Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy/Archive 1

message: A number of other WikiProjects have the feature of having a collaboration of the month, essentially a call to enlist many editors to work on improving an article together for a month, drawing attention to that article.  (See, for instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM.)  Let's begin a process of nomination and voting to begin our own COTM for August at this subpage.  —Preost talk contribs 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month 

message: What we definetely need to do is to go around and rate all of the articles in their style and appearance. Have a look at the Trains wikiproject which I am part of and consider application of the similar templates they devised. --Kuban Cossack  17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a fine idea.  I suppose it would be incorporated into Template:Orthodoxyproject.  How are the ratings usually determined?  —Preost talk contribs 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually remarkably straightforward -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment. I would never think that it be too difficult to distinguish a stub from an FA.--Kuban Cossack  09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WikiProject Catholicism seems to have a similar, but less complicated system of ratings.  I'm not sure that I'm up to the coding, though this could very well be useful.  What do you think?  —Preost talk contribs 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings

message: I made this. I think its about ready to go live, but if anyone wants to edit it or make comments, feel free. All we need to do next is move the code from the subpage to the main template space, and move the inclusion tag on each individual article to the top of the page.--Andrew c 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can add a photocollage of some of the more famous churches. Say one from Greece, one from Georgia, one from Middle East, one from Russia and one from Balkan area... or something like that.? --Kuban Cossack  15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Browse through :Category:Religion navigational boxes to get some ideas of the format generally used across wikipedia for these sort of boxes. I think one image is the norm. That said, if you'd rather have an image of a eastern Church, instead of a Byzantine depiction of Jesus, go right ahead and change the image, or suggest a few and perhaps we could vote? There are at least 5 images of buldings in the Eastern Orthodox Church article.--Andrew c 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we do not need an image gallery, only the most famous and significant should be present. IMO Athos in Greece, Basil in Moscow, Svetitskhoveli in Georgia, Nevsky in Sofia or maybe Nativity in Jerusalem or Savva in Belgrade... Really it has to offer a welcome hand to a reader who has no idea on Orthodoxy, so I suggest if we use famous buildings that are seen already in many western publcations on Orthodoxy then there can be familiar appeal to readers. Hey Taj-Mahal is what draws people to India after all.  --Kuban Cossack  22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just trying to figure out what exactly it is y'all are talking about.  What are you talking about using these images for?  —Preost talk contribs 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, okay.  I think the image on the Eastern Christianity template should remain as it is, because Eastern Christianity comprises so much more than one church.  Of course, I'm of the opinion that the template should be moved back to being a link to the Eastern Christianity Portal.  There's just too much variation in Eastern Christianity to make a "series" template that can really do it justice.  Perhaps one for just the Eastern Orthodox Church might be better.  —Preost talk contribs 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any event, I think perhaps this discussion would be best moved elsewhere, as it's not directly related to coordination work for the WikiProject.  —Preost talk contribs 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I commented on the template's talk page.  I'm concerned that this template's choices in links are really imbalanced.  At this point, it mainly seems to be a link to a few overview articles in the midst of what seems almost like a random list of other things (e.g., one Ecumenical Patriarch, one Coptic Pope, one Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and one sainted Serbian king?).  I think it could use some significant trimming and focusing. —Preost talk contribs 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template 

message: Although I won't be joining this project, I couldn't help noticing that at recent deaths, the report of the death of the Archbishop of Crete has been noted as unreferenced, and the list of Archbishops of Crete is in rather bad condition. Michael Hardy 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Archbishops of Crete]]

message: *General comment: I ported over the article on the Estonian Orthodox Church a few months back from OrthodoxWiki, and I was surprised to see that not all churches in the Eastern tradition had pages yet. It would seem to me like it is a priority to create articles on these autonomous churches. For that matter, some of the autocephalous churches are a little disappointing, too (i.e. Albania.) I don't exactly have a nomination from all this, but it's something to bear in mind. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on churches 

