Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2018

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Archive 2018

Proposal to add some religious events to ITNR

There is currently a proposal to add some religious events at WP:ITNR. If adopted some or all of the listed events could be added to ITNR and be automatically posted to the main page conditional on the overall quality of the relevant articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

There's been a long discussion, mainly with those attached to the Schools Project, about what additions to this article would be appropriate, like the historical background bit currently under discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History. I believe there's a need to hear from more voices, of any persuasion. Jzsj (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sisters article needed?

I propose to create a Wikipedia page "Sister (religious)" in respect for the large number of sisters who do not consider their vocation as monastic, as implied by the title "nun", at least in the United States. Separation of the Sister article from the Nun article will take considerable effort and care, and I don't want to begin it unless I have widespread support from Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. The Sister article may be brief and direct readers to the article Catholic sisters and nuns in the United States, but it would show respect for the important distinction between nuns and sisters in the United States today. What think you? Jzsj (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do you have the sources as per WP:NOTABILITY for such an article? If yes, I can't necessarily see any objection, although I assume that the phenomenon might not be limited to Catholicism. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Neither "nun" nor "sister" are strictly technical terms (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm), so creating an article discussing one but not the other may be an artificial distinction. The distinction in degree of religious observation is a ancientand a worldwide phenomenon (not just the United States - the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta, for example), so a global article for "Catholic women religious" or "Catholic sisters and nuns", breaking out some of the more of the technical content from the "Nun" article, may be appropriate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 11:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Would there be any support for changing the name of the "nun" page to "Sisters and nuns" and explaining in the introductory section the distinction and usage, and where to find the specifically sister section below? Alternately, would the notability you mention not come from simply the widespread references to "sisters" (for religious sisters) in the 20th century? Also, could you tell me how someone made Religious sister redirect to Nun#Distinction between a nun and a religious sister; as with most guideline pages I find this one overwhelming, and would appreciate simply a reference to some examples! Jzsj (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think "nun" is the overwhelmingly more common term, and it would not make sense to give article a new more complicated name. However, one or both of "sister" and/or "women religious" most certainly be bold titled as synonyms within the opening paragraph with a brief explanation. As for the redirect, it should probably be pointed to the article lead, especially after the synonyms are added. –Zfish118^⋉talk 06:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing Sr., Fr., Br., OP, OSB, SJ, SNDN, etc., from names in infoboxes

Nope, that is NOT where content issues are discussed, as has been explained to you.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening about whether pre-nominals like Sr., Fr., Bro. and post-nominals like OP, OSB, SJ, SNDN should be treated as honorifics and removed from infoboxes. Jzsj (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC) @Jzsj: Where at, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks for noting what a left out when shortening the notice. @Chicbyaccident: Jzsj (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Retreats and service activities mentionable?

A discussion is taking place at here as to whether retreats and service activities may be mentioned in the article. Jzsj (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Prelates of Lisbon

Alright, boys and girls. I have completed my scheduled migration of the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Archbishops and Patriarchs of Lisbon. You are welcome to review and change them to your liking.

Metropolitan Archbishops of Lisbon

• Miguel de Castro
• Afonso Furtado de Mendonça
• João Manuel de Ataíde
• Rodrigo da Cunha
• António de Mendonça
• João de Sousa

Latin Patriarchs of Lisbon

• Tomás de Almeida
• José Manuel da Câmara de Atalaia
• Fernando de Sousa e Silva
• José Francisco Miguel António de Mendonça

Thanks! - Conservatrix (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "scheduled migration"? Migration from where to where? Scheduled how? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Projects are marked on my userpage. "Migration" refers to the process of translating and relocating information onto a targeted Wikipedia, in this case the English-language Wikipedia. These pages were translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia. - Conservatrix (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Australian saints, and matters arising

1. List of Australian saints includes a section titled "In Order of Sanctity". Another editor and I have raised concerns about its existence at Talk:List of Australian saints. Further input would be welcome.
2. I query the title of the article. It includes not only Saints, but also Servants of God, and placeholders for Venerables and Blesseds. IMO, so it should; I only query the title, as being too narrow. Something like List of Australians honoured in the Catholic Church might be more accurate. IMO this titling topic may justify opening a WP:DISCUSSION here.
3. The see-also section includes a ragbag of similarly-titled articles. (1) See my point #2 for the titles. (2) There is no consistency between the names of the articles in that see-also section. IMO, there should be. (3) This see-also section shouldn't exist; this is what categories are for. Some major tidying may be needed – after deciding what the standard title style for articles like this should be.
4. I don't know if there exists a well-organised category for lists like this, but there ought to be. I suspect that fragmented categories may already exist. Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Is faith healing a form of pseudo-science (round 2)

Here we go again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Marist Brothers: Child Abuse issues

Hello, peace be with you all.

