Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious texts

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:  
# supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
# opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome.  Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment. 
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help. 
===Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people===
;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see:  Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Biographies of living people

message: ;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see:  Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

message: Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:  
# supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
# opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome.  Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment. 
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help. 
===Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people===
;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,   Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project. 
It is very easy to add to your project:  simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions
A list of examples is here  
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Biographies of living people

message: ;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,   Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project. 
It is very easy to add to your project:  simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions
A list of examples is here  
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

message: Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes.  My revisions on several pages have been removed and I am confused by these edits because I was not trying to self promote with my additions.  Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible.  JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains an online version of its most recent Bible translation.  
You removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, but Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikiperida pages related to the Bible.  Please explain to me why these organizations are allowed to post and I am not.  Additionally, I find it a little bothersome that Christian versions of the Bible (ie Bible Gateway and University of Michigan) are adding links to Jewish Wikipedia pages such as Torah and the Book of Genesis.  Please advise me on the next step that I should take. Thank you, and I Look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Links  

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Religious texts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious texts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ormulum]]'s FAR 

message: I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.
I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leadwind is pushing neutrality, and you're pushing back with theologically conservative fringe views. Worse, you're editing against consensus to insert weasel words. This is not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan is one of the editors defining "neutral" as the work of atheistic scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: Please visit Category talk:Christian narrative#Narrative should be a subcat of Literature and offer your input. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Christian Lit category 

message: the Books of Jeu article is unsourced, except for the link to an online text of the book itself; is the information in the article reliable?--Melaen (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: request for exper opinion on [[Books of Jeu]]

message: Can anyone look this through, please. Not very reliable, the mention about "found lost book" only on one site and then translations... on DeviantArt. If looks genuine, please add some more scholarly-oriented comment what is legit and what could be not.
Szpawq (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Book of Gad the Seer]] 

message: I've raised this issue about a specific article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Al-Muzzammil. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have articles that only repeat religious texts? 

message: Fellow Wikipedians, I have taken the initiative, in consultation with a few others, to draft a WikiProject for Bibliographies.  I hope it will be of interest to members of this project.  The genesis of this effort has been a recent spate of AfD nominations of lists of publications.  For the most part, the articles were not deleted, but that doesn’t mean many of them didn’t need work.  A WP article entitled List of subject publications or any list of works, is by any other name, a Bibliography.  Bibliographies within WP are specifically identified as a form of List in WP:List, are subject to List notability guidelines and the List Manual of Style.  Unfortunately, many of the existing Bibliographies (or lists of publications) are not up to these standards.  And there’s a high probability that new lists of publications or new Bibliographies won’t completely meet these standards as well, unless we as a community bring greater visibility to this genre of lists.
So the explicit goals of this draft project are to establish project-level advice for creating good bibliographies, gradually bring the existing set of bibliographies (400+) up to standard and to encourage editors to create bibliographies on topics and authors where appropriate.  The goal is not to create bibliographies of everything or on everything.
I think the draft Bibliography project is logically connected to this project and members here would have a lot to contribute.  If you are interested in participating, please sign up on the draft project page.  If we get sufficient interest, I will move the draft into the Wikipedia space and we can press on.  Also, please don’t hesitate to make suggestions on the draft here.  I am sure it can be improved, will need some work to comply with Project guidelines and that it will evolve as this thing gets going.  Thanks in advance for your support.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting support for draft WikiProject Bibliographies 

message: There are discussions underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed moves 

message: There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed MOS for Religion 

