Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism/Archive 1

message: ===New category for seminaries===
I made a new category :Category:Anglican theological colleges and seminaries.  It is in both :Category:Anglicanism and :Category:Seminaries and theological colleges, so it kills two birds with one stone.
If you edit a theological college article, please consider moving it into :Category:Anglican theological colleges and seminaries.  I have put about 15 there today. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be more appropriate to have it in both categories?  Anglicans have no separate Liturgical Movement article, and arguable no need for one.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the point of categories is that they are hierarchical, so if we were to put things in Anglican Churches by County, then those same churches should not appear in churches by county.  I suspect that in general a parish church (or equivalent) will generally only be notable on other grounds (architecture, historical importance etc etc), rather than being inherently notable so I doubt we would ever have huge numbers in any county category.  One problem is taht church boundaries rarely coincide with secular ones - for example some Church of England parishes cross the border into Wales (and some Church in Wales parishes vice-versa).  I will elave it to others to comment on whether the Church of England should be characterised as Protestant... And to argue as to whether the most appropruate listing would actually be by diocese rather than county.  David Underdown 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I made a new category :Category:Anglican theological colleges and seminaries.  It is in both :Category:Anglicanism and :Category:Seminaries and theological colleges, so it kills two birds with one stone.
If you edit a theological college article, please consider moving it into :Category:Anglican theological colleges and seminaries.  I have put about 15 there today. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New category for seminaries

message: Set up a Category page for  Anglican heraldry. Don't know whether it would be appropriate? -- Bob K 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heraldry

message: ====  /  ====
I've sent this off for renaming at Stub types for deletion as both the template and the category violate the naming guidelines for stubs.  If this had been proposed first at the Stub sorting project's Proposals page this could have been easily corrected before creation.  I also noticed on your project page a proposal for an Archbishop of York stub.  However, such a stub would not be well received unless there were 60 stub articles that would use the stub.  (The discount to 30 articles only applies to the first stub of a Wikiproject, not every stub and at present, the proposer can't even find that many as of now.)  You might wish to instead consider a broader stub such as ,  or  instead depending on which one(s) you would find either most useful or most able to find 60 stubs to populate.  These would be sub types of ,  and  respectively and would fit in well with the existing stub types.  Each of these prospective parent stub types is large enough for a split to be viable, but not so large as to have attracted the attention of the Stub sorting project. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub categories

message: I've sent this off for renaming at Stub types for deletion as both the template and the category violate the naming guidelines for stubs.  If this had been proposed first at the Stub sorting project's Proposals page this could have been easily corrected before creation.  I also noticed on your project page a proposal for an Archbishop of York stub.  However, such a stub would not be well received unless there were 60 stub articles that would use the stub.  (The discount to 30 articles only applies to the first stub of a Wikiproject, not every stub and at present, the proposer can't even find that many as of now.)  You might wish to instead consider a broader stub such as ,  or  instead depending on which one(s) you would find either most useful or most able to find 60 stubs to populate.  These would be sub types of ,  and  respectively and would fit in well with the existing stub types.  Each of these prospective parent stub types is large enough for a split to be viable, but not so large as to have attracted the attention of the Stub sorting project. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Archbishop-of-Canterbury-stub}} / {{cl|Archbishops of Canterbury stubs}} 

message: The Liturgical Movement should not come under Anglicanism. It is in origin RC, as the article demonstrates. I have already had criticism of the alleged Anglican bias of the article and am trying to address it. Its effects have been widespread upon all western churches. Roger Arguile June 23rd. 2006
: Would it not be more appropriate to have it in both categories?  Anglicans have no separate Liturgical Movement article, and arguable no need for one.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong category 

message: I'm trying to give each of these bishop articles in here their own sub-category, as modelled on :Category:Bishops of Durham and :Category:Bishops of Chester, with the cathedral, a list page, the bishopric's page, and the diocese page as the * / main pages, then each individual sorted alphabetically by surname.  Any help would be extremely gratefully appreciated! Neddyseagoon | talk 11:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in England]]

message: This isn't an exclusively Anglican issue, but this is the most relevant WikiProject I have found (please bear with me!)...
Having discovered there were 10 'Churches in <county>' sub-categories under :Category:Churches in England, and needing to use one that didn't exist, I have created and part-populated another 32 similar sub-cats.  These group all churches, chapels and cathedrals (etc) by English 'ceremonial county', being lists of the buildings rather than the congregations that meet there, and hence covering both Anglican and Roman Catholic establishments.
This is an ongoing process (please feel free to join in!) as 'church' articles are randomly spread across a wide range of parent categories, mostly due to differences in the interpretation of the word 'church'.  Now, at least, the only churches under :Category:Churches in the United Kingdom are those (congregations) which are not listed because of the buildings they meet in; and, under :Category:Churches in England, every article is now arranged by county cat.
Having viewed so many articles about churches, it is clear that the vast majority are listed primarilly on architectural or historic merit.  However, it is also clear that in many cases the churches have active congregations and the articles would be considered incomplete without a description of their activities too.  This leads to another categorisation issue, since I perceive a need for a categorisation of the same churches by denomination instead of by geography.
I think it would become needlessly complicated to have a full set of 'Category:Anglican churches in <county>' and 'Category:Roman Catholic churches in <county>' (for example), since these would be sparsely populated and would heavilly overlap the existing 'Churches in <county>' cats.  Yet, without sub-division, the cats would be unmanagebly large and impossible to use.  So, instead I propose creating a hierarchy of lists - the list format allowing for additional information not obvious from the article title:
* List of Protestant churches in Great Britain – top-level list
** List of Church of England churches in England – sub-list
* List of Roman Catholic churches in Great Britain
* etc... (additional lists depending on need!)
These could be subdivided first by country and then by county.  Categorising in this way would avoid the naming issues surrounding the subcategories of :Category:Churches by denomination.
My reason for writing this essay here was prompted by a recent discussion concerning the proposed renaming of :Category:Churches to 'Category:Churches (buildings)' (see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Category:Churches.
Any thoughts?
EdJogg 13:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the point of categories is that they are hierarchical, so if we were to put things in Anglican Churches by County, then those same churches should not appear in churches by county.  I suspect that in general a parish church (or equivalent) will generally only be notable on other grounds (architecture, historical importance etc etc), rather than being inherently notable so I doubt we would ever have huge numbers in any county category.  One problem is taht church boundaries rarely coincide with secular ones - for example some Church of England parishes cross the border into Wales (and some Church in Wales parishes vice-versa).  I will elave it to others to comment on whether the Church of England should be characterised as Protestant... And to argue as to whether the most appropruate listing would actually be by diocese rather than county.  David Underdown 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Churches in England by County" and "[[:Category:Churches]]"