message: I've been jumping around editing all sorts of pages, and looking for links to pages I've been editing, and things they can link to.
It struck me that one thing that makes such things easier is the categories we use, and I think we could profitably discuss this. I've started a couple of new categories, to which I've linked some of the Orthodox articles I've been editing. One of them is "Christianity in Africa". I invite you to look at it, and see if there are any other Orthodox articles that need to be added to this category. 
I see there is a category "Christian theology", and I would like to suggest a sub-category of that, "Eastern Orthodox theology". While it might be useful to have an article on Eastern Orthodox theology generally, it might be even more important to provide something to link smaller articles that might get written on aspects of Orthodox theology.
I would welcome thoughts on this -- most of our categories so far seem to relate to churches, and not theology. SteveH 10:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: We need a subsection on that, there is so many unique fact on so many Othodox churches, that they need to be enlightened to the public. For instance here is a new one St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery. Quite an interesting one IMO.  --Kuban Cossack  17:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Eastern Christianity Portal is in need of a DYK subsection. —dima  /sb.tk/  18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a related project and could certainly use such a section.  Perhaps someone may wish to suggest it over at Portal talk:Eastern Christianity?  —Preost talk contribs 03:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DYKs

message: After proposing the idea on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church a few days ago and getting no objections (or any other comments, for that matter), I've started apportioning off sections of the main article into sub-articles, replacing the section in the main article with a summary.  So far, I've done Eastern Orthodox theology.  Please feel free to join in, addressing specifics on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church.  —Preost talk contribs 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one exists, I haven't seen it.  That sounds like an excellent idea.  —Preost talk contribs 16:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  I will do two separate articles, the first being what occurred to the church after the fall of Constandinople to Mehmet the Conquerer, and the immediate period thereafter, i. e. the death of the Patriarch in the Battle, the appointing of a new one afterwards, and all the events that occurred in the following decades, as the Church adapted to life under the Sultan.  I will work on that one first.  Then, after you have approved that one, I would start on a general article on the history of the Church in the Ottoman Empire.  Thanks for the prompt response, and I would like you to review the draft on the first article when it is completed, prior to my posting it, so that I can get input on it and correct any obvious deficiencies prior to posting.  I will go to work on the first article today.old windy bear 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would probably also be good to make a separate History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article, turning the relevant section the main Eastern Orthodox Church into a summary.  —Preost talk contribs 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done!  I will format it that way, and if you don't mind, will email you the draft, so you can edit and review it, prior to posting a new article.  It should take me about 2-3 weeks to get the first History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article draft done, (with citing and appropriate linking and sourcing), and ready for your review, with the relevant section of the main Eastern Orthodox Church as a summary.  Thanks for the guidance! old windy bear 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to send it to me only.  Perhaps you can create it as a subpage to your userpage, e.g., User:Oldwindybear/History of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  That way, everyone can see it and comment.  Once done, you can cut and paste it to the new article.  —Preost talk contribs 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Will do, and I will post here when it is up and ready for examination by everyone.  I believe more pre-posting editing would lead to less arguments later.  old windy bear 12:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apportioning [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] 

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 have converted the main Project page to the standard box layout that is also being used for the Portal.  —Antonios Aigyptostalk 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of Project Page to standard box layout 

message: Following other Project pages, the listing of participants on the Project page looks much nicer if it's kept brief: just names linked to User pages. I'm re-formatting our participant listing accordingly - the long jurisdiction/etc. descriptions really clutter up the page (and aren't necessary, since participants can indicate this information on their user pages). For those who like to see records, here's the participants listing as it was just before the conversion. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaner display of participants

message: To other Project members: since the new Project layout is a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually it's own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any box, which takes you to the Edit page for its contents). Because of this, I'm not sure if updates to individual box page contents will show up on editors' Watchlists, if you've only got the main Project page watched.
In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your Watchlists. These are:
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy - The main Project page
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Intro - The introduction to the Project text, in the top box
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Scope - Goals of the project text
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Subsections - Listing of Project sub-areas
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Tasks - Main listing of pages, etc., needing work
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Templates - Listing of Project templates
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Participants - Listing of members
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Related - Listing of areas related to Project
* Wikipedia:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy/Notes - Notes on Project
If you add all of the above pages to your Watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated.  —Antonios Aigyptostalk 08:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Project sections to your watchlist

