Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism

message: Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 Bot Beta 

message: Could this article be relevant for Anglicanism as well?--Bhuck (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bhuck: Absolutely! I'm surprised that Anglicanism is not mentioned in the article in its current state. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sign of the cross]] 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: I'm seeking to reinstate a photo as discussed at the bottom of Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland under the heading "GLOW photo". Support would be appreciated. E James Bowman (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[St Paul's Church, Auckland]] photo consensus sought 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Church_of_Ireland#Picture_size about the sizes of pictures in the article Church of Ireland. The discussion is what should be given preference: standard thumb size of editor selected size. The Banner talk 13:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures sizes 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: Is an assistant bishop in Australia automatically notable? Bearian (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistant Bishop 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Anglo-Catholic churches#Inclusion criteria unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:List of Anglo-Catholic churches#Inclusion criteria unclear]]

message: A new article relevant to this project was created, Book of Common Prayer (1549). Ltwin (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article: Book of Common Prayer (1549) 

message: There is a suggestion to merge the templates for the "clergy" and "Christian leader" infoboxes. To know more or take part, go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19#Template:Infobox_clergy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox merge proposal 

message: There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism concerning the use of non-contemporary images of popes in articles that may be of interest to editors here. Display name 99 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on non-contemporary images of popes 

message: Hello, would be grateful if someone could let me know if my comments on the general consensus on keeping bishop pages for the Anglican Communion are correct - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Wagner. Thanks! Deus et lex (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for Australian bishop 

message: Today's featured article being Randall Davidson, I find him described in the lead as "an Anglican priest who was Archbishop of Canterbury". This styling appears, as far as I have determined, unique to certain AoC articles; Cosmo Lang is described as a "Scottish prelate", and every other Anglican bishop article I have checked either says "was/is a bishop" or "was/is bishop of diocese". I am getting a great deal of pushback on changing "priest" to anything else (or just saying that he was AoC) on the basis of some supposed consensus, where I cannot find any discussion of the point in the various article reviews. Can I get an opinion on this? Davidson was Dean of Windsor before being made bishop in two dioceses before his appointment to Canterbury, so I can see, perhaps, something besides "bishop", but since his notability is entirely dependent on higher office, describing him merely as "priest" seems eccentric. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprised you didn't bother to check the articles on William Temple and Geoffrey Fisher. Tim riley talk 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Temple and Fisher were the basis for my "unique to certain AoC articles" observation. Indeed, having checked further, the two of them, Davidson, Laud, and William Wake are the only Protestant occupiers of the throne of Canterbury to be graced with this peculiar lead. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Is there any benefit to changing the term? From a quick look at the thread, it seems like you have a preference with one term over another. The other editor on the Davidson article has put forward a good argument as to why it is as it is, and I cannot see a benefit in the change. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that there is. These are men who were famous on the basis of the bishoprics they held, and it seems to me clearer to start from that rather to imply that they were famous as priests, which for the most part doesn't appear to be true. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Famous? I don't see any reference to fame there. I see a reference to being a priest (ie an ordained Anglican), and reference to his highest position, Archbishop of Canterbury. I see no real benefit in changing the terminology, given it's factually correct - the arguments put forward on the article's talk page in favour of the status quo are more compelling to me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with SchroCat. This is really a case of personal preference, and Mangoe has not put forward any compelling reason why his/her preferred wording is superior to the one in the text agreed at PR and FAC. To an English reader, Mangoe's preferred "cleric" looks a touch unidiomatic nowadays, being more often applied to Imams than to their Christian colleagues, as a quick dip into the archives of The Times will confirm.  Tim riley talk 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead for Anglican bishop articles 

message: There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on ecclesiastical titles 

message: Hello! I am helping a new-to-wikipedia editor (and I am fairly new myself!) with a page about Draft:Peter Blannin Gibbons Binnall. I was hoping that this page may be of interest to this project, and that any friendly/ knowledgeable editors out there might be able to help improve this page draft or review it? Thank you so much! KerstingFan (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft:Peter Blannin Gibbons Binnall 

message: I seek the advice of those involved in WikiProject Anglicanism about this article: Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff
Is he notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry?
I'm thinking yes; for one thing he was the Dean of the Cathedral in Cairo, and that alone should establish his notability in my view, but I would welcome the thoughts of others.
Thank you for any help and advice you're able to provide,
Tillander 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff 

message: Please help by joining the discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje 

message: Please have a look at the reasoning being applied in this discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 28#Category:Participants in the Synod of Dort]] 

message: I pray for your help in rescuing this stub. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Lipscomb]] 

message: Armorial of the Church of England is a page I have just created listing the official arms of each diocese. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms 

message: My particular concern is whether any of the cited sources are actually independent of the subject, but any opinions by someone more knowledgable about the topic will be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help evaluate [[Draft:Servants of Christ the King]] 

message: An interesting clergyman and sportsman, if anyone fancies expanding his clerical side. StickyWicket (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pat McCormick (clergyman)]] 

message: If interested please come and discuss at Talk:Major Churches Network. PamD 17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Major Churches Network]] and Major Parish Churches 

message: There is a new RfC open at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Request for comment on lead which is relevant to this project. Instaurare (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment at Shroud of Turin 