message: I see already a lot of activity on Anglican-related pages - this is very encouraging!  My thanks to those of you who have signed up - please feel free to add to the list of tasks, and to begin turning those red titles blue.  Also, please consider adding your nominations to the Collaboration of the Month. Fishhead64 16:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I exhausted my knowledge of that church when I started the article. I'd be tickled if some actual Aotearoans, New Zealanders, and Polynesians could improve it, though! User:Angr 08:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborations of the Month

message: Should bishops be treated like a governor of a state and every bishop worthy of an entry? Leave a note on my page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishops 

message: Added content to Samuel Seabury page, and removed one POV reference (deleting "lawless" from "a mob of lawless Patriot Whigs") from the otherwise excellent article. Added graf on Seabury's influence in 1789 BCP and his advocacy for weekly Holy Communion, a brief reference to why the non-juring bishops could ordain him, and several links. While we're on that subject: the article on the non-jurors focusses almost entirely on the English dissenters and doesn't mention that the schism continued in Scotland until 1788. So I wasn't able to link to it along with my reference to the topic. --langohio 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Samuel Seabury

message: I've put together , as a counterpart to similar Roman Catholic articles, to discuss the shape of ministry in the Anglican communion — both in the sense of leadership and service. It is not intended to be a discourse on holy orders in Anglicanism, but a more general article outlining various posts and ministries. I've gone through ordained ministry, and made a start on lay ministry, but would appreciate a wider input. Criticism and re-editing welcome. — Gareth Hughes 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be examined, as it has been attached to Clergy#Anglican clergy but as yet is largely orphaned. If nothing else, it seems to me that it should be renamed "Anglican clergy". Note that this isn't a complaint about the content of the article; but it hasn't been looked at much, judging from what I have seen. Mangoe 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at What Links There, they all seem reasonable, and it's hard to think of many others (unless it's included in the Anglicanism template, which would raise its profile considerably).  Not sure about the rename, as currently conceived it also includes info on deaconesses, and a header for Readers (but no content admittedly), which are lay roles.  Make Anglican Clergy a redirect to it perhaps?  David Underdown 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican ministry 

message: An article has recently been created on the branch theory, a theology which was apparently once common in the Church of England.  I know nothing about the theory, and had never heard of it until I read it being criticised in an article on a Roman Catholic web page (I can't find any online references to it which are anything other than criticisms of it).  The current article seems to be largely based on this critical assessment and a few parts read like original research, but in the main I have no idea whether it is accurate or unbiased - perhaps someone who knows more about the subject could have a look?  TSP 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think this is a rather peculiar theory, and it is something I've never come across before. It is odd that its inclusion is being pushed by a Roman Catholic who has previously demonstrated animosity towards Anglicanism. — Gareth Hughes 22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, some of the writing betrays a point of view (the "Novel Teaching" section seems to be entirely original opinion); but it clearly is something that has been written about, if it is indeed described in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.  TSP 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually the idea behind the Branch Theory is quite interesting for Anglo-Catholics. It gives us a chance to see just how Anglicanism relates to other parts of the Catholic Faith. I thought the article was great BTW. Balin42632003 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branch Theory 

message: Sometime ago I started having a go at this page in my userspace user:David Underdown/Morning Prayer, but I haven't really had time to sort it out properly.  If anyone wants to look at the changes I had got round to making and see if they think they're heading in the right direction, please feel free.  David Underdown 09:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Morning Prayer]]

message: I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible study 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Anglicanism WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 06:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to put a worklist together. Once I have a reasonable start I'll put it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism/Assessment. --Wine Guy Talk 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks!  I'll keep an eye on that link going blue. Cheers, Walkerma 05:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's live now, I hope others will have a look and discuss how we can further implement the worklist. --Wine Guy Talk 01:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I've started a stub for St Augustine's College, Canterbury, and wonder if there is a list of theological colleges or a category for them? Useful for clergy biographies. SteveH 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theological Colleges

message: In Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Canada), I would like to see the BCP treated parallel to the BAS, rather than as an afterthought. Carolynparrishfan 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next week, I will re-adjust the table along the lines suggested.  Meanwhile, allow me to silently curse the Canadian Church for having two separate calendars :) Fishhead64 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just attempted to do this, but it took so long that my computer timed out in the midst of it. I fear this may prove so onerous that no-one takes it up. Carolynparrishfan 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calendar

message: I'd like to suggest that this should be added to the list of articles for creation.  I would have done it myself, but I wasn't quite sure which category it would best fit under.  I've noticed it appear as a redlink in a couple of articles that are already under the project, and it would also be of use in my somewhat stalled attempt to re-write the Morning Prayer article when trying to explain the near demise of the service in regular congregational use (in England at least).  See User:David Underdown/Morning Prayer for the current progress of this revision.  David Underdown 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add it. Fishhead64 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parish communion movement 

message: I've been steadily working through the Anglican Religious Communities Yearbook and creating article stubs for the communities and orders of the Communion.  If anyone would like to join me on this rather arduous project, he or she would be most welcome.  If you don't have access to the Yearbook, the information (in condensed form) is also found at the Anglican Communion website . Fishhead64 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anglican religious order]]s

message: I've quickly thrown together a stub on Katharine Jefferts Schori. She's just been elected to succede Frank Tracy Griswold as the 26th Presiding Bishop of ECUSA. She will be the first woman primate in the Anglican Communion. Her election still needs to be confirmed by the House of Deputies. THis is a big bit of Anglican news, so I thought I'd better get it started. Please expand it. — Gareth Hughes 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katharine Jefferts Schori 

message: I wonder if a couple of you could take a look at the Apostolic Succession article, especially the bit relating to the validity of Anglican orders. A couple of unreferenced changes have been made recently that I really don't know how to evaluate, but I hope someone here can either correct them or add some references. Thanks. Wesley 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostolic Succession 

message: Last night I tried to make Common Worship more NPOV.  I hope I had some success.  I deleted some content that could be restored if backed by research - see Talk:Common Worship --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Common Worship]]