If you check this part of the Marist Brothers' article, you'll see news about the child abuse cases in Australia. Do you guys think it should be moved to a new section? If yes, I need help in naming this new section. If no, should we remove it or just put it where it is currently? Thanks in advanced.--Allenjambalaya (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The content should remain, and research ideally should be done to see if the allegations are limited to Australia, or were made in other parts of the world as well. Worldwide accusations would be the most pressing reason to create a new section, which could simply follow the Catholic Church article and be titled to the effect of "Sexual abuse cases". –Zfish118^⋉talk 11:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

When editing an article on a German school, I found that paddling on the bare buttocks was lumped in with sex abuse, while at the time it was openly tolerated. At that school only one of the perpetrators would clearly qualify as a sex offender. I question what definition they are using to identify 1,800 alleged perpetrators; the article never makes this clear. I suggest that when the court in Sydney finishes its work a summary coverage of what it concluded should be placed where it is now in the article, since their work is limited to Australia. Jzsj (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Compagnia dell'Immacolata Concezione refers to the "12 privileges given by the Holy Trinity to [the BVM]". Privilege is a DAB page, with no obviously suitable article to link to. The equivalent Italian article says "privilegi", which unhelpfully translates as "privileges". I couldn't find any relevant Italian article. Can any expert here help solve the problem? If there is a correct English term, I don't know it. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The privileges referenced in the English article are a distinction. Mary is blessed in her proximity to Christ and thus afforded special recognition and/or rights by the Trinity. Would this be divine grace? - Conservatrix (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot find an article sufficiently covering the special relationship between Mary and God, at least not in context of her privileges. Perhaps this could be considered for a new article? - Conservatrix (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: From what you say, it looks like a needed article. It's not one I could even attempt: I'm am atheist who was raised Anglican, and the concept is wholly unfamiliar to me. I'd be interested to read an article. Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's not precisely Mary's relationship to God that's being remembered in these 12 privileges, but the divine graces she received to make her a fitting Mother for the God-man Jesus, of which there is already lengthy discussion at Immaculate Conception and Virgin birth of Jesus. Divine grace is understood to put us all in a special relationship with God, and I would think that Mary's relationship would be only one of the degree of divine grace which she received. Please enlighten me if you find any evidence to the contrary. @Conservatrix:. Jzsj (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix and Jzsj: My problem, as a reader, is that the link in Compagnia dell'Immacolata Concezione to the DAB page privileges gives me no useful information and leaves me confused. As someone raised Anglican, I do not have the first idea what you two are talking about.

"The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God." Thirty-nine Articles XXII. Take it or leave it, that was what I was taught to believe.

This isn't a sectarian or even a Christian thing. This is about Wiki and its readers. (FWIW, for the last couple of months, I've been working on an article about a Servant of God who I greatly admire. 40-odd citations, mostly in Italian, fragmented, most but not all consistent with each other. It isn't easy to sort the wheat from the chaff. The papers in his case have been passed to the Vatican; he might be canonised this century; and IMO he deserves that recognition of his sainthood.) It's about pointing readers towards useful information; that DAB page gives me zero useful information. Narky Blert (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I can feel the eyes of the venerable among us bearing down, so allow me to preface my response by explaining that my forte lies in the politics and history of the Church. A biographer of sorts, not so much a master of doctrine or canon law. I would think the closest general meaning is blessing. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: thank you very much indeed! Blessing is exactly the, and is the precise, English word in this instance. That's why the BVM is the BVM. I've used your suggestion to resolve the problem.

The article Blessing is rather very diffuse, and is slanted towards human actions rather than to the operation of divine grace. It could benefit from some expansion. Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a new infobox

I'm thinking about creating a new infobox template, (potentially) called Infobox church office. While I have mainly Catholic offices in mind, I think it can be used for Anglican ones as well, and potentially others, such as Latter-day Saint ones. I envision it being something of a cross between {{Infobox organization}} and {{Infobox official post}}, except customized to allow parameter labels and template designs that are specific to a given church. I imagine it being used as the primary infobox on articles about specific positions, like Cardinal Vicar and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Catholic), and Archdeacon of Westminster (Anglian). It would be able to accommodate offices held by individuals, such as Cardinal Vicar, as well as those that are collective bodies, such as the Congregations. It would not be used for general positions, like periodeutes or hierodeacon. What do people think of this? Ergo Sum 03:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would rather advocate using, and if needed improving existing organisation and title infoboxes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Why not list the parameters you're going to include so we can see the differences with post. – Lionel^(talk) 08:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident That's a good idea. I didn't initially think that the existing infoboxes would be able to support what I'm trying to do, but now it seems that they might be able to with some slight modification (e.g. here). I've already started on Cardinal Vicar, using {{Infobox official post}} and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, using {{Infobox government agency}}. @Lionelt: If it turns out that these infoboxes prove inadequate, I can draw up a sample template in the sandbox and link to it here. Ergo Sum 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge

The Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge is an edition competition seeking to create and improve articles on the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. Anyone in any language can subscribe and collaborate on building or translating articles relating to the Twelve Apostles. Medals and real icons will be rewarded to the winners. To participate, one just needs to subscribe here and start collaborating. Dia Duit! Leefeni de Karik (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Consistency of use: ordination and consecration

I am not entirely sure this is the correct place for such a query/discussion, but I have not found anywhere else that seems more appropriate. Welcome to be advised.

Throughout pages related to the Catholic Church, there are a few issues that come up across pages. The name of the church (Catholic v Roman Catholic) has been hashed and rehashed, despite the Church itself being very clear in using one over the other. Similarly, i wonder about the continued use of "episcopal consecration". While ordination (for bishop, deacon, or presbyter) can also be called consecration (CCC 1538), i suggest we should have consistent usage throughout. For all orders it is ordination, though perhaps to vary language within text we could also use consecration as a secondary term, but in info-boxes and headings and in introducing the topic wherever it is touched upon, we should consistently use 'ordination' for all three orders. That is the preferred language of the Church's Rite of Ordination, as well as most of its official language in recent decades.

Is this something that can be done? Discussed? Agreed upon? Thank you. Protoclete (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Consecration is the traditional usage for bishops, and in a historical context is what should be used in my opinion (i.e. since an episcopal consecration in the 1700s would have been called a consecration and not an ordination, we should not be back dating the usage.) Part of the reason for this was the unclear question as to whether the episcopacy was a distinct order or whether it was the priesthood with added jurisdiction. If it was the latter, a bishop wouldn't have been ordained, but rather would have been consecrated for the task. Current usage tends to be trending towards using ordination for bishops, so I would support using it post-1960s unless the sourcing indicated that the individual bishop referred to it as a consecration. Likely Pre-1960s, and definitely pre-20th century, we really shouldn't be reading current theology of orders onto it, so consecration would be best.

I'm not personally familiar with consecration being used to describe ordinations below the episcopal level in common usage. Ordination should be uniform for these. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There was some previous discussion of it back in 2015, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2015#Episcopal_ordination/consecration.--Dcheney (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed the inconsistency throughout the English Wikipedia as well. I've never seen the term consecration used for priests or deacons. As you said, consecration was pretty much universally used to refer to the act of ordaining a bishop, but it does seem that as of late, the term episcopal ordination is more common. I'm conflicted as to the proper solution. I think we should try to keep the usage consistent, if possible, between historical bishops and contemporary ones. Therefore, I'm inclined to think that we should keep using consecration. However, if there really is a big disparity between Wikipedia'a use of consecration and the contemporary literature's use of it (which I'm not if it really is big), it might be time to switch over. Ergo Sum 21:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Promotion of religion

Have we ever discussed where placing articles on the Church becomes "promotion of religion"? Jzsj (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj seems to have over-looked many atheist articles in Wikipedia. He should not ask very vague questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G685645 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Galileo

As you can see, an edit war has started in the articles on Galileo Galilei and the Galileo affair. A tag team of 38 members restores the efforts of Darouet. All 38, like Darouet, have various conflicts of interest. The original articles, as they were before 2013, should be restored. The censored talk pages provide scientific and historical argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G685645 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We get more about the clerical collar than about the Galileo affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G685645 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Assessment

William Matthews (priest) is currently nominated for Featured article status. It's B-class checklist is also incomplete. In order to smoothly navigate the FA process, can someone please complete the assessment of the article with the checklist? Ergo Sum 21:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: By the way, there are old, outdated propsals of mine on Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts. I tried to delete but was unable to. Could you perhaps help me, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: I can certainly try to assist. What is it exactly that you're trying to do? Ergo Sum 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Great. My featured article requests in said alert list, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: I don't see anything of yours listed under featured articles. I only see categories for discussion attributed to you. Ergo Sum 01:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "Good articles", the OFM proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Done. Ergo Sum 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Do you think you'd be able to give the WP:Cath assessment of William Matthews (priest) a look? Ergo Sum 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, never done that, don't know how to do? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Sorry, it is still reappearing. Putting a help template above. How do I delete my "Good article" expired request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident are you referring to Order of Friars Minor on Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts? You can't delete it, because it's placed there by a bot. If you manually take it off, the bot will put it back on, because the bot is getting its information from the article talk page. Go to the article talk page and delete the GA nominee template itself. That should remove it from the list the next time the bot runs. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That worked. Many thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Papal conclave, 1769

Papal conclave, 1769, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Viennese Ordinaries

And God said, "Let there be Viennese bishops on the English Wikipedia", and there were bishops.

