Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive2

message: I know that this project deals with articles relating to the lives of Saints. However, does it also deal with articles relating to the works of those individuals or not? Someone has just created, evidently, a page on De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), and I am curious as to whether this work by a saint would qualify for inclusion. On the basis of that decision, I would know whether articles like The City of God qualify as well. I would also greatly appreciate information from the rest of you as to whether articles like Utopia (book), and other presumably non-religious, works by saints fall within the scope of this project as well. John Carter 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote, for now, is no.  We can start adding things later -- but that is a huge collection of writings to consider.  I think there is enough on our plate already.  -- Pastordavid 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. Just wanted to know so I could know what to include on the article list. John Carter 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of Project 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Saints WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the importance categories haven't been populated yet, I've quickly drafted my own list of articles of high importance (important for varying reasons) in order to start a discussion. Please take a look at it and feel free to make amendments and additions and discuss your reasoning here. --Spondoolicks 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding. I'm sorry I missed the fact that you had already started using the bot - you hadn't when I set up the table a couple of weeks earlier!  I'm adding a link to your bot table from the above listing.  I also notice several points of confusion about importance - by all means contact me on my talk page if you want help, I was partly involved in setting this up.  Generally low-importance is kept for more specialised articles like Early life of Saint Frederick (maybe interesting to a person studying saints, but too specialised for most readers), and top-importance is reserved for REALLY major people like Saint Paul.  In practice, though, only specialists in the field (such as yourselves) can make the call - there may well be saints that might be regarded as little-known => low importance. Thanks again, Walkerma 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I am a great admirer of both St Magnus and Aidan of Lindisfarne (I'm a Northumbrian).  Could you tag those as articles for this project? Thanks! Walkerma 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I have been assessing the importance level of saints articles, and have put together some notes (I thought it might be a bit too long for this talk page).  It would be helpful to me if those with an interest could check them out and reply.  -- Pastordavid 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Charles I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles I of England FAR 

message: Article about Bishop Henry has been largely rewritten. It had previously GA status from WikiProject Saints. It targets FA now (sometime in the future) so all review help and other assistance is appreciated. --Drieakko 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this article as a proposed collaboration for our project.  Pastordavid 14:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Article has now been updated and almost fully referenced after help from User:Pastordavid and peer review by User:The Psychless. --Drieakko 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nominated now for FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bishop Henry. --Drieakko 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Passed! Thanks for all who helped to get it through. --Drieakko 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Henry 

message: I am seeking peer review of a recently created article. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa)/archive1. Thank you. John Carter 15:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Peer review 

message: Hello. I've opened a new peer review request for Saint Patrick. It's at Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint Patrick/archive2. Any and all comments will be much appreciated. Thanks! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New peer review of Saint Patrick 

message: The following have been guided to GA in the last few months and have been added to the project GA list:
*Dunstan
*Edmund the Martyr
*Edward the Martyr 
*Thomas Cranmer
--SECisek 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New saints added to GA list

message: I thought you might like to know that Liturgical calendar (Lutheran), an article within the scope of this WikiProject, is now a Featured Articel Candidate.  Please express your opinion.  -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Nomination 

message: I just wanted to let this project know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Assessment is not working correctly . When you click any of the links to view the pages nothing is there . Bewareofdog 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Bernard of Clairvaux needs a review before a GA nomination. Take a look, please. -- Secisek (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernard of Clairvaux

message: Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request: [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] 

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) 21:22, 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 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Saints 

message: There has been work going on at Edward the Martyr to meet concerns raised by a good article reviewer. Would it be possible for someone(s) from this project to take a look at the article and see whether it is suitably, err, hagiographic must be the word. I've tried to add something on the origins of the cult, but hagiography isn't really my thing. And I really don't like that orthodox icon. It seems utterly bizarre in an article on an 10th century English king. Does anyone have any ideas for a more felicitous alternative? Very many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edward the Martyr