message: I have made a stub of Anglican doctrine.  It desparately needs some good sources from varying POVs.  Also I am fairly sure that in its current form it shows a bias from my Liberal Calvinist background. Please come and help.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Total Depravity article has Anglicanism listed as one of the holders of that doctrine. I'm not sure that's dreadfully accurate, as the place of the 39 articles in the hearts of different anglicans, is, well, very different to say the least. Anthropax 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said for Calvinists: how many modern Presbyterians stick to the Westminster Confession?  The lead section refers to the confessions of faith for these denominations, and seems, to me, to be on fairly safe ground. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anglican doctrine]]

message: The ACN article has received some interesting anonymous edits recently, and seems to be stirring up a lot of strong feelings.  I have tagged it for fact checking, and removed some of the unsourced material.  But, it needs a few more people to click the 'watch' tab, and also needs someone to research and write some strong, factual material.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anglican Communion Network]] 

message: Yesterday, a driveby anonymous IP expanded Philander Chase from a stub into a short biography.  Worth a read. Meanwhile,  created a brief stub for his successor, Charles Pettit McIlvaine.  I have not put bishop infoboxes on them,  because arguably they are more noted for other roles (I don't think they drew salaries as bishops.)  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no opinion right now about McIlvaine, but Philander Chase is one of the most notable bishops in the history of ECUSA. I'll see if I've got some documentation handy and add it to the article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 02:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ECUSA bishops [[Philander Chase]] and [[Charles Pettit McIlvaine]]

message: === Thinking Anglicans and live news feeds ===
I have been finding http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ very useful recently, especially if you bookmark their RSS feed. It provides good, up-to-date news for Anglicans (CofE bias). The Anglican Communion News Service (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/) offers live feed too, but I feel they are not quite as informative as Thinking Anglicans. Are there any other news services that are useful for this project? — Gareth Hughes 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful sources

message: I have been finding http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ very useful recently, especially if you bookmark their RSS feed. It provides good, up-to-date news for Anglicans (CofE bias). The Anglican Communion News Service (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/) offers live feed too, but I feel they are not quite as informative as Thinking Anglicans. Are there any other news services that are useful for this project? — Gareth Hughes 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Thinking Anglicans'' and live news feeds 

