic canon law should be linking to a brief treatment wherever it is and Appeal (canon law) and Appeal (Catholicism) should be redirecting to it. For example, when Abelard "appealed" the charges/sentence of the 1141 Council of Sens to Innocent II, was that a formal procedure within canon law and the papal bureaucracy to annul the decision as mistaken? or was it just a letter to the guy asking for a Dispensation (Catholic canon law) to override the decision as lord of the Church?
If it's the first one, we should have a landing page to improve discussion of how it worked. If it's the second, we should have a section about such appeals (using that word) somewhere on the Dispensation page.
Entirely separately, the Jurisprudence article should link to Appeal as from an abuse and discuss that a bit, but that seems to specifically be about people forum shopping between civil and canon law outlets and not appeal within the canon law system itself. — LlywelynII 03:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal under canon law

message: I recently started a draft for Romanus Cessario. Any help finding source material would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Draft:Romanus Cessario]]

message: Talk:Pope#Visible_head Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Pope the "visible head" or the "Earthly head" of the church?