User talk:Pbritti/Archive 17

Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Article title

If I wanted to break out the Background section of Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) talking about the three previous cathedrals into their own article, how would you recommend titling it? I don't think they each merit their own article, but one more extended article about the three would work. Historic Cathedrals of Saint Paul, Minnesota? Former Cathedrals of Saint Paul, Minnesota? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: Typically, you use the dates of construction. In this case, since you are covering three buildings that (if I understand this right) occupied the same location, you may want to do "Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota, [Date of construction of first cathedral]–[Date of demolition of third cathedral])". Let me know if you need additional support on that! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
They were not all on the same location; as a matter of fact, I think none of them were. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, shoot. You might need to ask the hivemind at Teahouse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A request

Hi Pbritti. I am hoping I can get your assessment of something. I recently had a couple interactions with another editor that the other editor interpreted as uncivil. I thought I had a pretty good sense of communicating clearly. Normally I'd let this kind of criticism wash off my back, but this editor is a longstanding and very experienced editor, so it made me wonder if I need to recalibrate how I'm communicating. Here are the comments the editor objected to:

  • This comment was described as ripped my head off
  • This question was described as uncivil and obviously intended to A. Be insulting and B. Be inflammatory and C. Intend to wound.

I am not here to get you involved in any discussion with the other editor or stir up drama, and I have no plans to escalate anything. AFAICT the discussion is closed. But since I respect your opinion and the way you interact with others, it would just be helpful to get a neutral read on whether my comments are coming across in a way I don't realize. This is for my own awareness only. Thank you in advance! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: I'll look at it. For what it's worth, you've only ever come across as polite and civil with me. If I see something worth commenting on, I'll drop you a line. I'm on a day trip today, so I'll probably reply this evening. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Further comment on Draft:Former cathedrals of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

Do you think it worth it to break the three of them out into their own articles? They'd all be quite short, but I'm getting to the point that I think it's feasible. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think it's the right move - but what article titles? First Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)? Cathedral of Saint Paul (1851–1858)? (current cathedral is Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro: Unless you have a few good sources that call it "the first Cathedral of St. Paul", I lean towards "Cathedral of St. Paul (Minnesota, 1851–1858)". Great work thus far, by the way! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
A further question on dates - with each of them except the third, the dates they were in existence and the years they were the cathedrals did not overlap. Should the years in the article name be the years they existed, or the years they were the cathedral? That's why I lean towards the first option I listed above (there are various sources calling them first, second, third [1] [2]) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro: Oh, in that case, definitely the first option. I think that looks best, with the current cathedral left undisambiguated beyond location. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
When the articles go live, consider using the dates within an alternative Template:DEFAULTSORT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Need education on Catholic vs Roman Catholic

Hello Pbritti - I noticed you removed "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" in St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland). I curious as to what is wrong with "Roman". The NRHP says "St. Peter's Church has played an important role in the history the Roman Catholic Church in Maryland." There is something I (a Presbyterian) am missing here or don't understand. TwoScars (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Glad you asked. For starters, both are acceptable here on Wikipedia and any claims that Roman Catholic is somehow a slur are unfounded (especially nowadays). However, it's an imprecise and often inferior term compared to Catholic. The longer form is almost never necessary to disambiguate Catholicism as a whole, which largely why the Wikipedia article, after years of debate, is Catholic Church. Further, Roman Catholic has long been conflated with just the Latin Church, a subcomponent of the Catholic Church. Outside of specific contexts in certain regions (Australia, England), I try to avoid using Roman Catholic. However, there's no rule explicitly against it (almost every Latin Church diocese has an article on here entitled "Roman Catholic Diocese of [X]"). In the case you mention above, I saw an unnecessary use of the longer form and swapped it. Not really much else to say there. Thanks again for asking! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hello Pbritti! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Alternative to range block calculator, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aquilegia moorcroftiana

Hello! Your submission of Aquilegia moorcroftiana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! jolielover♥talk 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors resubmitted

Hi there, in case you have a moment and don't mind taking a look, I've resubmitted Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors having added sources etc. Hoping it is at a decent state now! Jim Killock (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock: Excellent work bringing this up to a great standard. I've approved it, AGFing the offline sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Glad to have your support...

but understand, my addition of tags is a "work in progress" statement. I often come to articles to find something—a fact, a citation—and read carefully, seeking to ensure that the statements made are reliable enought to use again elsewhere in the encyclopedia.