message: === Australian Anglican Dioceses ===
Anglican Church of Australia has a list of provinces, dioceses and bishops but there is no consistent system or policy for articles on individual dioceses, bishops or cathedrals. :Category:Anglican Church in Australia (why in, not of?) has the following articles on dioceses:
Anglican Diocese of Sydney
on bishops:
List of Anglican Bishops and Archbishops of Sydney
Bishop of Newcastle, Australia
Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
Archbishop of Perth, Australia
Bishop of Riverina
and on cathedrals:
St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne
St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide
St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney
St David's Cathedral (Hobart)
For comparison, the CofE and ECUSA have separate articles listing dioceses (List of Church of England dioceses and Dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America) while Anglican Church of Canada and Scottish Episcopal Church have lists within the national church articles.
I like the table in List of Church of England dioceses, as it's comprehensive, and with only 23 dioceses it might not take much work to create an Australian version. A consistent naming scheme might be Anglican Diocese of ..., Anglican (Arch)Bishop of ... and St X's Anglican Cathedral, ....
Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
Claudine C. (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've bitten the bullet, updated the list at Anglican Church of Australia and moved those existing dioceses with a different naming scheme. All dioceses are now Anglican Diocese of .... I think Anglican Diocese of Newcastle, Australia was the only Australian diocese with the same name as an Anglican diocese in another country. I don't know if a separate article on each bishop is warranted at this stage, and I will leave cathedrals for another day. Claudine C. (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there is no policy. However, it is considered bad form to change styles arbitrarily. The manual of style mentions changing AD to CE, or vice versa, and changing British to American spellings, or vice versa. As there is no preference for Rev'd or Revd (I actually prefer Rev), I would say that the article should be reverted just as it would be if any of the other purely stylistic changes were made. Where both styles are acceptable, one shouldn't change one to the other out of personal preference. The guideline is: keep the original style. — Gareth Hughes 12:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Claudine C. (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a passing mention in Anglicanism#Churches, but the situation could be made clearer.  David Underdown 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When developing the project page, I have to admit to my own ambivalence about the issue, but eventually concluded that we need to encompass the full spectrum of self-identified Anglican expression.  Thus, in the list of articles, I included some pages concerning institutions outside the Communion that I feel could be further developed (e.g., Reformed Episcopal Church, Traditional Anglican Communion). Fishhead64 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of the ECUSA, it's not just a case of simplicity, but also correctness. The official (or corporate) name of the dioceses in ECUSA is in fact the Episcopal Diocese of X. Besides being accurate, it also reduces the need for disambig. I believe (but am not sure) that in the C of E the 'official' diocesan names are all Diocese of X as you suggest, so when disambig may be required such as with Manchester (C of E and US RC), or Rochester (C of E, ECUSA, and US RC), it seems the correct approach is to title the anglican diocese Diocese of X_(Anglican), not Anglican Diocese of X. I think this should only be done when necessary, and in the case of St. David's the re-naming is not only unnecessary, but just plain wrong. --Wine Guy 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. Of course, legal name is important, and in the Church of England (as established church) the simple name is the legal one. I've had a little problem with dioceses of the Scottish Episcopal Church. They are all nineteenth century creations, as are the Catholic dioceses, and only a couple of modern Catholic dioceses have the same names as Episcopalian ones. However, a few of them share names with pre-Reformation dioceses. So, for Diocese of Argyll and the Isles, I've made the page a disambiguation linking to Diocese of Argyle and the Isles (Episcopalian) and Diocese of Argyll and the Isles (Catholic), and a note of the Diocese of Argyll that existed before the Scottish Reformation. Another case is with the Diocese of Brechin. It is an article on the now defunct pre-Reformation diocese where Diocese of Brechin (Anglican) (which should be (Episcopalian)) is the extant Episcopalian one. I switched them around with explanation that I thought the current dioceses had priority, but another user switched them back without explanation. I've suggested a compromise where the main article page is a disambiguation between the two. No modern diocese of either church in Scotland claims to be the continuation of a pre-Reformation diocese (technically, the church heritage passed to the presbyterian Church of Scotland). Therefore, it would seem inappropriate to me to merge articles on dioceses of the same name, as this would suggest that the modern see is a continuation of the mediaeval one. I shall se if I can go for the compromise option. — Gareth Hughes 09:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Scots have always been troublemakers ;).  In all seriousness I must admit that my knowledge of the Scottish churches is limited, at best, but having looked through the various discussions I would tend to agree with you on the issue re: Diocese of Brechin (Anglican) (which should be (Episcopalian)). It does seem that you and Calgacus are working through the issue, let us know what happens. Also, I see you've moved the Diocese of Saint David's back where it belongs, hopefully it will stay that way.--Wine Guy 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just looking at Scottish Episcopal Church, the diocesan links din't point to the articles about the diocese, but rather to articles about the places for which the dicoeses are named.  I've changed the first few, but pending resolution of naming conventions (and lack of extant articles), I've left the last ones as they wree.  This could do with tidying up.  David Underdown 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been sorting through the dioceses of the SEC and creating new articles — we are a couple of dioceses away from having an article on every Anglican diocese in Great Britain! There are still quite a few Anglican provinces without their own articles, and there are naming problems there too. I've been using the ACO list as a list of official names. Some of these are a little different to the titles given in Wikipedia (should we consider this list as standard?). Also, some provinces have non-English official names. We have an article on the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, its official Portuguese name, but should we anglicise it to the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil? I also noticed that Nippon Sei Ko Kai was moved to Anglican Church in Japan (the latter being a semi-official anglicisation). I notice that Template:Anglican Churches has a red link to the Church of the Province of Rwanda, but the official name is L'Eglise episcopal au Rwanda. ANy thoughts on this language issue? — Gareth Hughes 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read official Wikipedia policy boils down to "use the name English speakers are most likely to recognise".  I'm not quite sure how best to apply that in this circumstance.  Whichever we settle on, the other should probably be a re-direct, and give both titles in bold in the lead para.  In the absence of anything more definitive, the ACO list seems a reasonable starting point.  We could also think about whether the services conducted by the province are typically in English (i.e. it's really more or less an ex-pat church) of if they are predominantly in the local language.  Those are my first thoughts.  Anyone else?  David Underdown 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That source gives no indication of using the abbreviation TEC, so we should stay away from that. It also says it isn't an official name change, just a change in the way the national office and some diocesan newspapers are referring to the church. That's fine for them, where the context is clear, but as long as ECUSA is still the official name, I think that's what we should use, especially to avoid confusion with the Episcopal Church in Scotland. User:Angr 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the question, and the citation. However, please note that the article states that "the informal change was discussed at last April’s meeting of diocesan communicators...", and that "the national office does not control diocesan newspapers and the discussion did not take place in political terms". In other words, some diocesesan staffers have decided to make more use of an informality which has been used (by a few, very informaly) for a long time. The formal name continues to be the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which is the shortened form of the legal name of the corporate body, The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The informal use of The Episcopal Church, or TEC, by diocesan newspapers should have no bearing on usage in WP. --Wine Guy Talk 08:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen TEC written in few places, particularly in the greater number of overpuddlian Episcopalian blogs I have reading recently. However, I am used to the abbreviation ECUSA, which is still prominantly used in the church's own literature and that of the ACO. The form ECUSA does have the advantage of disambiguating which national church is being referrenced within the Anglican Communion. However, I can understand that within the US it is felt appropriate to give a shorter name — the full name is a bit of mouthfull after all. — Gareth Hughes 10:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Preamble of the Constitution  of the church begins "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church)..." I believe the change was adopted at General Conventon in 2003; making TEC the newly preferred abbreviation. The rationale was that there are member dioceses of the church which are not within the USA. Bpmullins 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The closest thing I can find is this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Buildings named after people whilst it refers to using St. (with full stop) the two examples given then redirect to articles without the full-stop (which I'd prefer in any case)!  David Underdown 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: St Pauls is definitely "without" on their website. Mind you it's a bit of an oddity, every other English (CofE) cathedral is almost invariably known by its location (with the probable exception of Christchurch Oxford, but that's even more of an oddity).  So Peterborough Cathedral, rather than the Cathedral Church of St Peter, St Paul and St Andrew :-) David Underdown 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately that's in direct conflict with the convention I referred to above (now fixed the link).  Saint spelled in full is rarely used on anything, noticeboards, literature etc for churches so it also goes against the general principle of using the most easily recognised version of a name for an article title.  Comma as separator also seems to be the more common approach for this type of disambiguation as well, rather than brackets.  David Underdown 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions

message: Anglican Church of Australia has a list of provinces, dioceses and bishops but there is no consistent system or policy for articles on individual dioceses, bishops or cathedrals. :Category:Anglican Church in Australia (why in, not of?) has the following articles on dioceses:
Anglican Diocese of Sydney
on bishops:
List of Anglican Bishops and Archbishops of Sydney
Bishop of Newcastle, Australia
Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
Archbishop of Perth, Australia
Bishop of Riverina
and on cathedrals:
St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne
St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide
St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney
St David's Cathedral (Hobart)
For comparison, the CofE and ECUSA have separate articles listing dioceses (List of Church of England dioceses and Dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America) while Anglican Church of Canada and Scottish Episcopal Church have lists within the national church articles.
I like the table in List of Church of England dioceses, as it's comprehensive, and with only 23 dioceses it might not take much work to create an Australian version. A consistent naming scheme might be Anglican Diocese of ..., Anglican (Arch)Bishop of ... and St X's Anglican Cathedral, ....
Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
Claudine C. (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've bitten the bullet, updated the list at Anglican Church of Australia and moved those existing dioceses with a different naming scheme. All dioceses are now Anglican Diocese of .... I think Anglican Diocese of Newcastle, Australia was the only Australian diocese with the same name as an Anglican diocese in another country. I don't know if a separate article on each bishop is warranted at this stage, and I will leave cathedrals for another day. Claudine C. (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Anglican Dioceses 

message: In the Anglican Church of Australia article all instances of Revd were replaced with Rev'd. Is there an official policy on Wikipedia regarding which abbreviation to use, or is it just a matter of personal style?
Claudine C. (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no policy. However, it is considered bad form to change styles arbitrarily. The manual of style mentions changing AD to CE, or vice versa, and changing British to American spellings, or vice versa. As there is no preference for Rev'd or Revd (I actually prefer Rev), I would say that the article should be reverted just as it would be if any of the other purely stylistic changes were made. Where both styles are acceptable, one shouldn't change one to the other out of personal preference. The guideline is: keep the original style. — Gareth Hughes 12:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Claudine C. (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revd vs Rev'd vs ... 

