Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Collaboration

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

Title Change

Could we change the title to something else - getting rid of "for the week". It's just that a small project like this will look dated if we say that it's "for the week".

JASpencer 20:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one week is too short a time for a collaboration. I suggest just calling it the "Current Catholic Collaboration Article" and then leave it until another one gets nominated and approved, with a minimum of one week in between efforts to prevent a constant flux (although from the look of things, that won't be a problem.) We could keep a running list as articles get nominated, and pull them off the queue each week, or leave it alone if the list is empty.
Since there is so little traffic on these pages, I will wait one day then go ahead and implement those changes if no one objects. MamaGeek Joy 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Queue?

I made the necessary vote to move Knights of Columbus beyond the Candidate stage, but there seems to no longer be a Nomination Queue to which the instructions require relocation. Is there somthing else I need to do, or do the voting instructions need updating? Jim Miller 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's the collaboration queue now. I've been handling moving them on once they get the necessary votes. I just hadn't seen the vote until this morning. I'll put it there now, and make some updates to the instructions. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal From Queue

The Knights of Columbus article has already reached Featured Article status. I nominated it, but I think other Catholic articles need more work than. Would anyone object if I was to remove it from the queue? --Briancua 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the article from the queue and so Catholic Devotions is now next. --Briancua 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banners

I think these banners are disruptive in the main article namespace and should instead go on the talk page, like the banners for the WP:AID project. Is it ok if I specify this on the project page, and move the banners to talk?--Andrew c 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week goes on the article's mainspace. Since it is only there for 2 weeks, I don't think it is a major burden. The banner itself, however, says that we will be selecting the next collaboration effort on XXX. This isn't the way this project has worked. Whenever an article recieves 5 votes, it is then moved into the queue. Can someone fix this? --Briancua 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Briancua -- the process in this project is to put the simple banner in the main article namespace in hopes of inviting others both into the current effort as well as this project as a whole. Unless there is more express support for this change, then the banner should be moved back to where it was. --ClaudeMuncey 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have keep in mind that one of the main policies of wikipedia is Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and these templates obviously violate this rule. On top of that, I am a strong advocate of content only in the main article namespace. Most users are here to use this as an encyclopedia. Messages to editors need to go on talk pages. It isn't our job to advertise or encourage lay readers to become active participants. This amounts to advertising in my mind. That rant said, it appears that the compromise that has been reached on a number of collaborations pages is to only have the current week's article template in the main namespace, and the nomination and other templates go on talk pages. Is this compromise also suitable for this project? There is no policy set for this issue, but there is the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Collaborations and WP:SELF and the basic facts of what the Help:Namespaces are used for. --Andrew c 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Briancua. I am a strong advocate of not fixing things that aren't broken. These banners do no harm, and if anything demonstrate to some degree the effort that goes into the WP. It seems like something pretty fussy to nail down a policy over. Vaquero100 01:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the current week template to the main article space, but I have kept the nominations in the talk space. This is the way the most prominent collabortion projects do it, and the compromise established from previous consensus discusions. Keep in mind WP:SELF and what the namespaces are intended for per Help:Namespace. Just because something isn't 'broken' doesn't mean its ok to go against these policies. I still feel strongly about what should and shouldn't be in the main article name space, but I'm willing to accept the compromise consensus reached for other projects if the members here are also in agreement.--Andrew c 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure your feelings, whether strong or weak, are really relevant to the discussion. If other projects had discussions on the matter than so can we here. I think you are alone on this one, Andrew c, at least at this point. BTW, how it is possible to "go against these policies" when you just finished saying in your previous comment: "There is no policy set for this issue."

