Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints/Archive6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible navigation template

It doesn't seem that there is a box similar to Template:Roman Catholicism2 for use on the most important articles relating to saints. Would the members of this project object to such a template, and, if you do think it is a good idea, which articles would you want to see included in it? I would think that the articles included would be effectively the most important ones, as those are the ones which give the best indication of the totality of the subject. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this for starters: {{template:saints}}

--Secisek (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd only ask about whether anyone thinks that maybe articles like Doctor of the Church, Yurodivy, Passion bearer, and Veneration should be included. I personally think some maybe should be, maybe Veneration more than the others, but I'm not real sure of my own opinions on this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some good suggestions. --Secisek (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of Isaac

I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Request for comment

There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Request for Comments. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Other religions

Is this WikiProject Christian Saints, or is it intended to include other religions? I see no clear statement, but everything seems to indicate the former, in which case it should be renamed.LeadSongDog come howl 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question, and one which the members of the project have asked themselves more than once. Basically, right now anyway, it deals exclusively with Christian saints. We have discussed in the past whether the group would expand to include non-Christian saints (presumably though of Judaism, Hinduism, and Sufism - Santeria's status as "Christian" for our purposes is a question I would like to see decided one way or another at some point). The results of that discussion were, basically, if there were parties interested and knowledgable about non-Christian saints who wanted to join the group, then it would expand to cover those subjects. Um, why do you ask? Are you perhaps interested in working with the subject of non-Christian saints? John Carter (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I went looking for guidelines on RS, SPS, and V in the context of saints after growing frustrated at Bhaktaraj Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles. A cluster of followers have been trying to create a capital-H Hagiography. I have no particular subject interest but I have grown rather invested simply through the number of hours spent on the articles. Then I found this WP and thought it might help, but it appears to be all-Christian and nearly all-Catholic in its content. Still, any editorial principles worked out may be transferable.LeadSongDog come howl 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Christianity coordinators elections

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Two Hildegunds?

The story given in Hildegund is quite different from the one found in several other sources, where she is described as a cross-dresser. See [1], [2] and [3]. Were there two Hildegunds? AxelBoldt (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility problem with Saints portal box

After I changed the image in Justus's Saints portal to satisfy WP:ACCESSIBILITY concerns, my edit was reverted with the edit summary "Pls discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints if you want to make a global change to all saints pages." Hence this followup.

Saints portal

Here's the problem. Justus contained the markup "{{portalpar|Saints|Gloriole.svg}} ", which generates the box at right. When this box is read aloud to a visually impaired person by a screen reader, the screen reader will say something like "link file colon gloriole dot ess vee gee link Saints portal". Most of this is noise that just gets in the way of understanding the page; the only thing that should be said aloud is "link Saints portal". The noise comes from the icon File:Gloriole.svg.

This icon contains no useful information that is not already in adjacent text, so it is purely decorative in the W3C sense, and Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #Purely decorative images says that such images should be marked with "|link=|alt=" so that screen readers will skip them and say simply "link Saints portal". Unfortunately, according to a strict interpretation of the GNU Free Documentation License, this cannot be done with images such as File:Gloriole.svg that are licensed via the GFDL. (I disagree with this strict interpretation, but I'm not going to argue that point here.) Therefore, we can't just mark the icon with "|link=|alt=".

Saints portal

One way to fix the problem is to use a public-domain image, which is what I did: I replaced it with the markup "{{portalpar|Saints|San Francesco.jpg|link=|alt=}}", which generates the portal box at right; this might be read aloud as "link Saints portal", which is much better. Any public-domain image will do.

Another way to fix the problem would be to relicense the File:Gloriole.svg icon as a public-domain image. Perhaps the creator of that icon would agree to relicense it. If not, we can simply create a new icon that is public domain. It's easy enough to create an SVG image of a halo; I can do that if there's sentiment for this solution.

For now, we've worked around the problem for Justus by removing the saint's portal entirely. This solves the immediate problem (namely, the accessibility bug caused Justus to fail to meet featured-article standards), but it's not a good solution in the long run. Eubulides (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the simplicity of the halo. Is it enough that the creator, Evrik, has a {{WikimediaAllLicensing}} on his user page? Bwpach (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Saints portal
I'm afraid not, since {{WikimediaAllLicensing}} refers to licenses that require attribution, and the theory (which I don't agree with, but other editors do) is that images with such licenses cannot be combined with the |link= option, as that overrides the link that normally points to the image's file page. It's such a simple image that the idea is not copyrightable, so a simple workaround is to construct a new icon from scratch, based on the same idea, which I've done with File:Gloriole blur.svg; see the adjacent infobox. How does that look? Eubulides (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Anyone else? Bwpach (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for comments