message: Hello: This message deals with a number of issues stemming from the unclear use of the word "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy." In the past Wikipedia has tried to avoid confusion between the names of Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity by not using the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" alone in titles when other qualifying words, such as "Church" or "Christian" (in the case of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) or words such as "Synagogue" or "Jewish" (in the case of Orthodox Judaism, would help to qualify the usage of the name "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" so that any reader or editor on Wikipedia should not be confused by a title and should know from an article's or category's name whether that subject deals with either Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Orthodox Christianity). In the past there has been no objection to inserting either "church" or "Christian/ity" where the Eastern Orthodox Church articles or categories are concerned and I have tried to move in this direction. It is for this reason that I have made the nominations to rename the ambiguous categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Orthodox Christian categories. Yet it seems that some editors are not aware of this and I am bringing this to your attention. I will cross-post this message to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion. The implications for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy is that it too should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Church or Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Christianity to avoid any confusion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the points here on board, but it does seem like this is taking a wish for systematic clarity too far. In common and academic parlance, "Eastern Orthodoxy" doesn't refer to Judaism, nor would most (if any) Orthodox Jews describe themselves this way in English (though there is one group that does in Hebrew; but when it's translated into English, it's not called "Eastern Orthodox"). This is a title that is essentially universally recognized as meaning the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church, and it doesn't seem to me that it is Wikipedia's place to try to re-clarify something that for many, many decades has been quite clear, standard and accepted in the worldwide and academic communities. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 10:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Antonios: Thank you for your feedback. In answer to what you say: Yet, why is it that the WikiPortal for this subject can quite happily, and correctly in my view, call itself Portal:Eastern Christianity on this same subject? If it is possible, and correct, as well as honorable to have the words "Church" or "Christianity" in a title then why not? I think it detracts from the honor of your Church and your religion that the words "Church" and "Christianity" are dropped from it. I hope it does not indicate a drop in your level of faith or pride in your religion? You know, there is a Jewish group that calls itself Humanistic Judaism that does not even believe in God, they want to have it "both ways" - be human and cling to a "Judaism" that does not mention God. In my view this is not a path to follow, but to each his own. At any rate, relating to the discussion at hand, you make good points from the point of view of common English, but what we need to strive for is clarity in the headings of articles and categories, so that not all "Orthodoxies" could and would get confused with each other, a problem which we should try to avoid. IZAK 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Orthodoxy" alone is ambiguous 

message: I thought about writing an article explaining theologoumena, but I simply cannot figure out where to start.  Those not familiar with the Orthodox tradition of belief very often stumble when they presume that Orthodox Christianity treats all doctrines with the extremist and narrow methods more common in Western forms of Christianity.  That is, the presumption is that everything is either dogmatic or not a belief at all.  Anyone want to take a try at an article for theologoumena? Dogface 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a hard one. There are furthermore beliefs that are neither dogma nor theologoumena but are held to be true anyway, such as the events surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos. As I see it, the big stumbling block is the question, "What is it necessary to believe for salvation?" It's hard work to explain that this question is almost meaningless in Orthodoxy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Bishop BASIL (Essey) was talking on preoccupation with conditions for salvation just today.  1) If you are just trying to avoid hell, you are nothing more than a slave avoiding the punishment of his master.  2) If you are preoccupied with how to get to heaven, with conditions of salvation, you are nothing more than a hired hand looking to receive his wage.  3) Our preoccupation is to be loving God, all else flowing from that, being sons of God.  Salvation is a gift of God we cannot control.  Obedience to God (and fulfilling the conditions of salvation) is a natural byproduct of loving God. Epte 22:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great to incorporate somewhere.  Might it be written/published anywhere at the moment?Dogface 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular homily is not published, AFAIK.  He doesn't homilize from notes.  He was here for our patronal feast day (St. James) and that's what he talked about.  There's probably some similar thing published elsewhere.  Do you think it's worth emailing him for references, or perhaps a quote? Epte 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theologoumena? 

message: The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Religious leaders]] 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RELIGION|WikiProject Religion]] 

message: I note that many WikiProjects have a section of their project page dealing with content that has been recognized by the Wikipedia community. I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in doing so as well. Having such lists available gnerally helps portal managers a lot, as it gives them a quicker way to find and locate content for their portals. Badbilltucker 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognized content section of Project page 

message: I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jesus]] nominated for [[WP:AID|Article Improvement Drive]] 

message: There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project

message: Please check contents of this article for accuracy.  Also, the article's name is proposed to be changed; see Talk:History of the Church of the East in Asia#Requested move, and participate in discussions there.--Endroit 08:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of the Church of the East in Asia]] → ? 

