Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Latin WP

I've just discovered there is a Latin Wikipedia. Guess what? The Latin article on Anglicanism is but a stub:[1]. My Latin sucks. I bet there is little vandalism on the site - execept by the Vandals...bad pun. Anyway, those who can should give it a try. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that would appear to be their article on the Church of England, not on Anglicanism. —An gr 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I did the one for St Augustine of Canterbury and it was roundly revised because my latin isn't what it ought to be. I'll take a look at it, but there are few with the knowledge, time, and desire to vandalize the Latin WP. -- SECisek 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Resources

I;ve just added a new resources section to the mainpage, listing some potentially useful online sources. Please make use of these, and add others that you are aware of. David Underdown 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Core contest

Typical of me, I only become aware of contests as they are closing. Anyway, was anyone else aware of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. The deadline is rapidly closing in. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick survay of the eligible article list turns up :Bible, Church, Church (building), Protestantism, andProtestant Reformation. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

The article is currently attracting the attention of one account, and a few IPS consistently tryign to insert info from a polemic essay attacking Wilberforce. I've actually just requested full protection on the article to force discussion. But more eyes on it would be useful to keep it in a reasonable state. Som eof the less sympathetic aspects of his character probably should be expanded on, but it's important not to impose modern mores to heavily on our view of him. David Underdown 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is no an FA candidate: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Wilberforce please review the article, and make your comment on the candidacy page. David Underdown (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles II of England

Is under Featured Article review. Please help bring this article up to current featured article standard. Judgesurreal777 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England

Is now at Featured Article Review, so please take a look, and help the article keep its featured status! Judgesurreal777 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is critical to our project. Let's all pitch in! -- SECisek 06:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry Benjamin Whipple & Henry B. Whipple duplicate articles

Today I did some revision on Cathedral of Our Merciful Saviour, Faribault and went on to do some revisions on its founding bishop, Henry Benjamin Whipple. After I was finished I checked the bishops in the ECUSA category and found an article for Henry B. Whipple. Obviously one needs to be merged into the other. IMHO, Henry Benjamin Whipple has the better structure and references of the two and should be the surviving article. Henry B. Whipple has a wealth of information on his life, but no references. Doing the merge won't be a problem, but finding references for Henry B. Whipple and weaving its content into the surviving article is going to be difficult. Any suggestions?clariosophic 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The text is unsourced but not obviously outrageous. At this stage, I'd cut and paste the text from one into the other wholesale. Then, do a minor amount of clean-up. I wouldn't worry about the lack of references but I wouldn't waste time weaving unsourced text. Looking at it now, I'd cheat and make the text in Henry Benjamin Whipple the lead and the text in Henry B. Whipple the body as it is more extensive. Crude but quick and effective. Of course, redirect Henry B. Whipple. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's all done. The image on the receiving page didn't come out right, which was strange because it wasn't moved. I solved that by putting in a bishop's infobox and putting the image there. Thanks again. clariosophic 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Harold Miller

Neither he nor his diocese had an article here. I added a very brief bit of biography to the the "Harold Miller" article about a dead English footballer--presumably that needs to be changed to a disambiguation article, with separate articles for each of the Harold Millers. The Irish bishop has attracted a fair bit of attention in the United States because of his criticism of the Episcopal Church, and should have a more thorough article here for that reason. His diocese is sometimes called the "United Diocese of Down and Dromore", I think, so one should pick which lemma the article should be under (Diocese of Down and Dromore or United Diocese of Down and Dromore).--Bhuck (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, most of the current CofI Dioceses are "mergers" of pre-Reformation Dioceses, so could all be entitled "United" Dioceses, but don't generally seem to be within Wiipedia. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Harold Miller (bishop). As for diocese, I favour Diocese of Down and Dromore as it reflects the diocese website. [2] I have done some work on the CofI in the last few days, so much work still needs to be done. Be bold. -- SECisek (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to tidy up slightly I've amended the hat note you left on the footballer to use {{otheruses4}} to give it a more standard look and feel. David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I was too lazy to find the template. -- SECisek (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Graham Charles Chadwick

Just created an article on this bishop and anti-apartheid campaigner. Only got part way through his career so far, but would appreciate some copy-editing etc. David Underdown (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishops (too many to name)

It's come to my attention that user:Bashereyre has been doing sterling work creating articles on Anglican bishops - however he hasn't been tagging them. I've now asked him to do so, and to join us here, but it may well be worth goign through the list on his user page and seeing what's there. David Underdown (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Community of Christ the King

