Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment

message: Wow, whoever else is doing assessments lately, keep up the good work.  I did ~600 in the last few weeks, but new stubs popping up unassessed seems to have completely stopped in the last few days.  I have no complaints about that.  Nswinton 21:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less new articles needing assessment lately 

message: I notice that one of the two new unassessed Christianity articles is about a Roman Catholic Carmelite monk. This raises a question in my eyes regarding the specific scope of this project. Should we try to tag all the articles which relate to Christianity in all of its forms, or should we allow the specific "daughter" projects which may have already tagged articles to not have our banner, as it were, "intrude"? I can see placing the Christianity banner on any article within Christianity which clearly is relevant to Christianity beyond any specific group which may have already tagged it, but think that in instances like that maybe we would be best served if the Christianity banner also included "tabs" for the various other projects, so that we might not have individual talk pages overrun by the banners of multiple "daughter" projects as well as the main Christianity banner. John Carter 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your point is at least worth a discussion, John.  Do we want WP Christianity to be a sort of umbrella/mother project that covers all issues relating to Christianity, or do we want to be selective and allow the daughter projects to have whatever is more in their scope than ours?  I'm not terribly excited about peer reviewing and assessing every article about every noteworthy clergy, theologian, church building and christian sub-school of thought, myself.  I don't think we have enough project members at this point to realistically oversee something like that.  At least at this point I'd say we leave the small detail stuff to the daughter projects, and we allow them to submit the occasional article to our peer reviewers or something along those lines.  Nswinton\talk 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions regarding specific project scope 

message: I have assessed around 60 articles in :Category:Indian_Christianity_work_group_articles related to Indian Christianity work group. 
Please verfiy / update if you think any of them are to be changed. 
Thanks
: - Tinucherian (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of Indian Christianity work group articles 

message: Why are most biographies to be rated "Mid"?  For the overall project, they sure look to me like low importance.
Is there a general rule about denominations?  How about individual churches? (I think low for the churches).  GRBerry 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can tell, that phrasing is taken from the boilerplate. My guess is what it meant initially was "Most of the people who are involved in Christianity will be rated at this level", meaning most of those individuals who have been directly involved in developments of Christianity as a whole. Individuals involved in, for instance, development of the Lutheran churches once they were founded would not fall in that same grouping. I think it makes sense to rewrite all the importance rating criteria, however, to make it more coherent and usable. Any suggestions? John Carter (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no sense to say "Most people involved in Christianity will be rated in" Mid Importance. From the other criteria (eg "Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Christianity." for Mid, and "The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Christianity." for Low) it is perfectly clear that most people involved in Christianity will be at Low importance. NBeale (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I would propose the phrasing be changed to something like "Most people who are or have been involved in Christianity as a whole in a notable, significant way, will be rated in this level." We should also note that "most" does not rule out that some individuals who have played a truly decisive role in Christianity, like, for instance, Jesus, Mary (mother of Jesus), Saint Peter, Saint Paul, and the like, might not be rated at a higher importance level, just that the majority of those who do not clearly qualify as more importance will be ranked at this level. John Carter (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We need this to agree with the other criteria (which seem to boil down to: "well known and required for a broad understanding of Christianity" but "not necessarily vital to understand Christianity") So how about "Most people who are or have been involved in Christianity in such a way that some knowledge of them would be required for a broad understanding of Christianity, will be rated in this level." NBeale (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Alternately, "People whose involvement with Christianity in general has been of such impact that a broad understanding of Christianity is not possible without some knowledge of them." Granted, that's not the same type of phrasing used elsewhere, but it gets the point across. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still sounds right to me.  My original comment is a year old, but I haven't seen anything that would change the opinion expressed above.  GRBerry 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think we need your original "most" though to deal with the exceptions. So shall we go with "Most people whose involvement with Christianity in general has been of such impact that a broad understanding of Christianity is not possible without some knowledge of them" NBeale (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  general rules? 

message: How to I nominate this article for C-Class/ No class?
69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate Rating?  

message: I removed the "or not adherents to atheism" clause from the first sentence of the low importance level category.  It's difficult for me to understand what this is trying to say but from what I understand it's making the assumption that adherents to atheism are especially knowledgeable or educated about Christianity? Apparently enough to be included in a comparison with Christians themselves..?  This generalization is as random as it is false.  Also it disrupts the flow of the sentence and seemed like an unnatural addition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.236.144 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. At WP:X we do not specifically frame our efforts around that which atheists are familiar. – Lionel (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Low importance

message: Should the article Eucharist be added to the category "Religious rituals"? Vorbee (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Eucharist

message: Hello, perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that requested assessments have not been dealt with for over a year now. Is there still some one up there? --Sylvain Leblanc (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Assessments 

message: I spent a bit of time today clearing out the Requested Assessment backlog. I'd like to make sure there's really a place for people to flag new articles or updated articles that they have reason to expect will really get looked at.  So far I've been moving reassessed articles to a 'Completed' list below, as JohnThorne had done back in 2019, but I'm wondering what the etiquette is on just deleting them once they've been assessed. (I'm new here, so forgive me if that's an obvious faux pas.) It seems like with the auto-generated Assessment Log down below, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Thoughts? Brian (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing up Requested Assessment backlog