message: Some of you have been caught up in the naming debates concerning articles touching on Catholicism and the attempt on the part of some editors to render Catholic and Roman Catholic as synonymous terms.  This has a bearing on our work, since Anglicanism has a Catholic component, and the question of ambiguity and the extent to which Anglican information can be included in such articles, as, say Catholic minister or Catholic spirituality can or should be included is relevant.  I invite you to review Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name for the relevant discussion, which is ongoing.
I wanted Anglican editors to be aware that I have tagged the following articles and categories for requested moves:
* Catholic Church hierarchy → Roman Catholic Church hierarchy
* Catholic spirituality → Roman Catholic spirituality
* Catholic marriage → Roman Catholic views of marriage
* Catholic minister → Roman Catholic minister
* :Category:Catholic liturgy → :Category:Roman Catholic liturgy
* :Category:Catholic religious life → :Category:Roman Catholic religious life
I have suggested on Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name that Roman Catholic editors post a similar message on the Catholicism 101 WikiProject.  My preference obviously is for inclusivity with regard to the terms "Catholic," "Catholicism," and "Catholic Church," but I would be content even with greater clarity and specific guidelines.  I invite you to contribute to the discussion with a view to a mutually satisfactory resolution.  Cheers! Fishhead64 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholicism

message: *Talk:Roman Catholic Church - should the article's name be changed to simply "Catholic Church". This debate has been going on for months now, and a vote/comment is underway. There are policy/guideline issues, and disambiguity and POV issues on both sides. Please, if you have the time, take a few minutes to review the past discussions and weigh in. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCC vs. CC 

message: I've just had a first look at this project page. The thing that strikes me is that neither this nor the Wikipedia article on Anglicanism seems to address the distinction between the Anglican Communion and the raft of other churches which claim an Anglican tradition but are out of communion with Canterbury. In the light of recent controversy involving, for example, the Church of England in South Africa, I would have thought this issue should be explicitly acknowledged. 
Myopic Bookworm 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a passing mention in Anglicanism#Churches, but the situation could be made clearer.  David Underdown 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When developing the project page, I have to admit to my own ambivalence about the issue, but eventually concluded that we need to encompass the full spectrum of self-identified Anglican expression.  Thus, in the list of articles, I included some pages concerning institutions outside the Communion that I feel could be further developed (e.g., Reformed Episcopal Church, Traditional Anglican Communion). Fishhead64 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More than one Anglicanism

message: I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism#Naming conventions gives no specific guidence for the naming of articles about dioceses, but does say a little about keeping things simple and using disambiguation where necessary. I've had a little conversation with Carolynparrishfan about this. It started when I noticed that Diocese of St David's was now a redirect to Anglican Diocese of Saint David's. All the other dioceses of the Church in Wales are called Diocese of X. Just in case you're wondering, no Roman Catholic diocese in Wales has the same name as an Anglican one (the Catholic Diocese of Menevia is nearest to St David's). In England, there are four Catholic/Anglican name clashes. Three of these are dealt with easily — Archdiocese of Liverpool/Diocese of Liverpool, Archdiocese of Birmingham/Diocese of Birmingham and Archdiocese of Southwark/Diocese of Southwark. There is a problem with the Diocese of Portsmouth: that name points to the Anglican diocese, where Catholic diocese of Portsmouth points to the older Catholic one. Fortunately, in the UK, ANglicans and Roman Catholics are the only major churches to have developed diocesan structures. I realise that elsewhere there are a greater number of denominations all using the name Diocese of X, and I understand why all ECUSA diocese are Episcopal Diocese of X. Should we contact WikiProject Catholicism 101 to work out a compromise? I feel that where a diocese is the only one to use a certain title it should be under Diocese of X, but we may want to have redirects from Episcopal Diocese of X or Anglican Diocese of X. Where there are a number of denominations using the same title, I feel that no one church should get to use Diocese of X, but that that page should be a disambiguation page linking to each denomination's own diocese. Any thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 12:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of the ECUSA, it's not just a case of simplicity, but also correctness. The official (or corporate) name of the dioceses in ECUSA is in fact the Episcopal Diocese of X. Besides being accurate, it also reduces the need for disambig. I believe (but am not sure) that in the C of E the 'official' diocesan names are all Diocese of X as you suggest, so when disambig may be required such as with Manchester (C of E and US RC), or Rochester (C of E, ECUSA, and US RC), it seems the correct approach is to title the anglican diocese Diocese of X_(Anglican), not Anglican Diocese of X. I think this should only be done when necessary, and in the case of St. David's the re-naming is not only unnecessary, but just plain wrong. --Wine Guy 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. Of course, legal name is important, and in the Church of England (as established church) the simple name is the legal one. I've had a little problem with dioceses of the Scottish Episcopal Church. They are all nineteenth century creations, as are the Catholic dioceses, and only a couple of modern Catholic dioceses have the same names as Episcopalian ones. However, a few of them share names with pre-Reformation dioceses. So, for Diocese of Argyll and the Isles, I've made the page a disambiguation linking to Diocese of Argyle and the Isles (Episcopalian) and Diocese of Argyll and the Isles (Catholic), and a note of the Diocese of Argyll that existed before the Scottish Reformation. Another case is with the Diocese of Brechin. It is an article on the now defunct pre-Reformation diocese where Diocese of Brechin (Anglican) (which should be (Episcopalian)) is the extant Episcopalian one. I switched them around with explanation that I thought the current dioceses had priority, but another user switched them back without explanation. I've suggested a compromise where the main article page is a disambiguation between the two. No modern diocese of either church in Scotland claims to be the continuation of a pre-Reformation diocese (technically, the church heritage passed to the presbyterian Church of Scotland). Therefore, it would seem inappropriate to me to merge articles on dioceses of the same name, as this would suggest that the modern see is a continuation of the mediaeval one. I shall se if I can go for the compromise option. — Gareth Hughes 09:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Scots have always been troublemakers ;).  In all seriousness I must admit that my knowledge of the Scottish churches is limited, at best, but having looked through the various discussions I would tend to agree with you on the issue re: Diocese of Brechin (Anglican) (which should be (Episcopalian)). It does seem that you and Calgacus are working through the issue, let us know what happens. Also, I see you've moved the Diocese of Saint David's back where it belongs, hopefully it will stay that way.--Wine Guy 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just looking at Scottish Episcopal Church, the diocesan links din't point to the articles about the diocese, but rather to articles about the places for which the dicoeses are named.  I've changed the first few, but pending resolution of naming conventions (and lack of extant articles), I've left the last ones as they wree.  This could do with tidying up.  David Underdown 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been sorting through the dioceses of the SEC and creating new articles — we are a couple of dioceses away from having an article on every Anglican diocese in Great Britain! There are still quite a few Anglican provinces without their own articles, and there are naming problems there too. I've been using the ACO list as a list of official names. Some of these are a little different to the titles given in Wikipedia (should we consider this list as standard?). Also, some provinces have non-English official names. We have an article on the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, its official Portuguese name, but should we anglicise it to the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil? I also noticed that Nippon Sei Ko Kai was moved to Anglican Church in Japan (the latter being a semi-official anglicisation). I notice that Template:Anglican Churches has a red link to the Church of the Province of Rwanda, but the official name is L'Eglise episcopal au Rwanda. ANy thoughts on this language issue? — Gareth Hughes 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read official Wikipedia policy boils down to "use the name English speakers are most likely to recognise".  I'm not quite sure how best to apply that in this circumstance.  Whichever we settle on, the other should probably be a re-direct, and give both titles in bold in the lead para.  In the absence of anything more definitive, the ACO list seems a reasonable starting point.  We could also think about whether the services conducted by the province are typically in English (i.e. it's really more or less an ex-pat church) of if they are predominantly in the local language.  Those are my first thoughts.  Anyone else?  David Underdown 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of dioceses 