Hi, I am trying to correct the spelling of the page for Saint Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. His name is not correct as he is Jean-Baptiste of "La Salle", not of "la Salle". Because this is a matter of capitalization, I am unable to move the page and require an administrator to do this. As such, I have requested a move on the Talk page of the article here. I would appreciate any comments supporting the move (or otherwise). Thank you. -- S Masters (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Archive6/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Surely, no saints in this project are alive? :-) Should we remove this group from the project? -- S Masters (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
On first glance, this may seem like the case, but surely there are authors who write about dead saints or other living personalities who do work regarding dead saints?
I think you would be surprised.
As Arbitration member Flonight wrote:
"almost every type of wikiproject could have a BLP related article because they are broad in the way that they cover topics. Who would have thought that Equine (horses) would have that many unref(erenced) BLP articles."
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Okip 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently, there are no unreferenced BLPs in Category:WikiProject Saints using the URL you gave above. But I guess there's no harm leaving it as part of the project. Although, you will have a lot more BLPs in the broader category of Christianity or Roman Catholicism. Good luck with it! :-) -- S Masters (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Archive6/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Thanks Smasters :)Okip 23:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter 2010

Hi, just wanted to wish all members of WikiProject Saints a very happy and blessed Easter! -- S Masters (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments re attempts to insert fringe theory that St. John Bosco was a pederast in the article

There have been repeated attempts to insert the poorly sourced and POV fringe theory that St. John Bosco was a pederast. Biographies of John Bosco do not contain any of these claims. There are not high quality sources for this grave claim, hence per Wikipedia policy I believe the material should not be included. Any contribution to this dispute would be appreciated. Mamalujo (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This content has been present until wholesale deletions by this user while the article is under dispute. The dispute has been raised to the LGBT noticeboard where the last dispute was settled as per the discussion on Bosco's talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the truth of the matter is that the article was stable for a long time without the questionable matter which editors attempted to add to the article a couple year ago. In February of this year it was again added without any better sourcing. Mamalujo (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And, as per the talkpage discussion there are at least three admins and two page patrollers on the article. Do you really think all five of us would just let "fringe theories" be added? Other editors have expressed that you and editor, who also reverted this material, have an agenda with this article. The material was marked under dispute and yet you chose to ignore maintenance tags and deleted material again without seeking WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And to be clear, I know the other Page Patroller wouldn't. I don't. I know two of the other admins wouldn't. I give the benefit of the doubt the last admin wouldn't either. --Morenooso (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments, contribution needed re dispute over inclusion of poorly sourced material "accusation of genocide" in Junipero Serra

Comments and contribution are needed regarding a dispute over inclusion of poorly sourced material ("accusation of genocide") in the Junipero Serra article. While I am not adverse to the inclusion of reliably sourced and balanced material regarding criticism of Serra, this material is highly inflamatory, POV, very poorly sourced, and includes fringe material original research and synthesis. Mamalujo (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Saints for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We would like to publish this interview in next week's issue, so please take a few moments to participate in the interview. Your responses are very valuable and may help attract new editors to your project. Thanks! -Mabeenot (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Martyrs

Hi. I don't work in this area, but it strikes me that there really ought to be an article about Virgin Martyrs. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Jesus really a saint?

Because Talk:Nativity of Jesus claims that that article is part of WikiProject Saints. That's a bit over-broad in scope isn't it?

(Its already in WikiProject Christianity and WikiProject Holidays) Clinkophonist (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as Jesus in Christianity is known as being God, he could not be a Saint. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Veneration

The article on Veneration needs some serios improvement. Right now, the section for Christian veneration combines Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Lutheran teaching and belief on veneration, and does not expand on the subject, but mostly holds the Roman Catholic view. This article needs to be expanded, and the different denominational views should be broken up into different sections. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Saints if it contains the template {{WikiProject Saints}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph/image and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.--Traveler100 (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Patronage

I have a question related to the Saint infobox and the Patronage item. What should we be doing with Saints that have large numbers of cities, countries, churches, schools, etc. named after them. I recently saw an edit to the Francis of Assisi page where San Francisco was already on the list then they added the Archdiocese of San Franciscan to the list. Already on the list were the Philipeans, Italy, and several other cities. I know the column is for listing that they are the patron Saint of X where X in the case of St. Francis is things like animals, the environment, etc. But where should we draw the line when adding locations? In my humble opinion I drew the line at listing Italy since he is from Italy, but removing the rest. Should we list any, all, or none? I think for popular Saints as in the case for Saint Francis the list become overbearing. The information can be added to the content of the article but in a way that doesn't call for link farming. Any comments. Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article of possible interest to this project

Donar Oak is not about a saint per se, but is directly related to, and talks about Saint Boniface. I'm just calling your attention to it; I'll leave it to project members to decide whether or not to tag the article as within your project scope. LadyofShalott 23:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity portals

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Saints articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Saints articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have put in a note about the inclusion of Mother Teresa, who is not a saint yet. There are other Biblical characters that are included, such as Moses. Do we want these included? I am sure there may be better choices. Moses, etc. should be included with WikiProject Christianity but not saints IMHO. - S Masters (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to help Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté prepare for Good Article Nomination?