message: This article has recently undergone a major revision, and input from other editors would be very helpful at this point.  I am especially in need of feedback from those with more of a background in Eastern Christianity.  Thanks.  -- Pastordavid 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maximus the Confessor]] 

message: Could I possibly persuade contributors to this page to take a peek at Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem? A poster to the article's talk page suggests a rename of the article to include the word "Greek". I'm not sure if/when the word "Greek" was added to the title and I'm a bit in two minds if it would be a good idea to change the title or not, in particular since this article also describes officeholders before the great schisms. Any input would be welcome. Valentinian T / C 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem 

message: We need to disambiguate :Category: Eastern Orthodox churches (which seems to deal mostly with the national churches (e.g. Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc.) by creating a separate :Category: Eastern Orthodox church buildings or :Category: Eastern Orthodox places of worship, into which we can put churches, monasteries, cathedrals, etc.  Kevlar67 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of Cat: Eastern Orthodox churches 

message: Hi folks, Hectorian[] has been renaming all the pages of Patriarchs of Constantinople to 'Ecumenical Patriarch so-and-so of Constantinople'. While, yes, 'Ecumenical' is part of the title, there isn't a need (to me anyhow) to make things more long-winded than necessary. Surely everyone knows Patriarchs of Constantinople are Ecumenical? I'd support naming them back to the simple 'Patriarch X of Constantinople'. Thoughts, anyone? InfernoXV 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point of interest: has "Ecumenical" always been a part of the title of Patriarchs of Constantinople? How long back does the title go? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, 'Oecumenical' goes back to Chalcedon in 451, but not before. Hectorian's tried changing all the references before 451 to 'Ecumenical Patriarch' too, as in the case of Nestorius. InfernoXV 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecumenical Patriarch? 

message: An eastern Orthodox related topic, Maximus the Confessor is a current Featured Article Candidate.  Comments may be made here.  -- Pastordavid 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidate 

message: Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vote for Moses to become a featured article

message: A proposal has been made on the talk page of the Portal:Saints for a possible daily update to at least some of the content of the portal. I think that this is a fine idea, but also think that I would want input from others as to which content to feature on which date. I have therefore set up a page for such discussion at Portal:Saints/Saint of the day for interested parties to nominate content related to individual saints they would like to see featured on the portal, and one which particular day, if one is preferred. I am here thinking particularly about possibly including individuals on the days of their feasts, if they have one. Any member of this project is more than welcome to make any nominations they see fit. Please feel free to make any specific suggestions there. John Carter 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint of the day 

message: There has been a discussion on Talk:History of Christianity about whether or not that article adequately covers Eastern Orthodoxy (obvious answer: it doesn't begin to do an adequate job) and how we can fix it.  Your comments on the Talk Page and contributions to the article would be much appreciated. --Richard 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Christianity]] 

message: Christ is Risen!
Dear folk, I've just gone and started Liturgical latinisation. It should heat up things somewhat. Would fellow Easterns like to help fill out that one and make links to it? InfernoXV 08:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liturgical latinisation 

message: The talk page was getting a little unwieldy, so I archived.  Please revert me if anyone objects.  -- Pastordavid 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: There's been some discussion about what, precisely, the EO views of Purgatory are.  One school of editors argues that there is no real difference, it's just a matter of translation and terminilogy.  Another group says the differences are a substantial theological dispute.   
Could someone (or someones) knowledgable in EO come lend a hand to summarizing the EO views on the subject?  --Alecmconroy 08:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed at [[Purgatory]]

message: The Christian Church article has been expanded and "completed." A review for NPOV would be helpful and any suggestions on sub-topics that might make it more relevant.
Thanks.
--Mcorazao 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review: [[Christian Church]]

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

message: I have added a bit to this page (much more needed), and spent some time trying to assess the
article. My computer skills are deplorable, so I have not been able to do it in the right manner. My assessment of the article is: start/mid. Could somebody help me?--Tellervo 10:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Valentinian T / C 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Valentinian! Tellervo 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of The Finnish Orthodox Church 

message: Although I was raised Orthodox, I married and Episcopalian and joined his church so It's been over 20 years since I've seen any publications but I seem to remember that all (or at least most) of the different Orthodox communities in the Western Hemisphere were united under the Eastern Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (I even remember the name and logo being present on the Divine Liturgy booklets used in my church).  When did they devolve into separate archdiocese such as Greek Orthodox and Antioch Orthodox?  I can find no reference in any of the articles I've read so far.  Thank you  CanadianMist 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America 