message: I've heard  that ECUSA is now going by the name The Episcopal Church (TEC for short, instead of ECUSA).  Should we refer to it now in articles as The Episcopal Church, The Episcopal Church (TEC), or still ECUSA? Panchitavilletalk 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That source gives no indication of using the abbreviation TEC, so we should stay away from that. It also says it isn't an official name change, just a change in the way the national office and some diocesan newspapers are referring to the church. That's fine for them, where the context is clear, but as long as ECUSA is still the official name, I think that's what we should use, especially to avoid confusion with the Episcopal Church in Scotland. User:Angr 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the question, and the citation. However, please note that the article states that "the informal change was discussed at last April’s meeting of diocesan communicators...", and that "the national office does not control diocesan newspapers and the discussion did not take place in political terms". In other words, some diocesesan staffers have decided to make more use of an informality which has been used (by a few, very informaly) for a long time. The formal name continues to be the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which is the shortened form of the legal name of the corporate body, The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The informal use of The Episcopal Church, or TEC, by diocesan newspapers should have no bearing on usage in WP. --Wine Guy Talk 08:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen TEC written in few places, particularly in the greater number of overpuddlian Episcopalian blogs I have reading recently. However, I am used to the abbreviation ECUSA, which is still prominantly used in the church's own literature and that of the ACO. The form ECUSA does have the advantage of disambiguating which national church is being referrenced within the Anglican Communion. However, I can understand that within the US it is felt appropriate to give a shorter name — the full name is a bit of mouthfull after all. — Gareth Hughes 10:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Preamble of the Constitution  of the church begins "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church)..." I believe the change was adopted at General Conventon in 2003; making TEC the newly preferred abbreviation. The rationale was that there are member dioceses of the church which are not within the USA. Bpmullins 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of the Episcopal Church (USA) 

message: I've moved a few ECUSA cathedral names from Cathedral of St. xxx (City) to Cathedral of St. xxx, City, which seems to be the majority opinion. If there's no objection I'll follow up by adding the city name to those that don't need a city right now - so Grace Cathedral will move to Grace Cathedral, San Francisco. I'm not sure what to do about smaller cities where the state might not be obvious - Eau Claire is fairly obvious for ECUSAns (right?) but not for the rest of the world. I'd appreciate advice before starting on the moves. -- Bpmullins 03:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American Cathedral Names

message: Having examined a wide variety of articles describing English churches, I have noted much inconsistency with the naming - often the place name is omitted entirely!
Would it be safe to assume that the standard format for a church (building) article should be: '<church name>, <town>', with 'Saint' abbreviated to 'St.'?  (For example: 'St. Mary's, Truro'.)
Is anyone aware of a Wiki-wide consensus on this? (In which case it would be safe to rename articles accordingly...)
EdJogg 13:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest thing I can find is this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Buildings named after people whilst it refers to using St. (with full stop) the two examples given then redirect to articles without the full-stop (which I'd prefer in any case)!  David Underdown 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: St Pauls is definitely "without" on their website. Mind you it's a bit of an oddity, every other English (CofE) cathedral is almost invariably known by its location (with the probable exception of Christchurch Oxford, but that's even more of an oddity).  So Peterborough Cathedral, rather than the Cathedral Church of St Peter, St Paul and St Andrew :-) David Underdown 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately that's in direct conflict with the convention I referred to above (now fixed the link).  Saint spelled in full is rarely used on anything, noticeboards, literature etc for churches so it also goes against the general principle of using the most easily recognised version of a name for an article title.  Comma as separator also seems to be the more common approach for this type of disambiguation as well, rather than brackets.  David Underdown 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church (building) Names

message: Might I suggest the initiation of task forces, to make use of the considerable enthusiasm aroused by this project,, and split down the burden of the formidable list of tasks and articles into more manageable chunks whilst still keeping work on them within the project?  Perhaps ones on 'Archbishops of Canterbury', 'Liturgy', etc.etc., on the model of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Task forces I'ld be happy to head up one or more of them, if that doesn't sound too egotistical. Neddyseagoon 12:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task forces 