message: , now banned, created several stubs in :Category:Gnostic apocrypha and :Category:New Testament apocrypha for texts with names that begin with "Pseudo-": Pseudo-Abdias,  Pseudo-Ambrose,  Pseudo-Crato,  Pseudo-Dorotheus,  Pseudo-Epiphanios,  Pseudo-Gregory,  Pseudo-Jerome,  Pseudo-John,  Pseudo-Linus,  Pseudo-Luke,  Pseudo-Marcellus,  Pseudo-Mark,  Pseudo-Melitus,  Pseudo-Simon,  Pseudo-Sophronius. Despite his contention that these somehow constitute "Pseudo-Gnostic Apocrypha" (see also template deletion discussion), it appears that while these are real texts, his categorisation of them is totally wrong - many or all of them are not Gnostic, they are not in any meaningful sense NT apocrypha, etc. I've fixed up Pseudo-Augustine (it's still a very brief stub, but at least is factually accurate now I believe.) The question with the remainder, is whether to fix them up to be accurate stubs about largely obscure texts, or just delete them. Given their obscurity, they may be destined to remain stubs for a long time if not forever. SJK (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my opinion (no more), but I would say they're not WP:NOTABLE. Evenssteven (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To take Pseudo-Augustine as an example - it's probably not notable enough for an independent article, but might belong as a section in Augustine of Hippo bibliography, or deserve a mention in the history section of Order of Saint Augustine. The same is likely true of the other "Pseudo-" articles - probably not notable enough for an independent article, could be notable enough for a mention in an existing one. However, absent someone volunteering to research the true facts regarding these articles (I don't have the time to do it for more than one or two), maybe it is best to just delete them. SJK (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really no expert in this topic, so maybe I shouldn't be venturing an opinion. However, you're welcome to take it for what it is: a broader perspective. Agreed: not notable enough for separate articles.  Perhaps a mention in other articles, as you suggest. But I would keep in mind that the writings are spurious, intended to deceive. In the Augustine bibliography, a one-liner in a section titled "Spurious Writings" (or some such) indicating clearly that he is NOT the author would be enough. In the Order's article, a mention in order to refute dubious claims (only if those claims are notable enough in themselves). But it has to be worth something to mention it at all.  Were the claims historically significant in some way that affected other events or people's lives? - That sort of thing.  Otherwise it's just the kind of attention-getting rubbish that litters all periods of history including our own, and it deserves only consignment to the round file. And here's another indicator: no one has infinite time or energy, and this stuff falls beyond your cutoff line. Let someone step up here and say they have enough interest to take it on, that they have enough confidence that their own time wouldn't be wasted on the effort.  If no one appears, the project is just impractical, and then it may be impractical for other good reasons too. Good enough for deletion in my book. But I'm perfectly content to have someone take action based on a contrary view; the field is then theirs. Let my lack of interest be no barrier to someone else's interest. But let WP not be cluttered by things no one is interested in. Evenssteven (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Bedson's "pseudo-gnostic" nonsense 

message: Please see here. SJK (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of many "Pseudo-" stub religious texts 

message: Greetings! The Sefer haYashar disambiguation page has had over a dozen links pointing to it for several months. Any help in fixing those links would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-deliberate links in article space are now dealt with. This leaves talk and project links, and the "see also"s, still an extensive list which I don't feel empowered to shorten. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with [[Sefer haYashar]] 

message: I have seen articles on Quran incorporating the whole verses of the chapters in the corresponding Wikipedia article. I think Wikibooks/Wikisources are there to publish verses. Can we just move the verses to the respective Wikisource/Wikibooks pages and concentrate more on writing what,why and how's of the verses in the article. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporation of Whole chapters in Wikipedia 

message: Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Book of Isaiah so see the article's talk page. Era-style is inconsistent, and ignore the recent era changes done in the article because there was no consensus approved yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Isaiah era consensus 

message: Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Ezra–Nehemiah so see the article's talk page. The era-style is inconsistent. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ezra–Nehemiah era consensus 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: I would like to add article: Book of Elchasai to the project. Please give some feedback. --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can add any article to any project at any time, provided that the article reasonably falls within the scope of the project. That seems to be the case here, and I can't see any real reason for it not to be included. The easiest way to do that is to add the relevant project banner, with some assessment, to the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Book of Elchasai]] 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: Greetings,
Today I discovered a navbox Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Religion WikiProjects and added WP Religious texts into the General (group1) section. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Navbox 'Religion WikiProjects' 

message: The article Holy Piby has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
:No RS can be found on this subject. The article is self-cited to a repository where this supposed text is located. It looks like it could be a hoax
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Proposed deletion of Holy Piby 

message: * Project News: An admin is admonished
* Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
* Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
* Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death
:* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 11:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ichthus'' May 2018 is available 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: * Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
* Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
* Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?
:* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ichthus'' June 2018 is out now! 

message: * The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
* Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
* Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
:* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 08:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ichthus'' July 2018 is out now! 

message: I have suggested that a new WikiProject that may be of relevance to this one, be created. 
If you are interested in viewing the proposal or taking part in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Jewish works
Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: New WikiProject

message: I am thinking about setting up a task force within this WikiProject to deal with Jewish works, primarily the Talmud and Mishna, similar to the WikiProject I suggested before. Despite the importance of written works in Judaism, many of the articles devoted to Jewish works, including articles on specific tractates of the Mishna and Talmud, are in desperate need of attention. They are poorly written, lack sources, and don’t convey enough information. If you would be willing to join such a task force, please indicate below. Any feedback about this idea would be appreciated. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *תנא קמא (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task force proposal 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: Hello,Please note that Religious text, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! 
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! 

message: User:Buidhe has nominated Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches 

message: Hello all,
Unsure if anyone's still paying attention to this talk page since the last genuine human-to-human conversation (as opposed to notification) seems to be from years ago, but I'm considering upgrading the tag from "inactive" to "defunct".  It seems clear to me that this project is just a duplicate - religious texts "in general" should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and religious texts specific to one specific religion should be part of that religion's wikiproject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, etc.).  Any objection to this?  The long years of inactivity seems to have proved that this project can safely be marked as historical.  SnowFire (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree to this WikiProject change from "inactive" to "defunct". Chongkian (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking Wikiproject as defunct