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

message: Do we have a template for Patriarchs? I've created one based off of , located here: User:Kimon/Infobox Patriarch. Perhaps we can use that one? --Kimontalk 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you don't mean ? No special coding is needed for the succession boxes. Valentinian T / C 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: uhhh  yeah :)  I proposed the change because the new one says "Patriarchate" instead of "Papacy" and we can be consistent. --20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea, and keeping it visually similar to the template for the popes sounds appropriate. Valentinian T / C 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I suggest the addition of a parameter for the see. The value could just be a convenient label that would cause the insertion of the full title. (e.g. see=Moscow would expand to Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia; or see=Serbia to Patriarch of all Serbia, Archbishop of Peć, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, where would I find the complete list? --Kimontalk 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The full, formal titles are used when the diptychs are read at a Primatial Divine Liturgy. I wonder if there's some kind seminarian out there who can snag a copy for us? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the articles on the individual Patriarchs would have the full title. --Kimontalk 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've added the sees. Can someone take a look at it? --Kimontalk 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this complete? Could this be used for say, an archbishop as well, or is there a template already established for an archbishop? El Greco(talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriarch template? 

message: The article  underwent a complete rewrite over the last few weeks that left it quite heavily biased. I have tried to merge older material back into it, but it now needs to be put back together. If anyone on this project has the time, could they, please, take a look at the article and improve it. — Gareth Hughes 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign of the Cross 

message: List of Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in North America needs editing.  At the very least, it needs references (possibly inline citations).  Also, it looks like some of the terms suffer from POV problems, and at least one term ("walled-off groups") is a neologism.  Could someone please fix this.  (Also, please do not use orthodoxwiki.org as a reference, since it is a Wiki that may change over time and hence is not a reliable reference).  Thank you,  Dr. Submillimeter 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed at [[List of Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in North America]] 

message: Some people may have noticed that most categories previously using "Old Testament" have been converted to "Tanakh" by a user, without I think much discussion.  There is a discussion here which proposes converting them to use "Hebrew Bible" Johnbod 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanakh/Old Testament/Hebrew Bible categories 

message: In the discussion page attached to the article "Hypostasis (Christianity)", Nrgdocadams writes "the human person as we know it is a particular enhypostasization of human nature." This seems to imply that the Persons of the Trinity are, similarly, particular enhypostasizations of Divine nature. I wonder if that is what Nrgdocadams meant to suggest.
If so, I would pose a few questions:
What if one maintained, instead, that "human nature" is an abstraction, derived from observing a number of human beings?
Is there a necessary relationship between human nature, as such, and any particular human? Is there a necessary relationship between Divine nature, as such, and the Persons of the Trinity, or any Person of the Trinity?
DcnSimeon 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypostasis and Ousia 

message: There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "tales" of the Bible merit separate articles? 

message: I have played around trying to make an infobox for orthodox monasteries. Are there any suggestions for changes to the included fields or any other improvements?
StephP 11:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that, in English Monastery = male, whilst Convent = female. Let's use the term cloister instead to avoid confusion. --Kuban Cossack 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just create a separate infobox for convents?StephP 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monastery Infobox

message: Finnish Orthodox Church has been greatly improved. Whenever you have time, please reassess it, thanks. --Drieakko 06:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish Orthodox Church 

message: I was just looking through articles today, and found one on the "Four Marks of the Church", which is in the Nicene Creed.
The page on Wikipedia is under the Roman Catholic Wikiproject, but shouldn't it also be under the Eastern Orthodox WikiProject since it is also a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Nicene Creed in the Divine Liturgy?
Four Marks of the Church
--KCMODevin 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the concept of "four marks of the church" can be shown to play a significant role in Eastern Orthodox thought, then sure. I personally haven't seen it. But just because the EOC uses the Nicene Creed isn't sufficient justification for including it IMO.Mrhsj 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so, no. An analogous case would be if there were an article titled "The Seven Sacraments" The idea of exactly seven sacraments plays a major role in Catholic thought and catechesis. Orthodox do in fact believe all the same things are sacraments, but they just don't talk about "The Seven Sacraments". So I would say that article would belong in the Catholic project, not the Orthodox project. Similiarly here: the Orthodox do believe that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, but I personally can't recall ever seeing where Orthodox writers reflect on these as constituting The Four Marks. They could, but as far as I know, they don't.  I don't want to have a big argument about this, but why not see what other editors think? Mrhsj 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? 