Suffragan Bishops of Vienna

• Anton Wolfradt
• Philipp Friedrich von Breuner
• Wilderich von Walderdorff
• Emerich Sinelli
• Ernst von Trautson zu Falkenstein
• Franz Anton von Harrach zu Rorau
• Franz Ferdinand von Rummel

Metropolitan Archbishops of Vienna

• Sigismund von Kollonitsch
• Johann Joseph von Trautson zu Falkenstein
• Sigismund Anton von Hohenwart
• Leopold Maximilian von Firmian

Review and change them to your heart's content. - Conservatrix (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"And God said..." that was funny! These articles are great, thank you. @Conservatrix: May I bring to your attention a fun way to get pageviews for your articles: DYK. More info here DYK For Newbies. – Lionel^(talk) 04:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Merci, Lionelt! I post migrations so that relevant projects may review and scrutinize them. This is my way of encouraging discussion surrounding the betterment of these articles, though your praise is appreciated. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the best way to get other editors to notice these types of articles is when there is some kind of huge dispute that escalates to RFC. Short of that you can nominate for DYK and then try to persuade the Ichthus newsletter editor to include it in the next issue. I hear he's partial to {{Filet-O-Fish}}. – Lionel^(talk) 03:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Sean Hannity article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Christian heresies

Please see my post at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#List_of_Christian_heresies. I think some people who watch this page might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus May 2018 is available

• Project News: An admin is admonished
• Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
• Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
• Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on GA nominee

Please see Talk:William Matthews (priest). Ergo Sum 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Traditional Catholicism in the Convent

Would it be appropriate if I were to create a category for convents that observe traditional Catholicism? This talk page is not meant to be a forum for casual conversation, but upon reading the Dolores Hart article I was struck by the flagrant pride of this senior nun:

As a novice, she told abbey founder, Lady Abbess Benedict Duss, "I will never have to worry again about being an actress because it was all over and behind me." But Lady Abbess replied, "I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. Now you have to take up a role and really work at it." Hart submitted a rejoinder, "I was so mad when she said that because I really emptied my pockets, so to speak, and literally had given away everything that had meant anything to me."

Hart often appears in public wearing a beret on top of her habit. When asked about it by an interviewer she stated that early in her vocation because nuns have to "cut your hair quite short in order to get your cap on, your wimple, your bandeau, and all of that". She told her superior that "my head is freezing even when I put the veil on!" When informed that she could "put another veil on top of it" she thought "oh, that’s pretty dull isn’t it?"

I then took time to watch her documentary, God Is the Bigger Elvis, and was again struck with the frequent undignified behavior on display, namely the free movement of hands when not in use, individualistic pride expressed through headwear, piercings and self characterizations, the discussion of life prior to having entered the congregation, and in one scene Prioress Dolores kisses on the mouth and holds the hand of a "former" love interest. Is this the legacy of Vatican II?

Another instance which lost my respect for this abbey was when a novice enters the Prioress's office and offers the traditional "Benedicite", and was received by the Prioress with "Gracias." Forgive my nit-picking, but this is highly irregular.