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: I have nominated Maximus the Confessor for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR notice 

message: Members of this WikiProject may want to participate in the deletion discussion. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anglicans Online]] has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello all, just a quick notice that there has been a heavy POV push in several articles regarding universal resurrection (inexistance of Hell). It was a fringe view held by maybe 4 or 5 Church Fathers (out of hundreds) but is depicted as the belief of the "majority of Early Church".  See: Apocatastasis, Christian universalism, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and related articles. In fact the Apocatastasis article must be re-written almost in whole, I have left some comments on its talk page. Please take a look. --El Huinca (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexistance of Hell POV pushing 

message: There is a merge discussion open at Talk:Orthodox Anglican Communion#Merge discussion for merging these two related entities. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion [[Orthodox Anglican Church]] ––> [[Orthodox Anglican Communion]] 

message: The move discussion at Talk:Episcopal Church in South Carolina#Requested move 26 July 2022 just got re-listed for lack of activity. Members of this WikiProject may be interested. Thanks, Ductwork (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Episcopal Church in South Carolina]] → [[Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina]] 

message: Discussion: Talk:Anglican Diocese of Lagos#Proposed merge into Anglican Province of Lagos DBD 08:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nigeria (et al.): Province articles or Diocese stubs? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Anglican churches in Toronto § This list is a poor example of a Wikipedia article.  Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:List of Anglican churches in Toronto#This list is a poor example of a Wikipedia article|Talk:List of Anglican churches in Toronto §&nbsp;This list is a poor example of a Wikipedia article]]

message: Hello, I wonder if we could get some eyes on Integrity USA, which I've been trying to get to a WP:NPOV since May. If you check the edit history, there was a recent unhelpful page move, and many other edits that have moved it from an excessively "for" POV to one excessively "against". I'd never heard of the group till I ran across the article while doing template cleanup. Hope my edits there show I'm just trying to get the article onto a more even keel. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Integrity USA]] 

message: The article :Wes Nolden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
In its 13.86 years on the site, this article has had—at best— two reliable sources previously, and those were oft subject to blanking by SPAs. With this re-write, only thee sources presented themselves, and the weightiest one is dubious. This has failed the notability guideline for longer than some productive editors have been alive, and even now doesn't meet muster.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Wes Nolden]] 

message: Hello, I'm looking for a list of / more information on the honorary canons of Ripon Cathedral that have been installed in the last 10 or 15 years for an article I'm working on. TIA!
Maximilian775 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent/Last-Decade Honorary Canons of Ripon Cathedral  

message: :Talk:Divine Worship: The Missal#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Talk:Divine Worship: The Missal#RFC]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments 

message: The article Book of Common Prayer has several issues, some of which I hope could be solved with a split to a list. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Book of Common Prayer#Split to list—please comment there! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article [[Book of Common Prayer]] 

message: FYI, the article Free Church of Antioch has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentence summarizes the subject thusly:
* 
The church website shows 2 archbishops (one emeritus), 5 bishops, and 27 priests across 15 US states and 2 European countries.
The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:
* 
If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs  •  global count) 04:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed for deletion (PROD): [[Free Church of Antioch]] 

message: I may have made a mistake here. Is it the 'Church of St Leonard' or the 'Church of All Saints'? Are they the same church? Perhaps someone here knows more and can help. Thanks, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for churches 

message: An RfC has been opened at Talk:Paula Vennells#RfC on CBE in lead. Please participate if you would like to. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC at Paula Vennells 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Founding of the Church of England about whether it's legitimate to say "Previous denomination: Roman Catholic" in the infoboxes of ancient Anglican churches. Help is welcome. Marnanel (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV noticeboard discussion about Anglican continuity 

message: An editor has requested that :Shrovetide be moved to :Pre-Lent, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You  are invited to participate in the move discussion. Graham (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Shrovetide#Requested move 5 February 2024]] 

message: Hello, I am reaching out to see if anyone is interested in offering their opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Free and Candid Disquisitions/archive1. It's a book primarily about Church of England and its liturgy that had pretty significant consequences for a multitude of later efforts to revise the Book of Common Prayer. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Free and Candid Disquisitions]] 

message: I've started an article on the Iwerne camps. They held an important and sometimes controversial role in post-war Evangelicalism in the UK, particularly in the Church of England, before closing in 2020 following abuse scandals.
Existing coverage of the camps was in two articles - a rather fawning one on their founder E. J. H. Nash, and a sparser and rather controversy-heavy one on their parent body the Titus Trust. I've tried to balance both and fill in the gaps in the new article, but more eyes would be very much welcomed. TSP (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iwerne camps article 

message: Would it be valuable for editors to collaborate on a reliable sources list (a la these) for this WikiProject? It might be helpful to have some consistency with how we treat sources, particularly media outlets. A few initial thoughts:
Perennial sources
*Church Times (Reliable and independent; perennial source)
*The Living Church (independent of the Episcopal Church and uses sound journalistic methods, but editors should be cautious about using blog posts from the site.)
*Religion News Service (independent, reliable, mainstream journalism)
*Religion Unplugged (independent, reliable nonprofit newsroom; watch for opinion pieces)
*Church of England Newspaper (reliable and independent, but difficult to use due to strict paywall)
Useful non-independent sources: Each of these is an official news source of an Anglican body, which limits their independence. However, they adhere to journalistic best practices. Per policy, these can be used to fill in uncontested details but not for controversial claims (in particular for controversial claims about their owners). Any content labeled opinion should not be used, nor should these be used to establish notability about an individual or institution within the church that controls them.
*Anglican Journal (Canada)
*Anglican Communion News Service
*Episcopal News Service
*Melbourne Anglican
*SydneyAnglicans.net
*Anglican Taonga (Aotearoa/NZ)
Use with care: 
*Anglican Ink. See RS Noticeboard. Almost all of its content is either press releases or other primary source documents, and for that reason should be used with care and only for specific purposes. Can almost never be used to establish notability.
Avoid:
*Virtue Online. Once upon a time, this site featured genuine independent reporting but it has been a mess for many years. Almost everything it publishes is either copied from elsewhere or heavily opinionated. (I've used it in the past but it has become increasingly unreliable.)
Any thoughts on whether a formal list makes sense or additions/perspectives on this list? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this project have a reliable sources list?