message: === Template:Diocese ===
I've been using Template:Diocese (and Template:Diocese NoImage) on Scottish Episcopalian dioceses, and I feel it gives pages on diocese a good common look. I was wondering how ParserFunctions could be used on the template. I've come up with a trial version, which you can see at User:Garzo/projects/template. It's basically the old template with a few parser functions thrown in. The functions allow the same template to be used whether or not there is an image, thereby reducing the need for two separate templates. They also remove the website line if there is no website, and allow the replacement of Archdeaconries with Deaneries or Subdivisions if needed. The idea is that the same template could be used for dioceses throughout the world, whether or not they have arms images, websites or call their subdivisions archdeaconries. You can see three examples of the new template at User:Garzo/projects/sandbox. Please let me know what you think of it, and any suggestions you might have. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do dioceses even really need an infobox? It seems like almost every article is getting an infobox nowadays and I just don't see the point. User:Angr 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer having the info boxes; they present common but important info in a very clear and concise way. If someone comes to the article just to see who's the bishop of the diocese of X (or cathedral, size, etc.) boom...it's right there in front of you. Very handy IMHO. On the subject of templates, have a look at Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, I subst:'ed the Template:Diocese and tweaked it manually. Garzo, your parser'd templates look good, and much easier to deal with than my original plan. Thanks.--Wine Guy Talk 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. You'll notice that for the Massachusetts and Maryland infoboxes I've used total number of congregations and membership. ECUSA seems to prefer this method of stating size; counting people rather than buildings. When the articles get expanded, these could be broken up (in the body if the article) into parishes, missions, collegiate chapels etc., and baptised members, communicants, (people who only show up on Chritmas and Easter), etc. Does this make sense-any thoughts? --Wine Guy Talk 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thing, then I'll go away. I just added a Province 1 navbox here and here. If this looks right to everyone, I'll go ahead and make it a template and do likewise for the other provinces. --Wine Guy Talk 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly, infoboxes are matters of taste. If you're prepared to read an article through, you don't need an infobox. However, the way many people browse Wikipedia, and the web in general, is by bouncing from site to site until they find what they are looking for. I have found infoboxes useful ways of focusing stub articles, as they encourage me to find the basic information on the subject: what is the cathedral called, who is the bishop and such stuff. I find having the navbox at the footer of diocesan articles useful too. Seeing that  and  were in use, I created , ,  and . Perhaps we should group provincial navboxes into a category to help us find them all! I could make a few tweaks to my trial template so that it can mimic the Mass. and Maryland infoboxes.  — Gareth Hughes
=== Color scheme on Infobox bishopbiog ===
Was the color scheme for  discussed previously? The color seems out of the ordinary for biographies. Most biography infoboxes have no color. A few that do: the pope infobox (Benedict XVI) uses tan, and the philospher infobox (Hilary Putnam) uses light blue, much more sedate colors. (This came up on Rowan Williams.) Gimmetrow 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it's a reference to the roman purple of bishops' shirts.  I agree, though, that it's much too bright for this purpose, as well as too dark to easily read black text on.  I don't think there's any particular need to adopt distinctive colour schemes; people will know they're looking at a bishop.  Tan or light blue, as you've suggested elsewhere, would be better. TSP 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I had changed it to tan and was rather quickly reverted. Would you care to re-revert the template? Gimmetrow 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have done; reverted back.  I've asked Jtdirl why he's so keen on the purple; to my eye it's totally wrong in a page context.  Wikipedia doesn't have any definite rules on colour, but it's worth looking at the suggested schemes Wikipedia:Colours, all of which use pale pastel, or at most mid pastel, backgrounds with black text. TSP 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...well, it's a different purple now.  I don't dislike this one nearly so much (it looks pretty episcopal to me, whereas the other one said 'hot pink' to me); you'll have to see whether you still feel it's too intrusive. TSP 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just anglican userboxes. Per the Wikipedia:German userbox solution all userboxes which state a personal belief must be migrated out of the template namespace into user namespace. Many of them made it, some did not; tragic victims of the "userbox wars". Presently, any userbox which is still in the template namespace is subject to speedy deletion as "divisive and inflammatory" if it states anything beyond (for example) This user believes in Breathing. Personally, I think it can be helpful to know a little background on other users when engaging in discussion, especially on topics such as religion, so as to understand where people are coming from, work through disagreements, and achieve consensus. However, the Boss disagrees, and has valid reasons for wanting to discourage userboxes; so the WP:GUS seems a reasonable comprimise, a via media if you will (how appropriate for us anglicans ;). --Wine Guy Talk 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Was the color scheme for  discussed previously? The color seems out of the ordinary for biographies. Most biography infoboxes have no color. A few that do: the pope infobox (Benedict XVI) uses tan, and the philospher infobox (Hilary Putnam) uses light blue, much more sedate colors. (This came up on Rowan Williams.) Gimmetrow 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's a reference to the roman purple of bishops' shirts.  I agree, though, that it's much too bright for this purpose, as well as too dark to easily read black text on.  I don't think there's any particular need to adopt distinctive colour schemes; people will know they're looking at a bishop.  Tan or light blue, as you've suggested elsewhere, would be better. TSP 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I had changed it to tan and was rather quickly reverted. Would you care to re-revert the template? Gimmetrow 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have done; reverted back.  I've asked Jtdirl why he's so keen on the purple; to my eye it's totally wrong in a page context.  Wikipedia doesn't have any definite rules on colour, but it's worth looking at the suggested schemes Wikipedia:Colours, all of which use pale pastel, or at most mid pastel, backgrounds with black text. TSP 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...well, it's a different purple now.  I don't dislike this one nearly so much (it looks pretty episcopal to me, whereas the other one said 'hot pink' to me); you'll have to see whether you still feel it's too intrusive. TSP 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color scheme on Infobox bishopbiog 

message: Anyone out there know why some of the anglican userboxes have recently been deleted. I notice that "evangelical anglican" and "Catholic anglican" have gone missing. Anyone know why? I recreated the evangelical one since I found a copy of the source code. Let me know. Journeyman 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just anglican userboxes. Per the Wikipedia:German userbox solution all userboxes which state a personal belief must be migrated out of the template namespace into user namespace. Many of them made it, some did not; tragic victims of the "userbox wars". Presently, any userbox which is still in the template namespace is subject to speedy deletion as "divisive and inflammatory" if it states anything beyond (for example) This user believes in Breathing. Personally, I think it can be helpful to know a little background on other users when engaging in discussion, especially on topics such as religion, so as to understand where people are coming from, work through disagreements, and achieve consensus. However, the Boss disagrees, and has valid reasons for wanting to discourage userboxes; so the WP:GUS seems a reasonable comprimise, a via media if you will (how appropriate for us anglicans ;). --Wine Guy Talk 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican user boxes 