I would like to organize the convents whose nuns devote their lives to true vocations that our casual readers might find them with ease. Your thoughts? – Conservatrix (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The foregoing description is all WP:OR, and I am having trouble linking it to your request, of defining religious institutes by "Traditional Catholicism". Nothing you describe is characteristic of either traditionalism or nontraditionalism. Are you saying that these elements would exclude Mother Dolores and her institute from such a hypothetical category? (Actually, it is not so hypothetical; we have a whole tree under Category:Traditionalist Catholicism already) Are you proposing an opposing category in which we might place institutes which are not traditionalist? We would certainly need a list of criteria for determining which institutes would fit in these categories: they would necessarily be derived from WP:RS, which is a difficult ask for all but the largest orders. Most accurate descriptions come from the WP:PRIMARY official websites themselves. But, I could foresee that if we can determine membership in the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious and exclusive observance of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, including the 1960 Breviarum Romanum, that might be enough to tag them as traditionalist. But it would have nothing to do with the trivial minutiae which you just posted. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My interpretation of traditional Catholicism in the convent would be the schismatic congregations that reject Vatican II; however, I could understand admitting those in communion with Rome that practice similar discipline. The women religious associated with the SSPX and SSPV are my ideal. Beside the point, you will have to forgive my inarticulate approach to this topic. – Conservatrix (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would not be Wikipedia's interpretation: Traditionalist Catholicism rightly explains that a full spectrum exists. Your schismatics are in the middle, beyond them are the conclavists such as Pope Michael; and there is a good population of Catholics who would describe themselves as traditional, but attend Mass in the Ordinary Form, albeit with many trappings and features commonly associated with the EF. So yeah, this is really going to need to be about objective criteria, preferably WP:RS which describe them as traditionalist, or at least a list of definining, distinguishing features which can be identified so that they can be categorized. For what it's worth, I have been poring over the article on Mother Dolores and the website for her institute, and it would seem to me that they have extensive conservative credentials, especially having worked with EWTN and Ignatius Press luminaries. The Sinsinawa Dominican Sisters they ain't. But it would likewise be quite a stretch to label them as traditionalist, because their use of the liturgy is fully Ordinary Form, albeit in Latin with Gregorian Chant, and, it would seem, a fully traditional observance of the Benedictine Rule. Actually it would seem to me that this community is living Vatican II was it was truly envisioned, rather than a caricature foisted upon the faithful with polyester chasubles and tambourines. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The various degrees of traditionalist nuns can be divided into Conclavist, Schismatic and Communion subdivisions or subcategories. The former two should be uncontroversial, but the Communionists I suspect will require both reliable sources and participant consensus. I have never heard of traditionalist religious sisters, only nuns, and would appreciate being enlightened to the contrary. With this in mind, how is Category:Traditionalist Catholic nuns for a name? – Conservatrix (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There are a couple institutes already classified directly under Category:Traditionalist Catholicism. However, combing through that category, I have been able to declassify several pages already, that do not belong because of WP:CATV. This is the key point. Categories must be verifiable! You will need to be able to point directly to a reliable secondary source (a book, a newspaper article, a scholarly paper) that unambiguously declares them to adhere to some form of Traditionalism. That shall be your greatest obstacle, because I assure you that for the thousands of smaller and more obscure religious institutes, very little is written in secondary sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Category:Traditionalist Catholic nuns and religious sisters – Conservatrix (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for collaborating on this. I have made significant edits to the Category and the article Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior, which is currently the sole member there. Once again, I remind you of WP:CATV and its provisions. The article was not a candidate to be added to these categories because there was no reliable secondary source documenting their association, beliefs, and liturgical practices. Now, I did find a link from another article, with a news story which affirmed their connection to SSPV (of course this was implied in the article due to Bishop Kelly's involvement.) I can actually find no evidence of their liturgical practices other than videos, but given that they are in the Tridentine category by virtue of its parentage, and the SSPV does nothing but Tridentine liturgy, we'll overlook that.

The article is fairly well written. The section on their legal dispute is interesting, and seems appropriate and neutral. The only thing I would caution is not to make it any longer. WP:DUE says that appropriate weight must be given to all aspects of a topic, and the legal dispute cannot dominate the whole story of this institute. It would especially help to flesh out more information about their day-to-day life, structure, charisms, that kind of thing. Also, find more reliable secondary sources. Their official website is not cited as a source for anything, and it could, with caution. Hopefully they have been interviewed or profiled in Catholic Family News, or the Remnant Newspaper, or something. Those sources would be goldmines of information for Wikipedia articles, should they exist. Thanks again, and I hope to see more of the same. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Renaming "Nun" article

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Nun#Rename article "Nun and religious sister" ? whether to rename this article "Nun and religious sister", since religious sisters have no article of their own and they may not want to be called nuns. Religious sisters are already a major topic in the article. Jzsj (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This topic has been reopened, with only a few commenting and with its closure called into question. Jzsj (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go again. How many times have you now reopend a discussion when the consensus went not your way? The Banner talk 05:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

All of Chile's Bishops Resign

The mass resignation of all 34 Catholic bishops in Chile might be worth a mention somewhere. It strikes me as so rare that it might even be worth an ITN nomination. Provided there was a solid target article, well referenced and up to date, I think I would support such a nomination at WP:ITNC. Just a suggestion if anyone is interested. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The BBC post about 3 hours ago suggests they offer to resign to the Pope, and his response is not yet known, a slight difference. see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44169484 JarrahTree 15:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The Karadima case article needs much work and renaming to be much more generic. The Catholic Church in Chile article is poor and Episcopal Conference of Chile redirects to it. Perhaps Ecclesiastical response to Catholic sexual abuse cases? (And it needs to be done with care. They "tendered" their resignations. They didn’t quit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The catholic press gets the details correct. Tablet or Crux or NCR, etc. And we don’t need Francis to respond for ITN. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wow! According to the AP this was pretty much as mass firing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t you read the story: "To be sure, the offers of resignations from the 31 active Chilean bishops who came to Rome at the pope’s command are in many ways symbolic. Francis can accept, reject or delay a decision, and the bishops keep their jobs until he acts. The resignations have effectively bought the pope time, giving him a badly needed gesture of action after he admitted he was part of the problem for having taken the word of bishops over those of sex abuse victims." Emphasis mine. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that Crd Ezzati Andrello, Abp Caro Cordero, Bp Goic Karmelic, and Bp Duarte García de Cortázar had previously offered their resignations upon reaching the age of 75. As others have already noted, a resignation has no effect until accepted by the Pope. --Dcheney (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I realize we are far from the original subject of a ITN entry, but I thought I should note here that I've trimmed Karadima case down to just his case with some of the fallout, created Catholic sexual abuse cases in Chile, and created a biography entry for Juan Barros Madrid. All works in progress of course. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