Also, what ever happened to going to the talk page first? You have violated this on several counts with regard to Catholic related articles. If there is a consensus to be followed, it the concensus of this discussion right here and right now. So, I would suggest you move the other tags as well. Vaquero100 04:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't even like the cleanup templates and things like that, although I suppose that's just the way things are. Just noting that Andrew c is not alone. Also, without commenting on other edits (because I haven't looked at them), I think he was just following the exhortation to be bold. —Mira 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the talk page first. However, waiting 15 hours for a comment wasn't enough. The first response to my comment on talk was within a half hour after I made the changes. It seems like coming to talk didn't get people to talk, but taking initiative and being bold did. That said, to clear things up. There is no set in stone guideline on how to deal with these sort of templates for collaboration projects. However, judging by what the vast majority of what the projects do, and based on consensus reached on a number of talk pages already, the established method is to have the weekly collaboration template on the main article, and the nomination and other templates on talk. The policy to which I was refering when I said "goes against policy" were WP:SELF and the guidelines set out on what each namespace should be used for at Help:Namespace. Read through that and see if you get the impression that these sort of 'ads' or banners are appropriate for the main article space. So despite these policies, the compromise that other projects reached was to have one of the templates go against policy, and the rest stay on talk. This isn't a catholic issue, it is a Wikipedia talk:Collaborations issue. I feel that a uniform standard should be used for each of the subprojects based on the main project. I'm more than willing to discuss policy or if and how my view is problematic. I'm sorry that controversy seems to follow me lately. I have a feeling that vaq100 has a negative view of me, and I want to make it clear that I am NOT a POV warrior. Like I said, this issue isn't a catholic issue, it's about proper and improper use of the namespace.--Andrew c 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, read the guideline page WP:CO. We have Create a collaboration notice template, and insert it at the top of the talk page of current or nominated collaborations. and we have General practice is to have the template marking the current collaboration at the top of the article in question while leaving the candidacy templates on the talk page.. So there is policy on this (and it's been there almost since the collaboration page inception a year ago). So I honestly do not see what is controversial of moving 3 templates from the main article space to the talk page, to conform with written policy, and to conform with the vast majority of other collaboration projects. I do not think I did anything out of process. I'm sorry if I am defensive, but this isn't about content disputes or politics or debate. It seems simple and straight forward to me, and hopefully the information I've provided above clears things up for everyone else. Thank you for your support MiraLuka.--Andrew c 06:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From everything I see, the weight of policy and guidelines comes down on the side of moving all but the "current" banner to the talk page. —Mira 06:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OIC, Andrew c, I was wrong to trust you when you said "There is no set policy on this." If you had spoken with some real clarity from the beginning, you would not have confused the issue so completely. Your bad. Vaquero100 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have stopped following any of your links until you show some shred of evidence that you have followed mine. Vaquero100 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, and I'm trying to make up with you. Can we please try to be civil and AGF and have a cup of tea and all that nice stuff. If this is getting too personal for you, please take these issues to my talk page. As for the links, you didn't post a single link in this thread. What gives? --Andrew c 04:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave

Papal conclave is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates within templates

Currently the templates listed on this page (Template:CatholicCOTW and Template:CatholicCOTW go vote are two examples) use the pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Collaboration/current and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Collaboration/nominees as templates within themselves. I was wondering if this is an unnecessary complication, especially considering that these meta-templates do not subst: on pages when subst:ing the "go vote" templates. I think it would be simpler to just update each template individually, without using the meta-templates. —Mira 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia conversion

I liked Andrew's suggestion and there were no dissenting voices, so I went ahead and added a section for the Catholic Encyclopedia conversion, similar to the regular collaboration effort. I also reoganized the page so the table of contents was a little more manageable. I welcome additions and improvements to my layout. --Briancua 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but what happened to the template section and Template:COTWs? —Mira 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration queue behind schedule

Papal Conclave was supposed to start on August 17. And Theology of the Body isn't finished yet. Should we move onto new projects, or continue to work on Theology of the Body? ...Andy120... 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, somebody, or several people, need to volunteer to take responsibility to manage our collabortions. Also, none of the currently-nominated articles are all that bad. All are very extensive and even relatively well sourced. I think the Collaboration should focus on truly needy articles. --Hyphen5 04:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the nominated articles do need work. Especially Indulgences. The articles may not be stubs, but much of it is not a neutral POV, and some of the information is false. Bad information for users is worse than no information at all. And the people who supported Theology of the Body should be working on that article. ...Andy120... 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration queue (some collusion on collaboration!)

Perhaps we can agree that the next Collaboration shall be LeFebvre, then the Eucharist. This way we can get the five votes required. Dominick (TALK) 13:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Dominick. We seem to be falling into a bit of a trap--one that is very understandable and which I have fallen into myself: focussing and re-focussing on topics of our own interest or which are current to the exclusion of the broader array of material which must be included in an encyclopedia.

