Talk:Angels in Christianity

message: I just reviewed the previous sections on this Talk page and I must say, I have never seen a Talk page with so many unsigned sections. This is not your sandbox. If you are going to leave a comment on this Talk page or any Talk page you must sign your comments. You do so by adding four tildes. If you don't know how to do that, just click on the section below where it says "Sign your posts on talk pages" and then it has four tildes. Clicking on that will add your signature for you! Now that you have been advised on how to do it, I am sure you will sign your comments from now on. You can do it! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not that nobody signed, it is that the bot only archives messages which are signed. Hence, unless someone adds the :Template:Unsigned or archives manually, those unsigned messages are bound to stay. Veverve (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I see your point. However, even if signed messages have been archived, leaving the impression that an unusual number of messages were unsigned, my point remains. If you post a message, it should be signed with four tildes. I see you are always thorough in signing yours. Well done! MarydaleEd (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  You must sign your posts! 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian angelology →  – The articles Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam have clearly established a pattern for pages like this, and it only makes sense that this article should conform with the existing status quo. Furthermore, "Angelology" is either theological jargon *or* too fantastical for encyclopedic tone. This article originally was titled "Christian angelic hierarchy" and was solely about Pseudo-Dionysian Angelology (popular in Medieval European Catholicism) and it does need restructuring in other ways, (for this I agree with user Yeshua/StagerJ, see his opinion in the Talk page,) but if nothing else the name should be clarified and made to match the established pattern of article names. I can't imagine this move would be too controversial, but considering that it's already been the subject of move discussions, I thought I'd request comment if there is any. Garnet Moss (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

text: *Snow angels? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is that time of year... ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 January 2023 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mythologicalcreature8817 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

message: What is the reason for it? I don't get it.Beyaz Deriili (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken image 

message: This seems to have fallen off the talk page, and an earlier attempt to revise was controversial, but I really think this page needs to be reworked. There's just no way that the article needs nine main headings for the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy, a non-canonical schema not even remotely close to the heart of Nicene Christianity. Originally this page was all about the P-D hierarchy, which explains how it became so prevalent, but now that it's been renamed to the much broader "Angels in Christianity" this needs to be revisited. 
Here is my proposed heading structure, hopefully a fair compromise with those who want to prioritize the hierarchy: 
*1. General Views
**1.1. Antiquity
**1.2. Pseudo-Dionysian Hierarchy
**1.3. Roman Catholic Church
**1.4  Guardian Angels
*2. Angels in the Bible
*3. Angelic Ranks According to the Pseudo-Dionysian Hierarchy
**3.1  Seraphim
**3.2  Cherubim
**3.3  Thrones
**3.4  Dominions or Lordships
**3.5  Virtues
**3.6  Powers or Authorities
**3.7  Principalities or Rulers
**3.8  Archangels
**3.9  Angels
*4. See Also
*5. References
*6. Bibliography
*7. Further Reading
Would be open to edits, but I really want to see these ranks tucked into subheadings. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we have a long section+sub-sections on 'Angelic Ranks According to the Pseudo-Dionysian Hierarchy' when the De Coelesti Hierarchia article exists? Veverve (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your guess is as good as mine, I’m certainly not married to the idea. But in previous discussions/edits there was strong pushback against demoting/removing the P-D hierarchy, so I gave up. My current proposal is a compromise. Garnet Moss (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the hierarchy discussion