Community of Christ the King is up for deletion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSC

Similarly to the above, there is a one-liner article at Sisters Of The Church, which I suspect is about the Community of the Sisters of the Church. AfD, anyone? Carolynparrishfan 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirected it. Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Company of Mission Priests=

Company of Mission Priests has notability template in it and I as a contributor suspect that there is not any notability problem. My source has been the newest Anglican Religious Communities Yearbook. Could you please help with that? (Terot (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Executive Council (Episcopal Church)

While there are articles (stubs) on General Convention, the office of Presiding Bishop, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops, there is nothing about Executive Council (link is blue because of disambiguation page with no hint of Episcopalianism on it), as far as I can tell. Anyone feel called to this?--Bhuck (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Verger

whoever last wrote about a verger's duties ended with the phrase, "and the ever-popular grave-digging responsibilities." Hum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.38.10 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seal of the Confessional and the Anglican Church

Seal of the Confessional and the Anglican Church - big time help needed now. -- SECisek 09:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ECUSA

Isn't it time for us in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to have our own WikiProject or at least our own subproject? clariosophic 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question would be, "Why?" The purpose of any project is to provide focused collaboration. In all honesty, I doubt very much that such a subproject would gain any more active involvement in the relevant articles by having a separate group than they do today. However, if you so desired, it certainly would not be out of line to propose a group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. If there were sufficient interest demonstrated there for a separate group, I can't see any real objections. And it is a much better idea to actually find out if their exists enough support to create and maintain one than to simply assume that there will be enough support and find oneself to have been mistaken. Most of the projects that have been merged or deleted would probably agree with me there. John Carter 14:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite happy working in the existing Anglican project. What would be the point? It would just be another user box to slap on my user page. -- SECisek 21:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is better to encourage co-operation among all users interested in Anglicanism anywhere in the world. That gets the articles read by more people coming from more different perspectives.--Bhuck (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

One of this project's good articles, St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford has been nominated for Good Article review. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 07:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Bath Abbey

Would very much like some feedback on this, having completed a total rewrite, before going to WP:GA about it.--Vox Humana 8' 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

St Matthew's Church, Kensington

25 September 2007 - expires 30 September --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I say no to deletion. This church may not be historic by English or Massachusetts standards, but I believe it is by Australian standards. Adelaide was settled in 1836. I understand this because I grew up in Massachusetts where buildings date from the 1600s, but I now live in an area of southern Florida which was not settled until the late 1800s. clariosophic 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss it. If you object to deletion, remove the PROD tag and discuss it on the article's talk page. —Angr 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Thank you, I've already done so. I've expanded the article and deleted the prod. clariosophic 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia)

I think St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia) needs to be upped on the importance scale, since it is the "oldest existing church of English foundation in America and the nation's only surviving Gothic building. St. Luke's Church is estimated to date to 1632." All other so-called Gothic building in America are Gothic revival. What do you all think?clariosophic 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. and Canada, anything architectural that pre-dates 1700 is pretty rare and I think you are justified in upping it on the importance scale. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I rank most of the articles, but all other project editors may feel free to change a ranking for any reason or assign one if none is given. I agree with you here, be bold. -- SECisek 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To give a sense of perspective, it may help to know that Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England is graded LOW importance! Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I bumped the Cathedral article to mid, based off feedback on the talk page. Why don't you join the project and help us rate the articles? There are stil 15 or 20 new ones in the queue -- SECisek (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

I have briefly mentioned the resolution passed at diocesan convention this past weekend, but more diligent authors might want to expand or modify such references to current events.--Bhuck (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Prayer Book Anglican"