New Cardinals - June 2018

Just the usual quick reminder, while it is appropriate to indicate they have been named as potential future Cardinals by Pope Francis, they are _not_ Cardinals now. That will occur on 29 June 2018. That being said, this is a great time to look at the entries for each person on the list and to clean up/expand their articles.Dcheney (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Nativity Triptych (Bellini) links to St. Victor, which is a DAB page. I have been unable to identify which saint this might be. Can any expert here help? He is depicted with a sword and a quill, which narrows the field down but doesn't seem to solve the problem - at least three of those listed on the DAB page seem to have been soldier-saints, but none seems to be described as both soldier and writer. Thanks in advance. Narky Blert (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The triptych's category, Category:Triptych of the Nativity by Jacopo Bellini, links to Category:Saint Victor, which specifies Victor Maurus. – Conservatrix (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: Thanks! I'll buy that identification - he was high on my list of candidates. Also, I found File:Chapelle saint joseph reims 072.JPG in that same category. Like the Nativity, it includes both SS Francis and Victor, reinforcing the connection. Narky Blert (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Richard Rohr, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Controversial articles section

I've noticed a couple editors (@Briancua, Chicbyaccident, and G685645:) adding articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism#Controversial_articles_about_the_Catholic_Church. I wonder how many editors are aware we need their help in monitoring these articles?

I think we could get more exposure if we created a WATCHLIST of controversial articles. Something like this WikiProject Anatomy Watchlist.– Lionel^(talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus June 2018 is out now!

• Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
• Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
• Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 04:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename

Perhaps someone could rename/move Cardinal Friedrich Schwarzenberg to something appropriate w/o the title. It was moved there from Friedrich Johannes Jacob Celestin von Schwarzenberg. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Friedrich Prince zu Schwarzenberg, which I’d bolded in the article and better than the current title. Anyone else is free to move or start an RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Documents et al.

Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Documents, Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Art, and Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Mass, i.e. pages relevant to this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. Opinions on the matter are welcome; interested editors may participate in the discussion by adding comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Documents and please be sure to sign comments with four tildes (~~~~). Feel free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Documents during the discussion but do not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio in Roman Catholic Diocese of Cubao

Can anyone help out with rephrasing this? Thought I'd bring this to your attention as I am honestly not an expert at this subject yet this appears to be a glaring case of copyvio if not for the dead site the text was blatantly lifted from. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the material was not encyclopedic—like individual ordinations and the erection of each parish—so deletions were in order. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE material, so to speak. I might have the copyvio material revdel'd as well since it was lifted directly off the site I linked. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You def should. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Catholic Answers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catholic Answers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Answers until a consensus is reached. Catholic Answers is the largest lay-run apostolate of Roman Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. – Lionel^(talk) 12:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Several new articles need help

There's been a little flurry of activity around Catholic Church and homosexuality. A few new sub-articles have spun off, including Dissension from Catholic teaching on homosexuality and Pastoral care for gay Catholics. It would be helpful to get an extra couple sets of eyes on them. Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nunciature v Nuncio

In Category:Diplomatic missions of the Holy See we have equal numbers of articles named "Apostolic Nunciature to ..." and "Apostolic Nuncio to ..." —about 25 of each. The contents don’t vary with the title. WP offers different often somewhat inconsistent models, including "Embassy of France, [city]", which omits the country. Like Embassy of the United States, Dar es Salaam. I’d prefer to maintain the country in the title, but Nunciature or Nuncio? Thoughts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Nunciature is the equivalent of an embassy. Nuncio is the equivalent of an ambassador. Dcheney (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Crickets! Any objection to using “Apostolic Nunciature..." as the standard? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m fine with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This work has been done, though I'm waiting for the move of List of Apostolic Nuncios to China to Apostolic Nunciature to China, which I consider uncontroversial. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Embassy chapels