message: I decided to have some fun and provide a way to offer kudos to those who are working hard on this project.  Feel free to distribute the largesse. Fishhead64 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar

message: So far as I can determine, there are at least six archived pages of talk relating to the proper name of the page for the Catholic Church headed by the Pope.  It is hard to imagine that this so-far endless discussion has not resulted in bad feelings on all sides.  Regretably, no final resolution seems to be likely anytime soon if the same tactics are taken.
I would like to make a proposal which I believe might finally solve the core dispute which has led to this argument.  I also note that I myself am in no way qualified to seek to "impose" this possibility on anyone, and am thus requesting that the majority of the rest of you involved in this discussion at least consider lending your support to this way of very likely resolving the current discussion.
As most of you will know, there is currently an election to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ongoing.  My proposal is that, come the end of this election, a special referendum regarding the name debate be held.  Any and all editors who have taken part in the election, but only those individuals, would be eligible to vote to determine how this matter would be decided, including all those who claim no allegiance to any of the opposing sides.  The decision reached would not be "final" in any real sense, but would resolve the question which has led to the current debate until some development which alters the current status quo takes place.  Exactly how to determine what such developments would qualify could also be one of the issues involved in the vote.  
I ask each of you to thoughtfully and, according to your own inclinations, prayerfully consider this proposal, and, if it is one agreeable to you, to help me in finding out exactly how to go about making this happen.  (Hey, I'm kinda new here, OK?)  Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to resolve the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate 

message: Been working on a list of the bishops who have been Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church this evening.
Currently in my Sandbox I have pulled together my first attempt. My main source of information is from the revised edition of A Short History of the Epsicopal Church in Scotland by Bishop Goldie (1976). Two challenges I have encountered:-
* Identifying the Primus during the 1800's
* More recently confirming the date that Bp Wimbush ceased to be Primus, Bishop Luscombe became Primus and who held the postion between them.
At present I have avoided the complication of Coadjutor.
-- Stewart 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church]] 

message: Hello all. Please visit and vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evening Prayer (Common Worship). I would like to see this merged into the BCP article, and then have the whole thing expanded to include other liturgies. Carolynparrishfan 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for deletion 

message: User:Arbustoo has nominated Christ's_Church_Cathedral_(Hamilton) for deletion. S/he characterises it as an "unnotable church" of a "sect of an episcopal denomination". Tiresome, I know, but perhaps, members of the project wouldn't mind stopping by? Carolynparrishfan 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More articles for deletion 

message: Been doing some work about historical development of Church of England dioceses: I spotted that we have the following articles, with the "Saint" spelled out in full
*Diocese of Saint Albans
*Diocese of Saint Asaph
*Diocese of Saint David's
*Diocese of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich
the websites of these dioceses all seem to prefer 'St', and 'St' is certainly used in the place names.  Would anyone mind terribly if i moved these?  Morwen - Talk 08:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, good catch. I think you should go ahead with the move. -- Bpmullins 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diocese names

message: Hello all, I've just created George Smith (bishop). I'm afraid that he falls within one of my areas of complete ignorance (I was led into writing an article on him from a most unusual angle, that of Pierre Rossier) and I fear that I may have made some terrible gaffes. If so, apologies in advance. One warning: before rushing to add any more information about Smith, do please check that you have the right one in mind, as George Smith was the name of at least two other eminent mid-19th-century Brits who wrote about Christianity or Asia or both, and also very likely of yet more people who could be confused. -- Hoary 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd only known his name and the title of his book, Ten Weeks in Japan when I started the Rossier article, but as I researched/wrote he struck me as potentially interesting. Two similar cases are George S. Morrison (diplomat) and Henry Smith Munroe. On the other hand, I've already plenty of fish to fry. Pinkville 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George Smith

message: we have different footerboxes for CoE/CiW cathedrals, dioceses and bishops
This is the one for cathedrals ->
These are for the dioceses ->
These are for the bishops ->
This seems to my mind to be a mess.
The footerboxes all have different geographic scope, present the hierachy in different ways.  etc.   can I get support for altering these somehow so that they are more consistent : as I first step I'm going to merge York and Canterbury?  Morwen - Talk 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  footerboxes 

message: Somehow, we have articles on the Order of the Holy Cross here and here. Can someone merge them? Carolynparrishfan 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Carolynparrishfan 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Be bold and do the merge yourself. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure how to approach it and I'd feel much more comfortable doing in in conjunction with at least a couple of other editors. Carolynparrishfan 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly simple. The instructions are at WP:MERGE. Take a look and if you've got any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles 

message: Zscout370 and TSP have generously created and uploaded two new heraldic images for the Episcopal Church.  Unlike the images offered at the ECUSA website, they have free content licenses, so you can use them in any article (indeed, you can copy them for completely unrelated projects, provided you follow the generous license conditions).  I like the way it symbolises Christ, England and Scotland, and even subtly hints at the stars and stripes.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[ECUSA]] images 

message: I am aware of the assessment page, but wonder why this particular approach was taken. I note that several projects, like WikiProject Biography, have the assessment rankings for both quality and importance displayed in the banner itself, and that doing so places the article automatically in the appropriate category for quality or importance. Would the members of this project be interested in adapting the banner for those purposes? It would probably make the assessment process rather easier. Badbilltucker 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessments 

message: As further described in the 'Categories' and 'Naming Conventions' sections above, I have recently viewed a large number of articles describing English churches.  The majority of these are (presumably) part of the Church of England, yet I find them described randomly as either Anglican or Church of England, or even, in at least one case: Anglican! 
I had never really considered this carefully before, and like many people, used the terms interchangeably.  But I need some guidance for the correct usage here. What should the correct terminology be?  Would "Anglican (Church of England)" be a good way of describing these churches consistently?
Incidentally, St John the Baptist, Egglescliffe shows an example of the under-utilised but potentially useful info box for use with Church of England churches. (see Template:Parish church).
Another possibly useful template is Template:Infobox church, although this requires more architectural knowledge.
EdJogg 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Church (Building) Articles 

message: This is tagged as part of this project, but from what I see it hardly represents an Anglican perspective at all. Instead, it seems to have been overrun by someone's personal categorization of evangelical views. Any help would be appreciated. Mangoe 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with [[Christian views of marriage]]