Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment

message: I'm strongly against this Assessment scheme. It's spreading like a cancer through the encyclopedia. It should be obvious what damage it is doing.  --WikiCats 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be rather pointless if the "judgements", as you call them, were only added to project space pages, wouldn't it?. Also, you may be interested in a similar discussion that has been occurring here. —Mira 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you provide links to those discussions, please? —Mira 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. —Mira 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not again

message: I don't want to be overly bureaucratic, but I think it would be helpful to set some general criteria for assigning importance ratings in the Project Catholocism template.
From cursory examination, it appears that living Cardinals have been generally given a Mid-importance ranking, while Bede, a Doctor of the Church, is currently given a Low-importance ranking.  It seems to me that all the Doctors of the Church should default to a Mid to High ranking, depending on their individual significance (that's what is presently assigned to a few that I checked who have been ranked).  I'm upgrading Bede to Mid-importance.  But then I'm a historian and consider recent events unimportant until proven by the test of time :-)  --SteveMcCluskey 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Rating Criteria 

message: I started from a point of view that there was a word category that was usable in the project talk page tags to identify tags - but just testing (after haviing tagged a very large number) it would appear that class NA is more appropriate to keep the category tags from having assessment - it either needs a good template technician (of which I am not) to make category 'not assessable' or I'll have to go back and re-do my tagging anyone? any one out there? SatuSuro 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try. John Carter 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - if it is not possible I have no problem about going back and re-doing - its interesting that WP Religion appears to have a similar coding issue in its template as well SatuSuro 03:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Woops and understanding please

message: Can someone "in the know" modify the rating template such that disambiguation-class pages do not need importance ratings? It is completely unnecessary, especially when differentiating between things like which article on "St. Augustine's Church" the user wants to view. Trekkie4christ 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Rating of Disambiguation Pages 

message: Hi all! Sorry for the daft question, but I cant find where I can submit this article for reassessment. Can someone help me with that please? Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 08:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do we submit for an assessment or reassessment?

message: I created the article Cambrai Homily, which has been given a C rating, without comment. I thought I had done a pretty thorough job of gathering the scattered sources for this little text, so I would be very grateful if whoever rated it would take another look and provide some specific help on the talk page, such as sources I might use to improve it. This is a fragmentary text, and most of it (as well as the scholarship dealing with it) is occupied with the discussion of the "colors" of martyrdom, as is reflected proportionally in the article. I'd like to address the article's deficiencies, as I find this little text interesting. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambrai Homily rating 

message: I have cleaned, expanded and sourced the Saint Louis Abbey entry.  Could a project member please review its rating in light of my changes.?
Mjinkm (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Louis Abbey rating 

message: The "Quality scale" instructions in this article do not describe the "C" rating, whereas it does appear in the statistics grid at the top of the page.   Is this discrepancy intended? --Chonak (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality rating of "C" 

message: * Tetragrammaton. Please reassess this article. (See Talk:Tetragrammaton#Layout/Title changes. Thanks,  — Jasonasosa 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetragrammaton 

message: Can an article be reassessed and the level of importance changed to match the description of what is expected for a certain level as per the assesment description on this page? Taram (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Can a neutral third party please evaluate the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism page? You may or may not want to see the thread on the rating on the talk page.Marauder40 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would they not want to see the thread? I would have thought that this would help with understanding why the article is indeed of mid-importance. Could someone also at the same time please give their thoughts on whether the article should remain as "start" (the position of talk) or whether it should be re-assessed to C or B. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should they not see the thread?  Because the reviewer may or may not want to just review the article itself on the merits of the article and not be prejudiced by comments.  The reason it was returned to "start" was due to the fact you said I should disqualify myself from reviewing the article.  Since I was the person that changed it from "Start" to a higher class, you can't have it both ways.  Also, if you think I should be editing the assessment, you should not be changing the assessment either. I have returned the article to totally un-assessed status, that should bring a reviewer in sooner. Marauder40 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, chiming in with my two-cents worth - Looking at the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism Talk page, I see that the LGBTProject has omitted the importance. I would suggest the same for the WP Catholicism line. IMO our common goal here (and with all articles) is to ultimately reach GA status. Given the amount of article detail, it is not Start class, and perhaps B class, so a compromise for now might be to assess to C class and include all of the assessment parameters, with the next step upgrading to B class. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is up to you whether it is B or C class.  Originally I had changed the Class to B class (and left the importance as low) but Contaldo80 claimed that I was to close to the article to fairly give it an assessment since I kept it a low importance, so I returned it to what it was before I changed it to B class.  I have seen you around assessing articles that I was getting ready to assess.  I was going to request you assess the article but I figured if I explicitly requested you to do that Contaldo would claim I was canvasing. Thank you for your assessment. I agree with leaving the importance blank.Marauder40 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we leave the importance blank? Based on the fact that no-one from the LGBT WikiProject has assessed the importance? I can't see that one should be dependent on the other. We should rate the importance of the article purely on its merits. What is the criteria that must be observed - and does the article observe it? Is an awareness of the Church's teaching on human sexuality important to understanding Modern day Catholicsm? Yes, it is. Is an awareness of the Church's teaching on homosexuality important for an understanding of being gay today? Probably not much. I don't agree the assessment should be left blank. I do, however, agree that the article is not start class. It doesn't really stike me as being C class either - why not go straight to B class? What's specifically missing that would preclude such a rating? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism]] 

message: Thérèse of Lisieux is currently rated "Top" in importance. Is a knowledge of Therese really "indispensable" for an understanding of Catholicism? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thérèse of Lisieux 

message: I request an independent assessment of Amoris laetitia for the WikiProject Catholicism's quality scale.  PluniaZ (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Request:  Amoris laetitia 

message: Please check the following article against the B-class criteria checklist: Bernardo Bitti. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment against B-class criteria request: [[Bernardo Bitti]]