message: Celtic Orthodox Church needs references and sources. It has been tagged as lacking them since January 2007. -- 201.37.229.117 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot provide any information immediately, but  I am sure more can be found. I'm already stretched to the limit on projects, but if the word could be gotten out then possible editors could be found... Monsieurdl 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this here in the belief that in doing so I was "getting the word out". -- 201.37.229.117 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Celtic Orthodox Church]] needs your help

message: For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints#Multiple saints collaborations?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Eastern Orthodox saint collaboration 

message: I'm not sure how active this board is (one post in six weeks), but it seems to be the most centralized location to bring up some very serious concerns about the reliability of a source used extensively. Wikipedia guidelines very clearly say that an open wiki is NOT a reliable source. Unfortunately, from the discussions above, it appears that only one person mentioned that fact and they were not heard. So now there is the potential that dozens of articles need to be rewritten, at the very least examined. How would the Project like to to go about excising the material that came from OrthodoxWiki? Because it has to come out; Wikipedia policies allow for no other option that I can see. Pairadox (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a sarcastic question: when you say "open wiki", is there an actual definition of that to be found in the policy?  This wiki allows people to edit without registering.  Orthodoxwiki does not.  I also wonder if Citizendium would be considered an open wiki, because it has some strict standards of scholarship. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious answer. "Open wiki" is the actual terminology used in the Verifiability policy. WP:SPS will take you right to it, but for your convenience: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. OrthodoxWiki is open based on the wording on their Main Page; "OrthodoxWiki, a free-content encyclopedia and information center for Orthodox Christianity that anyone can edit." Registering may be mandatory, but it's still open to anyone and thus is subject to the same problems this one is. I can't answer for Citizendium - I've never run across it being used as a reference and don't know what standards they have for contributors or peer review. I'm sure it's been addressed somewhere on Wikipedia (everything else has), but I don't recall seeing it. (PS - This is the same clause that prevents your personal webpage being used.) I monitor the List of wikis, BTW, which is where it first came to my attention. A couple of clicks (and one article cleaned up) later and I finally realized there was a (potentially) huge problem. Pairadox (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter- when you are doing an article, using internet sources should be the last resort, and then only sparingly, unless it provides an offline reference which can be verified. Reliance on the internet sites (those that obviously don't provide source documents or quoted/sourced passages) is not the tool of a serious researcher. I don't understand why some would try and defend this practice when it is obvious that even the most prolific, registered, respected Orthodoxwiki user could put in bad information that is unsourced. Please see that it is not the wiki itself that is objectionable, but the practice of using the internet as I stated above. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One way that I have seen Orthodoxwiki used in footnotes is to refer to  a more extensive article that is on a subject that there is not a comparable one on this wiki.  That would seem unobjectionable.  But what is your opinion? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide an example? I'm not sure what you mean. Pairadox (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, in the article on the Russian Orthodox Church, there is a section on the OCA, which in a footnote includes a reference to an Orthodoxwiki article on the history of the relations between the Orthodo Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. That article is well sourced, and there is no comparable article on this wiki.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, that one is an easy fix. Because there is a second source for that statement, the OrthodoxWiki (hereafter abbreviated OW) ref can simply be removed. Obviously that won't work where OW is the only reference. Thus a better, albeit much more labor-intensive, solution is to track down the reference that OW uses, confirm that it supports the claim in the WP article, and use that direct source here, bypassing OW attribution entirely. I don't envy anybody the task. Pairadox (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a difference, however, between using another wiki such as Orthodoxwiki to verify something, and referring people to another wiki article for more information.  As for articles based on Orthodoxwiki, what I would say is that some clean up tag might be needed.  Although, if you took an entire article from Orthodoxwiki that was well sourced, it seems like the sources could stand on their own merit, and the reference to Orthodoxwiki would just be an acknowledgment that material was taken from that article.  Orthodoxwiki often does this in reverse by taking articles form this wiki, and Orthodoxifying them. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, given the extensive use of news paper citations, and given that you often have unsourced assertions of fact by people who are not experts in the subject, I am not sure that they are better sources than a good wiki.  In fact, I suspect a lot of reporters get their information from far less reliable sources.  You also have partisan advocacy groups that are cited as sources. I am not disputing what you say about serious research, just that citing some newspaper or group with an axe to grind's assertions as a source is routinely done, and defended on wikipedia, and given that this is so, I think that Orthodoxwiki is at least as reliable source, just on an objective level... however, that's just a comment... I am not disputing your reading of the policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OrthodoxWiki probably has very good and very accurate information - I won't dispute that at all. But it's not so much about truth or accuracy as much as it is about verifiability and accountability. If a newspaper or a reporter prints false information, they can be held accountable in ways that anonymous Wiki editors aren't. So yeah, that's a conversation for an entirely different talk page. Pairadox (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a very interesting wiki (~2,500 articles) and also a good source of free images. Could anyone provide outside references/publications about this wiki? We do not have article OrthodoxWiki here (this is a redirect page now).Biophys (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrthodoxWiki as a source 