Hi everyone, I created a new page, Embassy chapel, that displays an interesting and underrated feature of Catholicism and other religions: Embassy chapels. For example, before Catholicism was legal, English Catholics were able to worship at the Embassy chapels of foreign governments, like the French, Portuguese, or Sardinian embassy. Four London churches today have roots in those embassies (Church of St Anselm and St Cecilia, St Etheldreda's Church, Church of our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, St James's, Spanish Place. The page also talks about other embassy chapels around the world (for example, protestant churches in Italy of churches in China and the Ottoman Empire), which provided religious havens to persecuted religions thanks to diplomatic immunity. I've linked a lot of resources but I don't have much time to fill in the page. Any and all help is welcome. Eccekevin (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for sharing! I'm going to sleep right now so I can't do it, but one should add that kind of info to the linked articles in the list. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 07:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful addition to the 'pedia. Thank you. Ergo Sum 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus July 2018 is out now!

• The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
• Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
• Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 08:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Communion and Liberation page

Hi everyone, I wanted to bring to the attention to this topic, as the current page is biased and very low quality.

In the talk page you'll find more, here there are some problems with the current page:

• some citations are used instrumentally i.e. they don't contain what's reported on the page (and, since they're all in Italian, this makes things more difficult)
• some citations are old and information which is now "wrong" (i.e. reporting trial results which change with the final trial result)
• all citations have a negative perspective on the issue
• there's talk like "many workers in Italy" and related which is generic and not proper for wikipedia
• a number of accusations against the subject are stated as facts

I tried to work on the subject, but a user reverted everything back without giving much of an explanations; for comparison here's the current page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_and_Liberation ), and here's my last edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=851445699 ).

Since the user did never answer to the points I've made against the current page status, I think some help/external perspective would be good. Thank you! Best, GioA90GioA90 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is edit warring at Political activity of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality Someone should step in to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.191.44.86 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Francis Ferdinand de Capillas

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Francis Ferdinand de Capillas#Merge discussion about the merge direction and name of the article. I'm not sure which way it should go, so I'd appreciate some input. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pope Francis and Capital Punishment

This is front page news globally and various articles such as Catholic Church and capital punishment are going to need to be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Proper titles for McCarrick and Wilson

Could someone with expertise take a look at the infoboxes for Theodore Edgar McCarrick and Philip Wilson (bishop). At the moment they are identified as "Archbishop Emeritus of Washington" and "8th Archbishop of Adelaide", respectively. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC at William Matthews peer review

There is a peer review open about William Matthews. He was a major figure in the establishment of the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. I am preparing the article for FA nomination and would very much appreciate any input. Ergo Sum 02:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Catholicism-related RfC on Infobox church

I have proposed adding a number of Catholicism-related parameters and re-ordering a section of Template:Infobox church. Input on the discussion is welcome here. Ergo Sum 01:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Religious sister article deleted

The article Religious sister created on May 29, 2018, was deleted on August 27, 2018, and a redirect instituted to a section of the nun article. I restored the Religious sister article under the new title Religious sister (Catholic). but it was at once nominated for speedy deletion. You can voice your opinion here on whether you think that sisters should retain this article separate from that on nuns. Jzsj (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Needed at Carlo Maria Viganò

The subject of this BLP is currently involved in a highly publicized controversy involving both the Pope and the Vatican Curia. Not surprisingly the editing on this article has been heavy, and some of it may not be strictly NPOV. Extra eyes from experienced editors would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Papal conclave, 1878

For some reason, the infobox at Papal conclave, 1878 has been changed to reflect something like a presidential election infobox. Would somebody (with the know how) change it back to its original form, consistent with all the other papal conclave articles? GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Inter Insigniores

I deem this a very poor quality article. One may as well consider deletion. Opinions?--Neufund (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently flawed with it as a stub that warrants deletion. The document exists, and the document itself would meets the notability requirements if properly cited to outside sources. Deleting the article makes finding information about the document more difficult, which is antithetical to Wikipedia's mission. At a minimum, it should be merged into list of papal documents and redirected to its entry. Absent the existence of such a list, I would oppose deletion. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Template title, Latin words

Greetings, While doing assessments of WP Cath. articles, for Marie-Clémentine Anuarite Nengapeta there is Template:In defensum castitatis. Since I am "Latin ignorant" I'm wondering if an expert could please translate into English. Then put the translation onto the template, perhaps with "*" in title & English words on bottom. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: The translations vary, but it can be fairly accurately translated as "In defense of chastity." "Virginity" could also work. I will put the translation in the template. Ergo Sum 02:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste translations

I have difficulties with some cut-and-paste translation of our friend Jzsj: Jérôme Nadal and Juan de Castillo (Jesuit). In both cases I have the nasty idea that he just copied the text and translated it verbatim, without even bothering to check (and fully translate) the sources. (The second one has a clearly wrong title)