In this case, finding initial problems (e.g., support for Wren being oldest, at the Crimson, but not for its build dates), I then began trying to contribute something before leaving. Often this is just fixing some of the dead links, or making citations complete, or checking text against citation (for instance, before correcting "extant" to "standing", per the sources).

But in this case, that lead is a quagmire! And I will fully support anything you do to make the text encyclopedic. Feel free, as I am still doing today, to remove tags as you find that sources later in the article in support of this or that statement. (E.g., it is likely that sources in the section on the building's several fires will support some of the lead content.). I say this because my tests for the lead summarising the main body are (and must be) rapid and decisive—e.g., checking for repeating key words—and so can reflect missteps at times.

Finally, I'd ask that you go in soon, and make some cursory edits, to cap off all my day's edits, so another editor annoyed by tags does not come in and revert the whole of the work (true and sound though they are). It is something I have to expect, since stopping editing as registered editor.

Cheers, a former registered WP editor (and former Prof.). 73.110.70.75 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@73.110.70.75: Oh, no fret regarding your tagging! The tagging is totally justifiable: there are a ton of issues and any editor interested in contributing to that article is more than welcome to! Your tags are actually extremely appreciated, as they light a fire under me and may encourage others to take up some edits between now and when I start my round of edits (probably sometime in the week of Christmas). Regarding your request for me adding some sort of edit to legitimize your edits, I don't feel comfortable making a frivolous edit but I will be more than glad to defend your tags should someone object. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll take a break for a bit, to give you a chance to look in. You will find the html currently has a sandbox-y feel, because I'm half through incorporating content from the DHR citation, so you'll see some content in a holding pattern hidden by <!-- markup. So, it's yours for a bit (and I'd not expect anything frovolous, as I imagine I've left in a fair bit needing another eye). And should have said, I am only of the Tribe, insofar as I married into the Class of 1982. More later, as I've got one more small related project percolating. Cheers. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It occurred to me to suggest one simple copy edit focus, when your time permits. Sytlistically, it is not clear to me, in the article text per se, when the name of the institution should appear as "William & Mary" or "William and Mary" or "The College". At present, I think it likely appears as all three, and perhaps W&M has also slipped in. This might be worth a copy edit once, since the last of these ("The College") was also synonymous, very early on, with the Wren Building itself, and so perhaps should be avoided for creating confusion. As well, you will "time shifting" occurs in the lead, which may also lead to some confusion. (In describing where the Wren lies, reference is made both to the Ancient Campus and its buildings, but also the comtemporary Merchants Square.) So, plenty to be done and corrected, as time permits. Cheers. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)las
You're absolutely right about that bit! I hadn't even considered it. In prose for articles I've written (like Campus of the College of William & Mary), I've used "the college" to refer to the institution and "the College Building" to sparingly refer to the Wren Building. I'll go in and make some of those fixes. Good call. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A hilarious coincidence. Cheers. Yue🌙 01:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

nomination

I have nominated History of Christianity - again - please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tema "Sacher"

Pbritti, the nominator has addressed the issues raised in your review. Can you please stop by to see whether the issues have been resolved? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping...

...on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darel Chase (bishop). And an early Merry Christmas! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: And a very merry Christmas to yourself! See you over there! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Pbritti, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Remjeud here

I want to ask you evidence on which you have tagged me as a copyright violator. This image is made by me and wanted to upload this during his episcopal ordination . Also the photos you have tagged on sb college are my personal photos. Please understand this and would love to rectify your mistake. I would also rectify mine if any of the photos uploaded by me has violated copyright information.

Thanks Remjeud (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

These photos were previously uploaded by multiple websites and were evidently ripped from those websites. You may ask for further clarification on the Commons, but you need to provide explanations and evidence these. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Pbritti!

Happy New Year!

Pbritti,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aquilegia gracillima

Hello! Your submission of Aquilegia gracillima at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm watching you Wazowski. Always watching.