message: I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing  to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the  does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way that we can make the Orthodoxy banner somehow add the pages to both projects at one time. For example it would say Wikiproject Orthodoxy, but everything with that banner also automatically is added to christianity? Grk1011 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it could be done. The importance parameters would probably have to be individually put in for both Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy, as I would expect them to be different rather often, but it could be done. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont see the problem. Everything related to Orthodoxy is related to Christianity. An extra pair of eyes wouldnt hurt. Grk1011 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding project banner 

message: Anastasius of Antioch and Anastasius the Sinaite are the very same person. I don't know how to properly merge them. Perhaps we should keep the former and incorporate the infobox of the latter. Since there is already an article about the monk Anastasius Sinaita, I am suggesting to rename the final article as Anastasius I of Antioch]] Dipa1965 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per naming conventions, I'd suggest the article be renamed Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch so it would be named like the other patriarchs. This is assuming that he was the patriarch, I don't know much about him. Also make sure before you rename it that he doesn't go by the other name. A wiki policy says naming conv can be disregarded in that case. ie, John Chrysostom instead of Patriach John.... Grk1011 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed : Two articles for the same patriarch 

message: I would recommend redirecting Philippine Orthodox Church to Exarchate of the Philippines since the latter article has more information and it is the name of the Orthodox institution present in the Philippines. Any comments? --Darth Narutorious (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Def merge or redirect the former to the latter. Its a waste of an article to have one basically say that there is only one orthodox church in the philippines and this is it..the link to the other article. Grk1011 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine Orthodox Church 

message: An infobox has been created for orthodox hierarchy: bishops, metropolitans, etc.  I want to find a color that we can commit to to be the "Orthodox" color for infoboxes, etc. It is currently the provisional light yellow. Can anyone think of a better color? The yellow looks a little plain/boring. Grk1011 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two ideas which come to mind are the color of the Flag of the Ecumenical Patriarch, which is also yellow but a more interesting yellow, here, and the light blue color of the priest's robes in several images, including here. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I have recently started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Coordinators? regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be nice to do that seeing how there aren't many active people in this project. Grk1011 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators for the Christianity projects 

message: Hiya, I was doing some research on Maria Despina Palaiologina, after whom was named the Eastern Orthodox Church of Saint Mary of the Mongols (Istanbul).  If Maria is a saint, I would like to notate it on her article, but I have been unable to verify this.  Does anyone she was actually beatified or canonized, or could you shed any light on how the church got its name of "Saint Mary"?  I'm not that familiar with the Greek Orthodox faith, so there may be a simple explanation.  Thanks for any help, --Elonka 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The church is named after the Virgin Mary, but that name was chosen because of Maria. Maria->Mary. Just as if someone named John was influencial in the building of a church, they might name the church saint john in his honor, not that he was a saint. The church is not technically named after these people, its rather named because of these people. Does that help? Grk1011 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, can you point me at a source on that, that the church was named after the Virgin Mary, and not Maria Despina Palaiologina?  Sorry, I don't mean to sound suspicious, but I'm currently cleaning up after an editor who was adding misinterpreted source information to dozens of articles.  Per an Arbitration case, the editor  has been banned from working in that topic area for a year, but the rest of us are still left with a lot of damage to repair.   He was unfortunately very talented at putting information into articles that looked well-sourced, but then turned out to not really be what the source actually said.  So I'd like to be very sure of sources,  as we get things fixed up.  Any assistance appreciated! --Elonka 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Mary

message: It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator? 