Martyrology is way out of my comfort zone, so I would like it when someone can check and/or improve the articles. The Banner talk 17:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Featured Article nomination

I have nominated William Matthews (priest) for Featured Article status, and it is currently under review here. The article failed once before for failure to generate enough comments. I believe it is very close to FA, and meets all the criteria. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Ergo Sum 04:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Bishops and Dioceses in China

This morning there was an announcement regarding a number of Bishops in China being recognized by the Holy See. After the related agreement that was also announced today, there will likely be official recognition of a number of jurisdictional adjustments and existing bishops over the coming days, weeks, and months. Dcheney (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Catholic Church in China needs improved quality to make ITN

The article Catholic Church in China is currently receiving lots of support on grounds of notability to be included as an In the News item on our main page, but it still requires a lot of work to bring it up to the necessary quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

There is a Request for Comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Request for comment on the church teaching section. The thoughts and opinions of others would be most welcome there. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry

A discussion is taking place on whether to retain the article on the national organization Saint Dismas Prison Ministry, and on what might be properly included in the article. Jzsj (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Or better: do we keep the present neutral version, do we make it into a promo affair or do we merge it into another article. The Banner talk 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Most Holy Trinity Seminary for deletion

I have nominated Most Holy Trinity Seminary for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Trinity Seminary (2nd nomination). Is anyone with detailed knowledge of Traditional Catholicism schismatic groups in the US able to contribute to the discussion? I nominated the article because I don't think there is sufficient coverage of this institution in reliable sources for this article to be kept, but maybe someone here might be aware of sources I am not? Thank you. SJK (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Catholic v. Roman Catholic in article text

Since it affects this project and I know not everyone watches the Christianity noticeboard, but there’s currently an informal discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Time_for_a_formal_agreement on the Catholic vs. Roman Catholic issue. About prose this time, not article titles. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversial film Kler (The Clergy) by Polish director Wojciech Smarzowski needs article

We should have an article for the controversial film Kler (The Clergy) by Polish director Wojciech Smarzowski.

Wojciech Smarzowski's new controversial drama Clergy, about the Catholic Church in Poland, had over 935,000 admissions during the premiere release weekend, breaking the record for the best opening of a Polish film in the last 30 years.

https://www.filmneweurope.com/news/poland-news/item/117090-smarzowski-s-clergy-breaks-polish-box-office-record

A film depicting Polish clerics as corrupt, drunken fornicators and paedophiles is smashing box office records in Poland, sparking controversy and encouraging hundreds of people to come forward with allegations of recent and historical abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/15/polish-film-the-clergy-sparks-hundreds-of-allegations-of-abuse-kler-catholic

Whatever you think of this film, it certainly meets notability guidelines.

We currently have a redlink Clergy (film) in our article Wojciech Smarzowski.

We should decide whether our article should be at Clergy (film) or The Clergy (film).

[Edit] More discussion at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Controversial_film_Kler_(The_Clergy)_by_Polish_director_Wojciech_Smarzowski_needs_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Controversial_film_Kler_(The_Clergy)_by_Polish_director_Wojciech_Smarzowski_needs_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Controversial_film_Kler_(The_Clergy)_by_Polish_director_Wojciech_Smarzowski_needs_article

[ edit - 189.122.52.73 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC) ]

- 189.122.52.73 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible issue with Patroness of Cavite

I guess you guys might want to keep watch on Our Lady of Porta Vaga, Our Lady of Pillar of Imus and a few others due to a quarrel going on here. I don't mean to pre-empt but since I've heard from my brother (who happens to be a Marian devotee) that their respective articles sparked some unneeded and frankly irreverent serious business, and I'm afraid this could spill over here. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2018

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Servants of the Blessed Sacrament

I propose that Servants of the Most Blessed Sacrament be merged into Servants of the Blessed Sacrament. I think that the content in the Servants of the Most Blessed Sacrament article can easily be explained in the context of Servants of the Blessed Sacrament, and the Servants of the Blessed Sacrament article is more reliable and a reasonable size that the merging of Servants of the Most Blessed Sacrament will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendi07 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:People excommunicated by the Catholic Church#"Category:Former Roman Catholics"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:People excommunicated by the Catholic Church#"Category:Former Roman Catholics". 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kao Se Tseien (2nd nomination) of ‎Nicholas Kao Se Tseien.

Oldest documented Catholic priest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Church buildings in Italy categories

Participation to the discussion is welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Church_buildings_by_region_and_province_in_Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be out of date

Hi, I noted that Augustana Catholic Church appears to be out of date. Anyone here familiar with the topic? I am not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)