There are two areas which I have looked at recently and am a bit appalled at:

  1. We have no article on scripture in Catholicism. This is a major topic and deserves a first class article which alone may require a team of several people a few weeks to bring on board. At the moment, there is not even a stub that I am aware of. While at the same time there is a fairly decent article on Sacred Tradition. (Unfortunately, I fear that this reflects the present pre-occupation of Catholics with fighting eachother rather than working together -- in the Church, no WP.)
  1. The diplomatic achievements of the Church under John Paul the Great has been completely overlooked. An article called Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities was clearly written by anti-Catholics and serves as an extended argument (a false one) for the Church's fascist political orientation. Some months ago I wrote a very long criticism of the article on its talk page with an outline of the corrections needed. Unfortunately, my time on WP has been limited since July.

I do not want to get into an argument on the relative importance of sedevacantism, restorationism, reform-of-the-reformism and edicion-typicalism and liturgical revisionism. They are all important dimensions of the present moment in the Church. However, they represent internicene disputes which are rather specialized. The more common reader of WP, I would expect brings more general questions such as: Why dont Catholics believe in the Bible? Or what exactly did Pope John Paul do to bring down soviet communism? As editors with particular personal interests (which is a wonderful thing), I fear that we may be neglecting the common reader, especially one who is non-Catholic or is simply seeking general information.

I would be interested to read anyones feedback. Vaquero100 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! (headslap I could have had a V8.) My time is limited too, but perhaps we need effort where effort is needed. Instead of polishing an apple, we need to polish a "road apple". Are you nominating Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities? Dominick (TALK) 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should Papal Conclave, which is on the collaboration queue (already has recieved votes) be worked on before the Eucharist? ...Andy120... 01:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys, for your responses. It's good to hear from you both. Well, this is a collaborative effort and mine is just one opinion. Papal Conclave is quite highly rated already and was apparently at one time already a featured article. The Eucharist article definitely needs a lot of copy editing and cleaning up. Still, it is factually accurate and fairly comprehensive in the questions it answers in its present form.

My sense is that the interests of the general reader (who is often Protestant or uncertain of the Church's teachings or being challenged on Church teachings) ought to be able to find solid factual information here. In my opinion clearing up factual errors and distortions should take priority over "polishing" as Dominick puts it and that general material ought to be filled in before the more highly specialized. Also, when an article is written it tends to attract a lot of passersby who will do a lot of the clean up. As you may have noticed, I am a terrible typist and I make tons of spelling errors. Frankly, I dont let that bother me or spend much time proof reading because someone who is reading to learn the content can come along after me and do the clean up. We all have a certain breadth and depth of knowledge and it seems to me most important to get that on the page. Others will copy edit and haggle anyway, so give them something to work on!! Vaquero100 01:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the votes go is none of my business, but that is how I would prioritize things now that I have given it more thought. Vaquero100 01:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Collaboration

We should decide what article we should work on now. The Theology of the Body doesn't seem to be getting much attention. My opinion is that we should wait on that topic (unless you signed up to help with it), and concentrate on Papal Conclave, which has been in the queue for quite awhile. This way we can get back on schedule. Anyone support this?

Holy Family

With just 3 days left before the deadline, I strongly encourage everyone to vote on putting Holy Family into the collaboration queue. As a central tenet of our faith, this must be - to put it informally - buffed up. And the feast of the Holy Family approaches, I also believe this is a fitting tribute to this part of our doctrine. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 11:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Chezard de Matel

I did a stub for Jeanne Chezard de Matel who founded theOrder of the Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament. I thought someone might want to look at it from your project. --Stormbay 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal

This appears to be inactive so I am removing it from the community portal. If this becomes active again just add it back.--Banana 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration Article

Does anybody know how often the article changes? freenaulij 02:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration Queue

The article Pope John Paul II received six votes and was moved to the Collaboration Queue on 21st January 2009. When is it likely to be the Current Collaboration ? -- Marek.69 talk 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advent

Hi I wanted to wish everybody a Happy New Year.

Etineskid (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]