The article Friday says, "Some Catholics and Prayer Book Anglicans will refrain from eating the meat of warm blooded animals on Fridays, and will often choose fish instead." What is a "Prayer Book Anglican"? Don't all Anglicans use a prayer book? Should it just say "Anglo-Catholics" instead? (And while we're on that sentence, shouldn't it say "land animals" rather than "warm blooded animals"?) —An gr 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, prayer book Anglican is really redundant. The article also links Catholics to the Catholic article rather than Roman Catholic, so it's fuzzy on that point also. The definition of meat that is not to be eaten on Fridays is really that of the meat packing industry. clariosophic 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- SECisek 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I came to this late, but I object. "Prayer Book Anglican" is not redundant. It refers to those who observe the worship and discipline of the classical Anglican Prayer Books, as opposed to, say, the BAS, Common Worship, and the 1979 US "Book of Common Prayer." Let me see if there's a way this can be indicated in the article. Carolynparrishfan 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at it. Far from being "redundant", in Canada at least, "Prayer Book Anglican" is a clearly understood term. Not all Anglicans, as I have noted, use the Prayer Book. In England, I'm told, its use is quite rare. Carolynparrishfan 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is diference it is still irrelavent and uncited. I tried to clarify it further myself. -- SECisek 02:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Being Anglican Church of Canada (though in a family that called it Church of England in Canada decades after the name change), I also understand 'Prayer Book Anglican' although my active imagination always associates it with P.D. James. It sort of has a more traditionalist meaning than Anglo-Catholic. The battle in the UK over the 1928 revision was lost because of opposition by both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. In Canada, the Book of Common Prayer services tend to low church and traditional; for example, Morning Prayer. And although I'm Generation X, as a kid we did tend to have more fish sticks on Fridays, for what little that is worth :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Too obscure I think with my P.D. James allusion. She was for years the honourary head and most prominent spokes-noble for The Prayer Book Society in the UK and - I think - in Canada too. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cute, Secisek. By "clarify further," you mean "blank my edits", natch. I've tried again; make of it what you will. Carolynparrishfan 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I requested that the material be cited when it if/was it was returned, you have done so. The article has been improved, no harm done. -- SECisek 06:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

I don't know if anyone has the time but bringing Nativity of Jesus up to GA status for Christmas would be a good thing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Advent

Hello im new to wiki but would like to help i would like to add a page on 'the meaning of advent' how and can i do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjay09 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to Advent and be bold. Try creating a subsection there rather than a new article. -- SECisek (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to avoid original research and cite your sources, though. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Advent-the time of coming

Advent is the 'new year' if you like for Christians. It awaits the arrival of Jesus. In the sermon today in church our Canon Tim said that whilst we are waiting we should think about the answers to some questions that Jesus will ask us at the end of our Lives, What talent has God given us the day we were born and have we used it to help others? Today is the 2nd sunday of advent to remember the prophets who foretold Jesus' birth.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjay09 (talk • contribs) 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, St John the Baptist and all that. But you should formulate your info in a manner that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sermons would be at the outer boundaries of such material unless very notable. By the way, welcome to the Anglicanism project. I think you'll enjoy - and be surprised by - what you learn. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas

Any one want to tackle Christmas. It is on GA hold right now. I suspect a good pruning will pass it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, after spending some time at the article, I take it back. The article is unlikely to get past B class because of editor conflicts. Christmas is not merry. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Sermon

Hello everybody!! At church there was an interesting sermon the other day. It was about Kevin Keagan the new manager for Newcastle so I thought I'd share it with you. It was about those people who called him the Messiah (the chosen one) and that they thought he was a God send. And on Television in an interview he said 'If the job gets too hard he's going to walk away'. He also did this with Manchester City, Fullham and the actual England squad. The comment was that does Jesus walk away when things get to hard? No he doesn't, in fact he comes to our rescue saving us from our sins. So why call him the Kevin Keagan the messiah then?? Also the Northern 'Rock' crisis. They sponsered Newcastle and in Christian belifs Jesus was the 'Rock'. What a firm ground for Newcastle! hannah (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

COTM

Note to all that the Rowan Williams is the COTM: collaboration of the month. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody needs to pick one of the nominations for COTM ASAP. -- SECisek 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates/Infoboxes

Perhps we should a agree a standard approach for placing infoboxes on individual churches/cathedrals. {{Parish church}} is used on a number of articles (including cathedrals, and despite its name the way various parts of it are set up it's clearly intended for cathedrals too) — see Ely Cathedral and St Thomas' Church, Oxford for examples. Secisek seems to have dug up {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} as well (see Llandaff Cathedral), which has some interesting additions, but doesn't really take into account the fact that most of these cathedrals are still in use (note also that all? Church in Wales cathedrals also have parishes attached I think). Thoughts? David Underdown 09:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. We need our own Cathedral template - one without "Papal Bull" on it. One for the old, ruined abbeys of the UK would be nice, too. I would also like to see one for the national Churches - the one that was proposed not long ago was completely unacceptable. -- SECisek 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the usage on Elgin Cathedral I think {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} was probably set up for buildings that are no longer cathedrals, so can we agree on using {{Parish church}} in general? It seems to be pretty flexible as most parameters are optional. I haven't really got into templates, but the Medieval cathedral box would probably be quite a good start, just needs soem fo the field names changing. I think Garzo (talk · contribs) may know something about template, so it may be worth asking him, though if I can find time, I ought to be to cope with a previous example to copy from. David Underdown 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can get a template to do what I want it to. What do we want on a cathedral template? Let's all agree and I'll create it. -- SECisek 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have two changes to suggest for the cathedral/parish church infobox. This is the first time I've tried to create/edit one (for Lincoln Cathedral), so excuse me if I'm missing something.

