Talk:Josephology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Josephology appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Josephology is a modern theological study of Saint Joseph (pictured) and one of the most recent theological disciplines?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June.

Wikipedia

Christianity: Theology / Saints Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as High-importance).

Catholicism High‑importance

Josephology is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

"See also"

I don't see anything in WP:SEEALSO that says repetition of links from the article in the "See also" section is "best practice". Mariology is mentioned three times in the article (once in the lead, twice in the body - excessive linking?) and linked each time; a fourth linked appearance is overkill. Redemptoris Custos is mentioned and linked in the last paragraph of the article, and also appears in the navbox at the side of the article. Overloading the "See also" section with articles that have been linked already diminishes the impact of the other links in that section that haven't been used in the article. Thoughts? Bencherlite ^Talk 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in WP:SEEALSO is "generally". Just because it is mentioned is no reason for non-inclusion. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, see also WP:IAR and the Five Pillars. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinkage used to be a "real" perceived problem. I'm of mixed opinion. I love links especially when I come across a term I'm not familiar with it. Sometimes by the end of the article I wish dupe links exist which is why having Mariology in the See also makes sense. Only major topics should be See alsos but that's my two cents. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for overkill, the only overkill I see is in this discussion. Josephology is like Mariology, so what is the big deal with Mariology in the See also? It is there as a ref-point. It does not bite. I promise. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]