Yes, I do have all the red linked Penstemon names already in my watchlist. Which is why I saw your new article today. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@MtBotany: I must apologize in advance, then, as I'll be expanding that article over the next day or so. Your watchlist might be a bit cluttered... Happy new year! I just wrote an article on Harold Harrington and picked up his Flora of Colorado (and Weber's Flora of the Western Slope), so expect some minor changes to the relevant Penstemon pages in the coming month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not bothered. All sorts of things flood my list because I watch a significant percentage of the plants that grow in Colorado. If are not going to add more to the description of P. harringtonii, I'll do some edits using the Flora of North America description. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Calendar information deletion

Hello, back in 2022 you dealt with an individual, Vevere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Veverve, who had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of NOTDIRECTORY and similar Wikipedia policies as they pertain to liturgical calendar Wikipedia pages. It seesms that this individual is back on his/her hobby horse, this time at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterii_Paschalis. As you seemed to be effective in getting him to adhere to consensus views last time, may I ask you to intervene or to escalate his behavior here as well. Thank you! 204.14.38.78 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Quickly reviewing the situation, I concur with Veverve. If substantial coverage of the individual calendar changes (rather than the changes overall) can be located, a separate list article akin to the "order of battle" articles that exist in other contexts could be considered. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilegia gegica

On 4 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aquilegia gegica, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Aquilegia gegica and Aquilegia colchica, two species of columbine native to the Caucasus, can produce fertile hybrid offspring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia gegica. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aquilegia gegica), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilegia colchica

On 4 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aquilegia colchica, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aquilegia gegica and Aquilegia colchica, two species of columbine native to the Caucasus, can produce fertile hybrid offspring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia gegica. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aquilegia colchica), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilegia moorcroftiana

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aquilegia moorcroftiana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aquilegia moorcroftiana is named after a mountaineer and is found at the highest elevation of any species of columbine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia moorcroftiana. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aquilegia moorcroftiana), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Catholic Church Wiki page

I noticed you reversed my edit on the Catholic Church wikipedia page.I made these edits because I did not think the language used upheld the 100% pro Life with no exceptions belief that we as Catholics have and could mislead someone into thinking that Pope Francis may "allow" abortion,which of course he would not and could not ever do since it is murder JF1128 (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

While I am pro-life (I make note of that on my user page), Wikipedia is not intended to be partisan. While it can mean sometimes not expressing the viewpoint you know is right from time to time, WP:NPOV ensures we can all contribute and engage on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason I edited the sentence was so that confusion on Catholic Teaching on the immorality of abortion would not occur.I feel that the language used suggests that Pope Francis is not concered with abortion,or more accurately,that serving the poor is more important than defending life,which the Church affirms is not true(see the USCCB's note on defending life being the priority for Americans when voting) JF1128 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The language used could also mislead someone to the false belief that Pope Francis supports or can allow homesexuality and contraception JF1128 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This all is certainly relevant as it maintains accuracy of the actual facts being reported.Since we know the Pope obviously believes abortion,contraception use,and homesexual actions to be gravely sinful,it is dishonest and unneutral if a paragraph suggests otherwise even if unintential.In addition to this,the whole thing about Pope Francis believing that serving the poor was more important than moral doctrines,especially defending life,really does not hold up and looks very pro-choice biased.As previously mentioned the Church has stated that defending life is our number 1 priority over all other charitable works and causes we fight for.It would seem like the conclusions made here derive from a false way of interpreting the Popes comments (as the media tends to do) and paints our Holy Father as "the liberal pope" who is more lenient on issues like abortion which is obviously not true at all. JF1128 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I am sensitive to your concerns, but the source does not say what you inserted. If you wish to discuss this further, you are encouraged to take the matter to Talk:Catholic Church. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much and God Bless you.I am not very experienced in Wikipedia editing but I may look into it after consulting with my Spirtual Director if this would be a healthy practice at this stage in my life.God Bless you again and thank you for your help JF1128 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Catholic Church edit refrence

For refrence,here is the paragraph with my edit marked separately: JF1128 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is just the edited part,the very last sentence under the Sexual Morality section of "Social and Cultural issues"
,**while of course still maintaing that these immoralities are gravely evil**.[End Of section]
    • =Edited part
JF1128 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I also deleted the part about His Holiness being more concerned about serving the poor than "moral issues" (such as defending life) and the statement that he worries the Church is focusing "too much" on ending abortion,contraception use,and homesexual actions,as that is outright misleading JF1128 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@JF1128: This statement is not supported by the cited source nor is it phrased in a neutral fashion. If you want to discuss this further, please do not reply here. You may raise the matter at the article's talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilegia barykinae

On 8 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aquilegia barykinae, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Aquilegia barykinae is likely more closely related to other species of columbine than to Aquilegia amurensis, which shares its range? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia barykinae. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aquilegia barykinae), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)