1. (under clergy/personnel): include the Bishop.

2. The template seems to presume that the Director of Music is always the Organist - this is increasingly not always the case. For St Paul's, for example, Andrew Carwood is DoM but -not- the Organist. Stefan (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there actually anything additional to {{Parish church}}? I thought the new emplae was for ruined abbeys? David Underdown 09:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If Parish church works for Cathedrals, that is fine with me. WHat should be on the "Ruined Abbey" template? -- SECisek 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Info box and 'Independence'

I have no important complaint about the info box at Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It is good. However, if the box is to be propagated amongst the various Anglican church pages then the word 'independence' is a bit of a problem. The Episcopal Church certainly has an absolute founding date but this is not true of many others. The Anglican Church of Canada is an example. There is no absolute date. While the first local bishop was appointed in 1787, some parts of the Anglican Church of Canada were under the direct authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury - or he was still involved in appointments of bishops - well into the 20th C. For example, the first pan-Canadian synod was in 1893 but the diocese of Caledonia was not part of the synod and continued to owe allegiance to the A of C until 1914. As for the diocese of Newfoundland, the A of C didn't pass from his authority to the 'Church of England in Canada' until 17 Sept 1949. The Church of England in Canada didn't become the Anglican Church of Canada until the 1950s and 'psychological' independence didn't begin to occur until the 1960s. One text describes it as the 'stages of consolidation of the Canadian Church'. So, I propose something that captures the meaning of 'self-reliance' or 'self-sufficiency'. Even the founding documents of the TEC its prayer book said that it was not to depart from the Church of England which is not really independence. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a wording of "full autonomy" or something similar might be better? David Underdown 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed to full_autonomy. It became clear if we didn't design a passable infobox, somebody else would come along and slap something unacceptable on the churches again. That was the main motivation with it. -- SECisek 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is another example of one size doesn't fit all and points up the need for alternative terminology to be provided in all infoboxes. clariosophic 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the whole idea was to come up with something on our terms. Maybe the line should just be dropped? I am glad it has provoked internal discussion. -- SECisek 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David Underdown that 'full autonomy' works. I agree with SECisek that a pre-emptive strike is necessary. I agree with clariosophic that one size doesn't fit all and standardizing is vexing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New thought: how about the appointment date of the first local bishop! That should be a uniform and non-acromonious date across the entire Anglican Communion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast —Preceding comment was added at 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Would still have to be a little careful with wording, does local mean merely that a see was erected in teh country, or that the appointees were in some sense indigenous. There's also the problem of e.g. Church of South India, the Diocese of Madras goes back to the mid nineteenth century, bu the the Church in its current form (as a United Church) can quite definitely be dated to 1947. David Underdown 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Augustine or Cranmer or Parker...who WAS first? -- SECisek 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Appointees who were non-Englishman didn't appear en masse across the communion until the 20th C so the local bishop would have to refer to a living breathing person resident in the country. I agree there are examples of vacant sees. I also agree that there are examples of profound re-organization that are readily datable. Perhaps there should be two lines:

first_resident_bishop
date_of_organization / autonomy

As for the Church of England itself, well.... Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal template

TSP suggested this instead of the existing one:

Anglicanism portal

What do you all think? -- SECisek 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks quite nautical :-) (There is a nautical bookshop near here called the 'Compass Rose'). On a serious note, I think it does look good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good or better? -- SECisek 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not better. I recall about a year ago that there was a similar discussion...which drifted off. OK, I've found it at Template talk:Anglicanism. It involved what image to put on the old anglicanism nav box. I don't think anyone needs to spend a great deal of time on this. It is good but not better. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

~~I don't want to be a spoil sport, but as a dual citizen of two republics that revolted against the British crown, I'm not that thrilled with the crown on top.~~ The portal we're using is fine clariosophic 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry I just looked at the large size and see that it's a bishop's mitre, not a crown, so I withdraw my opposition, but I still think the other one is better.clariosophic

Looks like it stays as is. -- SECisek 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help on Parish church infobox

