Jump to content

Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Novaliches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Nova logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Nova logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diocese of Novaliches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions Accepted

[edit]

I accept suggestions in this entry page. Please delete the notices or warnings on top of the page. Thank you.1205dz (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative effort that builds an encyclopedia organically through WP:Consensus. In this way it is like the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The best articles, like the teachings of the church, come about through a collaborating to seek consensus within a atmosphere of respect and debate. No individual bishop or subset of bishops can determine the teachings of the church. Similarly Wikipedia is also a collective effort by all. No one is the moderator, the owner, the authority who accepts or rejects suggestions or decides what is or is not in an article. Rather editors should WP:Be bold, make their changes, and then others can agree by leaving it alone, disagree by reverting it (being careful of thewp:three revert rule), or the best and usual outcome, take the changes and adjust them to make them better.
While there are no owners, there can be stewards, just like in the magisterium where the bishops are the stewards. Wikipedia:STEWARDSHIP says, "Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter. The editor might also be an expert on the subject matter, or otherwise very knowledgeable of the topic, and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. If any of this is the case, the editor(s) in question is/are no less responsible for adhering to core policies like WP:Neutral point of view, citing reliable sources, or civility." People who assume stewardship of a page must be extra careful not to become owners and to see consensus. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References ideally should be WP:THIRDPARTY and not related to topic of the article. However, some information from the official Diocese of Novaliches would be acceptable in this article since there is some very basic information like names of parishes and bishops. User talk:1205dz you said in one of the edit summary "The whole information is verified with the website of the Diocese of Novaliches" but I do not see that reflected in the footnotes at the bottom of the page. Most of the article lacks citations, lacks footnotes. I think that is the reason for the hatnote saying "This article needs additional citations for verification." I don't think that issue has been resolved. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the pages on inline citations, i.e. footnotes: Wikipedia:Inline citation and Help:Footnotes.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

[edit]
References mentioned above as sources are verified by using the text-source integrity of inline citations. This requirement, as opposed to just: 1)- General references, 2)- Links in an "External links" section used as sources, 3)- Links used in a "See also" section, or 4)- Any other form of sourcing not attributed to a specific source, identified by page numbers when more than one page is involved, and other identifiers, means that things like original research or synthesis cannot be checked. Other concerns on an article written in a positive light can include bias, with an inability to check neutrality, and other factors.
An issue with this article is that several WP:policies and guidelines are circumvented by the present condition (that also includes parts of the Five pillars but a main issue, that appears to be overlooked, is the fact that this article (and some others I have observed) use the names of living people. This adds another level to the Wikipedia sourcing criteria that cannot be circumvented by "ignoring the rules" even if sanctioned by the Pope. The History section has all or part of 10 paragraphs that are not referenced, and the Parishes section does not have any. Of the 6 references used 4 of them (almost 67%) are used on one sentence in the "History" section. There are many names of living individuals listed. It is far easier to create an article without sources, or a severe lack of them, than the time required to properly source an article.
These issues need to be resolved or the sections reduced to what can be covered by available sourcing regardless of how nice the embedded lists may look. A suggestion when performing a Google search, that after the initial search, is click on the "News" section under the search bar and search again. Otr500 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Novaliches&oldid=1205099998"