Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Part of a series on the
WikiProject Catholicism
General information
Main templates
Convention proposals
Essays
Related
icon Catholic Church portal (Talk)

Hello! Over the past two years, a vast number of articles related to the Trinity, the Arian controversy, and 4th century Church history have been overhauled and/or bloated with material of a decidedly pro-Arian/anti-Trinitarian slant, including Homoousion, Arian controversy, and dozens more. The main user behind this transformation is AndriesvN, an extremely prolific Arian apologist who runs the blog revelationbyjesuschrist.com, one of whose stated purposes is to "oppose the Trinity doctrine." See his contributions for a sense of their scope and character.

While the user in question often adds serious content and cites legitimate scholarly works, it's consistently written in a polemical tone that fails to meet Wikipedia's Neutral POV principle, and often is improperly cited and/or mixed with original research from his blog. He's also shown himself averse to constructive criticism, as seen from his talk page.

While I've attempted to fix some of the more egregious revisions (e.g. to Athanasius of Alexandria), as a Wikipedia rookie and full-time theology student I lack the bandwidth to revise and factcheck all the articles in question, and for this reason I'm appealing for your help, especially those of you who have background in theology/Church history. Your assistance with reviewing, revising and factchecking these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

(And of course, feel free to get any other community involved if you think they could help. I'm about to ask WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.)

- HieronymusNatalis (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: There's now an ANI open on the user in question, recommending a topic ban, in case anyone wants to weigh in: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles
HieronymusNatalis (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The user in question has been indef blocked as of today for being WP:NOTHERE. However, their numerous edits remain in need of review. See Special:Contributions/AndriesvN for a sense of what pages need work. It's a pretty hefty task. Thanks for any help! -HieronymusNatalis (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future of this WikiProject

Off the project, a few editors have asked me about whether WikiProject Catholicism is still a salient force on the project, most recently yesterday. While the WikiProject's members are definitely active and contributing new articles and content at a prodigious rate, it might be time for us to consider a more organized approach. I'm not super keen on things like Discord, but that could be an option to coordinate efforts. If anyone else has thoughts, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say Pbritti, but I like Discord... ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Catholic DYK on the front page!

Francis W. Kelly ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Favale

I have created a draft for Abigail Favale. The article may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inboxes for Pope Saints

For a number of Popes who have been canonised since their deaths (as well as other canonised clergy), there seems to be a disparity between the use of the Saint infobox and the Christian Leader infobox: some place the saint infobox at the top of the article, directly after the Christian leader infobox; others place the saint infobox under the canonisation/veneration section of the article. Is there any established consensus on which is best here? Also, all of the information in the saint infobox tends to be duplicated in the sainthood section of the Christian leader infobox – is it not therefore redundant to use both infoboxes within an article? Vesuvio14 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should only have one per article, but people love adding them. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be one infobox, probably the Christian Leader one for more modern popes at very least; and then using the module attribute to add in the relevant saint sections if any other things are needed. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Saints Cosmas and Damian#Requested move 9 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saints Cosmas and Damian#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Catholic churches by decade categories: populate or upmerge?

Please join this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avignon Papacy

If I understand it correctly, the Avignon Papacy is about a line of popes before the Western Schism. If so? I had to de-link at pages of anti-popes during the schism. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand it correctly. Have you tried reading the first lines of those articles? Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says "1309–1376", with Gregory XI listed as the last pope, which indicates before the Western Schism. Therefore the intro is inconsistent, if the 1378–1417 Schism era is included. To avoid the inconsistencies, the Avignon Papacy page should be split into two pages - Avignon Papacy 1309–1376 & Avignon Papacy 1378–1417. At the very least, the schism info is misplaced. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current RfC to create an independent Catholicism article

Please head over here Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article, thank you! Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales has addressed the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences back in 2012

While searching in the Internet Artchive to improve this WP article, I sumbled upon this 2012 CNS article which tells how Jimmy Wales gave an address at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences where he had been invited.

I was unaware of it, and I found this information funny, so I am relaying it to you here. Veverve (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning this WikiProject

An RfC on a topic that concerns this WikiProject has been opened at: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Request for comments: in cases of a large numbers of religious celebrations in a religious calendar (e.g., feast day of saints), can they all be listed in a non-list WP article? Veverve (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese page titles

I am quite a bit annoyed by the unnecessarily long page titles such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris, etc. These should obviously be at Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archdiocese of Paris. Is there a guideline somewhere that prescribes this preemptive disambiguation? If so, why does it seemingly target only Catholic dioceses? Compare Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster with Diocese of Canterbury. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Diocese of Rome is also without a prefix. The reason it's on most dioceses is consistency. It's the same for Anglican and Episcopal dioceses. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency between which pages? These examples seem to point to an inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the primary dioceses, that is, Rome and Canterbury, all dioceses have their denominational prefix.
I imagine that many years ago there was a discussion and consensus on this. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not correct. Check Category:Dioceses of the Church of England. The pages are titled Diocese of Oxford, Diocese of Chester, Diocese of Gloucester, and so on. The denominational prefix is exceptional. I would like to know if there is a guideline or a naming convention, and where the appropriate venue for a naming convention discussion would be. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I wonder what WikiProject Anglicanism thinks about that; per WP:RCC and other sources, the "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." convention is 18 years old, and was decided on for consistency among page names even for when there is not necessarily ambiguity. I think we'd need some massive consensus to change roughly 3000 page names. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I imagined that would be the reason. Interestingly, WP:CONSISTENT addresses this situation: we have Georgia (country) because of ambiguity, but we do not have Spain (country) for consistency with Georgia (country). Apparently, the Anglican dioceses do not need these appendages while the Catholic diocese pages have unnecessarily long and unnecessarily complicated names. We should discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Philadelphia, there is both a Roman/Latin Rite Catholic jurisdiction along with a Ukrainian Catholic one. Dcheney (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, there's only one Archdiocese of Philadelphia, as there's a Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia. I'm firmly for DarthStabro's proposal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to discuss this with WikiProject Anglicanism as well, Pbritti? Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add you. We should have consistency, and your proposal is wise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Providence College

Providence College has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]