I'm trying to use the template parish church to do an info box for All Saints Episcopal Church (Jensen Beach, Florida) but can't seem to get it to work. It's not yet on the National Register or I would use that one, which is really simple to use. I can't seem to find any US Episcopal parish that uses the parish church template. Sometimes it's easier to copy someone else's infobox & change it than to try to mess with the original template. What I've done is in my sandbox. Any help would be appreciated. clariosophic 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Note: Ther are other things I want to put in the infobox: Date established, date built, location (address). I want to keep the ability to change the priest's title from Vicar to Rector when that happens and to add a deacon when that happens. clariosophic 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's CofE, rather TEC, but have a look at St Mary's Church, Putney for a real live example. There doesn't actually seem to be any provision for the dates you wish to include, or location data other than Lat/Long coordinates. You could try asking on the template talk page to see if other people feel it's necessary. The appearance of the priest's title depends on which parameter you use, so if you put vicar=Rev A B Smith, the "Vicar" field will be filled in, rector=Rev Ab Smith, the "Rector" field will be filled in instead and so on (these are all optional parameters), it doesn't matter in what order you specify named parameters, so you can just change the parameter name when that becomes relevant. David Underdown 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, David. I copied the infobox from St. Mary's Putney and was able to get all my information in and am quite happy with the result: All Saints Episcopal Church (Jensen Beach, Florida). clariosophic 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of recognition

This week's 'Signpost' had an interesting notice - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-11-05/News and notes#List of users by articles created released. Someone created 'A list of all users who have created at least 50 namespace non-redirect pages was compiled this week': List of users by pages created. So, a bit of SQL later, I've figured out which Project Anglicanism participants are on that list. Obviously, these editors created all sorts of articles, articles that may have nothing to do with Anglicanism but at least they have made a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

Rank	Editor	Number of articles created
132	Neddyseagoon	1154
358	Badbilltucker	553
823	Geogre	278
910	Quill	258
1372	DavidLRattigan	185
2130	Angr	120
2475	PMJ	104
2526	Carolynparrishfan	102
2637	Fishhead64	98
2710	Garzo	95
2924	Patricknoddy	88
3491	ExplorerCDT	73

This is current up to 07 Nov 2007 and the twelve editors created a total of 3108 articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was astonished when I saw those stats. For the life of me, I cannot think of 120 non-redirect articles I started. —An gr 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've pruned the participants list of editors who seem to have left Wikipedia, I've discovered a number of the editors in the above list are also people who no longer edit Wikipedia at all. At least one of the above editors hasn't edited since Jan 2007. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, I need to get a life! I'm embarrassed to admit that most of those articles are probably Anglican-related (although I was RC when I first registered, and my creations probably reflect that). Carolynparrishfan 02:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work, all! -- SECisek 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To blow my own horn a little, which I'm really loathe to do, please see my list of New pages created. Some of the ones I've listed don't show on the stats because I used to put summaries in the summary line on new articles until I realized that doing so wouldn't produce the magic N for new article. Two of the Delaware Episcopal churches were articles I wrote to replace a redirect to the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware. Anyway, I show a total of 116 articles created of which 42 are Anglican related. clariosophic (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC) correct typo clariosophic (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I made it a little more unique, hope you all like:

-- SECisek 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's either unique or it isn't... David Underdown 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair play, it wasn't before and it is now... -- SECisek 10:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I also changed the project colors to match the portal's. If any one doesn't like, by all means - revert. I overhauled the Assessment page, as well. The old one was so badly out of date that it was of little use. -- SECisek 10:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Simplified

Hope no one is bothered by my substituting templates to make things simpler in maintaining the project pages. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Stub and Start articles that are ranked has of High and Top importance to Anglicanism

These two lists are those article thought to be very important to Anglicanism but are not much better than stubs.

Top priority / importance Anglican articles but only Start or Stub class

High priority / importance Anglican articles but only Start or Stub class

Either these article could be up graded or their importance re-assessed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators?

It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated myself for a coordinator position at WP:NOVELS. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Anglican "saint" collaboration

For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints#Multiple saints collaborations?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions query

Hello WikiProject Anglicanism participants!

I'm sorry I haven't inserted this commentary into one of the pre-formatted headings, but I wasn't sure where this would be best served or most appropriately placed. Please feel free to move this.

It has come to my attention on Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester that there is an inconsistency in how we're naming our churches. I've come here for guidance on what the house style is (or should be).