message: I have need of the book Anglicans and Orthodox: Unity and Subversion 1559-1725 (2004) by Judith Elizabeth with a forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Does anybody have access to this source? I have seen it for sale on-line, but I thought I would ask here first. -- Secisek (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source needed

message: I am going to propose that the series of articles in the  template been renamed with a view to consistancy.  The problem is the term "America" which is ambiguous.  It should changed to: A) United States  (exclusive) B) North America (includes Canada but excludes Latin America) C) the Americas (inclusive).  Personally I prefer "the Americas" until we have enough information to subdivide them dowin into individual countries.
The titles as fo now are (note inconsistancy):
*History of the Eastern Orthodox Church in North America
*Timeline of Eastern Orthodoxy in America
*Bibliography of Eastern Orthodoxy in America
*Byzantine response to Orthodox Church in America autocephaly
*List of American Eastern Orthodox saints
*List of American Orthodox bishops
*List of Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in North America
Also the title of the box itself should be standardized. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I began this with process with a view towards C) the Americas (inclusive). Please be bold and continue this process. -- Secisek (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes perfect sense to keep List of American Eastern Orthodox saints and List of American Orthodox bishops. What else would we use "United Statesian"? Unless you mean say "List of Eastern Orthodox Saints of the Americas" which might work, but has a slightly different meaning. Also with Byzantine response to Orthodox Church in America autocephaly, the church's official name is the Orthodox Church in America, so we can't change that. The second and third could be changed to "in the United States". Grk1011 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy in "America" 

message: I'm extremely dubious about recent attempts to broaden the scope of this article, traditionally the RC view, to include Anglicans/Anglo-catholics and the Othodox. For example the present first sentence "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ..." is surely not true, or misleading, as far as Orthodoxy is concerned. Again, to say that "The Assumption of Mary -- meaning that, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken directly into Heaven -- is held infallibly by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches." is pretty misleading, especially with no link to Dormition of the Theotokos.  Nor am I sure what "infallibly" means in an Orthodox context. These changes have been defended agressively by reverting, and for example links to the Dormition article have been removed.  
The article is equally misleading as to "Anglican", or at least average Anglican, beliefs at various points - again in the first sentence for example. Theotokos covers the Orthodox view pretty well, though it is not linked at the disam page Mary (I'm not sure of the history of this. The old versions of BVM, with an Anglican section which could be expanded, were much more satisfactory.  
People may care to comment at Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Widening_the_scope. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blessed Virgin Mary]] 

message: On reading the Religion in Greece article, I discovered that the section on Greek Orthodoxy is really incorrect and rather badly written. I don't have the time to attend to it myself but I did want to draw it to someone's attention. Thanks. MLilburne (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of it, but another pair of eyes couldn't hurt. It was comparing the church to the Catholic Church when it should have been talking about the role of the Orthodox church in Greece. Grk1011 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing help needed on [[Religion in Greece]] 

message: I've written a stub for Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad.  Please correct any glaring errors (this is my first time editing any article relating to Eastern Orthodoxy so I could easily be ignorant of some basic conventions), or expand the article if you have the time and/or better sources.  I ran into Nikodim because he figures in some of the conspiracy theories concerning the death of Pope John Paul I (for example, the claim in the book Murder in the Vatican by Lucien Gregoire (2005) that Nikodim was poisoned by a poison intended for John Paul), but I'm sure that isn't his only, or most important, claim to fame. Kingdon (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad 

message: I have noticed some inconsistency in how bishops are named on Wikipedia, both Eastern Orthodoxy and elsewhere. For example we have leads that being "Patriarch Alexius II...", "His Eminence the Most Reverend Philip (Saliba)..." and "His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko)...". I brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and there is emerging consensus on a proposal that would standardize on Title Firstname (Lastname) as the correct lede. So in my examples we would keep "Patriarch Alexius II", but change to "Metropolitan Philip (Saliba)" and "Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko)". If you disagree, please discuss on the aforementioned talk page under "Religious Honorifics". If the proposal is accepted I will start cleaning up the titles for EO hierarchs. Mrhsj (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a naming policy. Grk1011 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles for Hierarchs 

message: There has been relatively little activity at the Serbian Orthodox Church WikiProject for some time now. Given the very limited scope of that project, and the few articles it has, I believe that the project might better function as simply a part of this one. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Grk1011 (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the merger has taken place now. Grk1011 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Eastern Orthodoxy