For a Church of England church, "St Martin's in Salford, England" (a fictional example), what approach would be correct?...

Church or church? Is "church" necessary?
Saint, saint, St or St.?
Martin's, Martins or Martin?

Putting the above to one side for a moment, would it be:

Church of St Martin's, Salford?
St Martin's Church, Salford?
Salford, St Martin? (NB: this is what the CofE official website would use, but this may be a very confusing style)
St Martin's at Salford?
St Martin's Church (Salford)?
St Martin's Church of England Church, Salford?

This may be a very small issue, but could have wide reaching effects if this isn't looked at and codified. I would be grateful if someone could get back to me on this. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose St Martin's Church (Salford) however I would wait and see if other editors agree with me before taking any action. -- SECisek (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at Category:Churches in Greater Manchester, it would seem the existing standard is for St Martin's Church, Salford. It would also seem we don't have very much uniformity, since a few articles abbreviate Saint as "St." rather than "St", and at least one doesn't capitalize "church". —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Per American and British English differences, Americans use a period/full stop after abbreviations such as St while the British do not. So St would be the proper abbreviation in this instance. I would go along with User:Angr on this. No full stop after St, an apostrophe in Martin's', capital C in Church, and no parentheses around Salford. This would conform to most of the other listings for Greater Manchester. clariosophic (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for this rapid response. This is excellent feedback. Might I suggest that this (or if further discussion is added - the outcome) be somehow codified into a project guideline or naming convention? I know you have naming conventions for people on your main page, but nothing on churches. Another issue (sorry) is that "DEDICATION CHURCH, PLACE" may not be the same as "DEDICATION CHURCH, OFFICIAL PARISH"; An example being "St James's church, Shaw" vs. "St James's church, East Crompton"! I'm not sure if the related Protestantism, Christianity, Architecture or Catholicism projects have their own take on this matter too. I fully admit pedantry here on my part but believe this is a complex matter that would benefit from guidance of some sort. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

New article: Episcopal Diocese of the Virgin Islands

The Episcopal Diocese of the Virgin Islands needs to have a map added. clariosophic (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

San Joaquin

Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin says that +Schofield remains the bishop of San Joaquin until ++Jefferts Schori fires him. She did so today, but I don't know enough to make changes to this or Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Marnanel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin article, since it's essentially about a fictional entity. There is no provision for a diocese to transfer from one province to another. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we will need an article about whatever +Schofield's people decide they are doing, but that's not to say that that's the best name for it. Still, this is the best place to discuss it! Marnanel (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Ecclesiastical parish

I cannot understand why the article was moved to one called simply "Parish". I realise that it includes both civil (CP) and ecclesiastical (EP) parishes, but surely that is a mistake? In addition, it now takes in parishes wherever they are, whereas the need, surely, is for there to be an article discussing the Ecclesiastical parish:England (or some such title)? It was the basis for all local government, since prior to 1894 most of what is now CP responsibility was undertaken by the local church. The article could then include details of those previous responsibilities to put them in perspective.

I have deliberately put the pre-move title, by the way Peter Shearan (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands is clearly more general than referring to ecclesiatical parishes alone. There is however nothing stopping anyone from turning a redirect into an independent article, but not that parish already links to many sup-topics/more specialised articles. David Underdown (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagrding project banner

I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the {{WikiProject Australia}} does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. The Australia model is very good. Other possible models are also Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels.

parameters.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For example, the various work groups.

{{WPBiography
|small = 
|nested = 
|living = 
|class = 
|priority = 
|core = 
|attention = 
|past-collaboration = 
|peer-review = 
|old-peer-review = 
|needs-infobox = 
|activepol = 
|a&e-work-group = 
|politician-work-group = 
|british-royalty = 
|royalty-work-group = 
|military-work-group = 
|sports-work-group = 
|s&a-work-group = 
|musician-work-group = 
|peerage-work-group = 
|baronets-work-group = 
|filmbio-work-group = 
|non-bio = 
|removal = 
|listas = 
|needs-photo = 
}}

{{NovelsWikiProject
|class= 
|importance= 
|auto= 
|attention= 
|needs-infobox= 
|incomp-infobox= 
|needs-infobox-cover= 
|collaboration-candidate= 
|past-collaboration= 
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review= 
<!-- Task force tags -->
|short-story-task-force=
|crime-task-force=
|fantasy-task-force=
|sf-task-force=
|19thC-task-force=
|australian-task-force=
}}

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I routinely delete general banners such as Christianity or Biography in favor of the Anglican one. If it involves a living person, I leave the Biography banner because it does serve a vital purpose in that case. Otherwise I've found that the more general banners serve no real purpose. We might want to consider putting the living person thing into our Anglican project banner. clariosophic (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That would in effect make this project a work group of Christianity. Is that really what we want? The purpose of the work group flags is to make tagging easier for the work group, which typicaly doesn't have the number of editors to stand on its own. Here we are in a good spot. We still come across an article here or there that needs to be tagged, but this is no longer a major task for the project. It seems that what you propse would be a step a backward for the project. -- SECisek (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Some new content was added. Check it out. -- SECisek (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Kells

Book of Kells has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Join me

I am working on John Overall (bishop). It is getting close to GA. -- SECisek (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators for the Christianity projects

I have recently started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Coordinators? regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Just so you know: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Catholic Churches. I am not sure I care one way or the other on this. -- Secisek (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital Patrologia Latina

May be of interest: there is a digital edition of Migne's Patrologia Latina available, along with a whole lot more material at www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/_index.html which may be of interest. In Latin of course. Someone (probably) associated with that project has been adding links to the relevant articles. Seems unobjectionable to me, but this has caught the eye of the ever-vigilant spam monitors, and here we are. This could be usable for inline cites, for further reading sections, to create bibliographies for Medieval Latin religious writers, etc. It includes writings by Dunstan and a good many more people within the scope of this project, so I believe this would be a useful resource, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Nonconformism and English Dissenters

Hi, it seemed to me that this would be a good merge, but I'm new to the Anglicanism Project, so if you have an opinion, here's the talk link, or if I'm way off base and have no idea what I'm talking about, you can remove the merge. Thanks. Rhetth (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Augustine of Canterbury

Augustine of Canterbury went FA! This is a top importance article to this project! It has been added to the portal. Go read this great article. Congrats to all who ever made an edit to it. -- Secisek (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

HAT NOTE: I have need of the book Anglicans and Orthodox: Unity and Subversion 1559-1725 (2004) by Judith Elizabeth with a forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Does anybody have access to this source? I have seen it for sale on-line, but I thought I would ask here first. -- Secisek (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could contributors note the frequency of deletions of Anglican import. My latest casualty is Joseph Armitage Robinson, but my talk page will reveal a whole list, all re-installed when I have appealed. Is this normal occurrence? Thanks----Clive Sweeting

Portal

Portal:Anglicanism is up for Featured portal candidate discussion. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism. --Secisek (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary

I'm extremely dubious about recent attempts to broaden the scope of this article, traditionally the RC view, to include Anglicans/Anglo-catholics and the Othodox. For example the present first sentence "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ..." is surely not true, or misleading, as far as Orthodoxy is concerned. Again, to say that "The Assumption of Mary -- meaning that, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken directly into Heaven -- is held infallibly by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches." is pretty misleading, especially with no link to Dormition of the Theotokos. Nor am I sure what "infallibly" means in an Orthodox context. These changes have been defended agressively by reverting, and for example links to the Dormition article have been removed.

The article is equally misleading as to "Anglican", or at least average Anglican, beliefs at various points - again in the first sentence for example. "Anglo-Catholics" has been changed and then reverted to "Anglicans" with the edit summary that BVM is the "correct title in Anglicanism generally, not just Anglo-Catholicism", and so on. A reader unfamiliar with the subject will pick up a wildly inaccurate view of the range of Anglican views and beliefs on the subject from the article as it now is. Theotokos covers the Orthodox view pretty well, though it is not linked at the disam page Mary (I'm not sure of the history of this). The old versions of BVM, with an Anglican section which could be expanded, were much more satisfactory.

People may care to comment at Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Widening_the_scope. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that is odd and is much too broad in scope. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Church of Ireland experts

Please see if you can help Church of Ireland, Carrigrohane. Thanks. --Secisek (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Paxton

I recently created the article on Geoffrey Paxton, who was/is an Australian Anglican minister. I have added most of the Seventh-day Adventist sources I could find (Paxton had much interaction with Adventists), but other sources are lacking. Perhaps someone from this project would like to contribute. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambeth 2008

The ABC gives background. Well worth a watch, includes materials for a number of articles: here — Preceding unsigned comment added by secisek (talk • contribs)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Philip's Church Ruins

This is a new article I wrote yesterday and my friend tagged it with your project. I don't see a place to list new articles, so I'll just post it here. Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Canonical hours

My request to move Canonical hours to Daily Office failed because two editors with no discernible theory of other minds insisted that "Canonical hours" is perfectly common usage. Frankly, Wikipedia is the only place I have ever encountered the term. All Anglican sources I've seen use "Daily Office" or "Divine Office" and all Roman Catholic ones use "Liturgy of the Hours" or "Divine Office." As I said on the talk page: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" Surely others can back me up on this? I know we have some clergy in the project: do you ever say "I'm off to go pray the canonical hours"? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No takers? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard all of the above terms in use. As long as there are redirect there should be no problem, right? -- Secisek (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Theology workgroup

The proposed theology workgroup of Wikiproject Christianity is now online, here. Any suggestions, improvements, and ideas are more than welcome - as are interested editors. Pastordavid (talk)

Protestant categories

I'm concerned that the categories for Anglican people are placed under categories of Protestant people. For instance, Category:Canadian Anglicans is a subcategory of Category:Canadian Protestants. I think this is inappropriate given the disinclination of many Anglicans to identify themselves as Protestants. However, my revisions to this effect have been reverted. Can we come to a consensus here? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A tough call on this one. Most magisterial Churches would consider themselves to be Catholic, at least theologically. I do understand that there is a general reluctance by a significant number of Anglicans to self-identify as "Protestants" but I think its going to be quite difficult to divorce the history and development of the Anglican Church from the larger motivations and processes that became known as the Reformation. Until a consensus itself is achieved within the Anglican Communion, I would still broadly identify the Anglican Church as Protestant, even if they seem marginally on the fringes (or via media if you will). - Bob K 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that these categories deal with individuals, so Andrew Burnham (clergyman) falls indirectly under Category:English Protestants, which is pretty implausible. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be ridculous to refer to Keble as an "English Protestant". Carolynparrishfan is correct. -- Secisek (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename, or upmerge, categories for Anglican suffragan bishops

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 22#Anglican suffragan bishops. My proposal was to standardise the category names to "Anglican suffragan bishops in the Diocese of Foo", since the current category names are a mixture of "in Foo", "in Foo Diocese", "in Foo diocese", and "in the Diocese of Foo". There is another suggestion to upmerge the contents of each category to the Province level. All participation from this WikiProject is welcomed. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick (theologian)

Henry Chadwick (theologian) is in dire need of attention. Hope all is well here. I will return when my profession permits it. --Secisek (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you think it look srather better now - still a bit more to do. David Underdown (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now a GA. David Underdown (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring on the name of a diocese

Two editors have been engaged in an unhelpful and disruptive edit war concerning the name of a diocese in theUnited Kingdom. I have issued an RfC and fully-protected the page against page moves by anyone until the matter has been fully discussed and a consensus reached by more editors than just the two involved in the edit-warring. Anyone able to is invited to engage in the discussion to help wikipedia improve by reaching a better solution than the unstable edit warring that has previously happened. See Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle#What should the name of this article be?. The two names that were being used were "Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle" and "Diocese of Newcastle and Hexham". Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have now realised, after a message from another editor and another administrator and looking at various editing histories, that the same thing has happened mostly today but over the past week for almost all of the dioceses concerning the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, and it has mostly involved the same two editors. DDStretch (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

The editors of the Simple English Wikipedia could use some help with Anglican related articles. Right now, their relevant content consists of only the following articles: Anglican; Annglican Communion; Anglicanism; Archbishop of Canterbury; Canterbury Cathedral; Church of England; Coventry Cathedral; Evening Prayer (Anglican); John Newton; Old Catholic Church; Owen Spencer-Thomas; Rowan Williams; St. Paul's Cathedral; Salisbury Cathedral; Selby Abbey; Supreme Governor of the Church of England; The Society of Saint John the Evangelist; and William Wilberforce. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, User:American Eagle, or User:Eptalon. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 2437 articles are assigned to this project, of which 343, or 14.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Keep up the good work everybody. I see Cranmer made FA! Can we get Richard Hooker promoted next? I'll be back in a few months, I miss wiki & all you great editors. -- Secisek (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward VI of England

Is undergoing a Featured Article review, please feel free to come and help bring this article up to current Featured Article standards! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, King's College Chapel, Cambridge

I have just created a new list called "List of carols performed at the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols at King's College Chapel, Cambridge". I welcome help from other editors to make the list more complete by looking at past Nine Lessons and Carols programmes available at the King's College Chapel website and transcribing the information into the table, not forgetting to provide references. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)