Hi there. I've been working on Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté (19th century Canadian Servant of God), currently a B class article, and I'm about ready to take it to Good Article Nomination. If approved it will join only 23 Good Articles on Wikiproject Saints. This will be my first Good Article nomination. If anyone would like to look over and improve this article in the next week (and, of course, afterwards) their eyeballs and judgement would be most appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey y'all have a happy Easter!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.179.187 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mary MacKillop

It has been proposed that Saint Mary MacKillop be moved: Mary MacKillop → Mary of the Cross — Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. – S Masters (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NCCL#Saints, which is authoritative on the subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't plaster the ideology too liberally

I have seen declarations (by categorisation) of sainthood at the bottom of the talk pages of some composers who happened to write church music or to be listed on some liturgical calendar or some such. Please be aware that many readers will consider it POV to claim ownership over some people who are not officially listed by the Catholic industry's sainthood mythology. Tony (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments needed on Aelred/Ailred

Please weigh in over at Talk:Ailred_of_Rievaulx#Requested_move. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY?

Should there be a Category for 21st Century Saints? Yes? What about 21st Century Blesseds? See WP:Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 21st century. Also, see WP:Mary Faustina Kowalska. She was the first saint canonized in the 21st century. She lived in the 20th Century, so is she a 20th or 21st Century Saint? Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the category refers to the century or centuries in which the life of the saint or beatus took place, so St. Faustina would be a 20th-century saint. I don't believe the Catholic Church has any 21st-century saints yet, but it does have one 21st-century beatus: Pope John Paul II. If the category doesn't exist yet, I say create it. (Although I do note that currently the Category:Beatified people has no "by century" subcategories. I think it ought to, but that will be a substantial undertaking.) — AJDS talk 02:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait, unless beati fall the subcategories of Category:Venerated Catholics. This is confusing to me. — AJDS talk 02:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for the answer about Saint Faustina. Look at WP:Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 21st century. I would create the new Category, but do not know how OR what it should be exactly. Excuse my PA Dutch. I will let you work on this because I am way in over my head here. Thanks again. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Gavinus and Saint Gabinus

I think the same Saint, see also the it.wiki discussion it:Discussioni_progetto:Santi#Segnalo_problema_di_traduzione_con_en.wiki. Thanks for your attention :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Works added at Wikisource

I have added a couple of works recently at English Wikisource that may be useful references for English saints.

— billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Agatha

I just realized that a post I made to WikiProject Religion might've been more apt here (I didn't realize this project existed!). It has to do with the choice of images for Agatha of Sicily; if you're interested, please see the discussion here. I made a few hasty changes to the article this morning, but this saint has such a rich and varied tradition of iconography that the article deserves a more thoughtful treatment. In particular, I moved the 1519 painting showing her torture out of the infobox and replaced it with a more conventional one. The article itself refers to Bernardino Luini's Saint Agatha, but the quality of that image as we have it on Commons isn't very good. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

POV at Mother Theresa

See note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed at FAC

Jovan Vladimir has been a featured article candidate since 7 October. So far it has received one review, by Dank (the lead coordinator of the Military History Project). We would like to see more reviews, and I thought editors interested in this project might also be interested to review the article. Thanks. Vladimir (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Saint Dominic#Lack of Verifiable Information

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saint Dominic#Lack of Verifiable Information. Elizium23 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Legend of Saint Margaret

Is the Legend of Saint Margaret actually a legend (meaning, not true)? Or is this a factual account? Please comment at Talk:Legend of Saint Margaret. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Portal:History

Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed redirection of Christianity subproject talk pages

I have recently started discussion about possibly eliminating the use of a separate talk page for it here. Input from any interested editors is very welcome and encouraged. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Saints will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles as saints. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AC and RM

Can someone tell me what these abbreviations mean? They're on the www.saintpatrickdc.org website Saints of the Day page. My guess is that AC means "before the modern canonization procedure" and RM means "regionally but not universally recognized". Thanks for your help. --Kenatipo speak! 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I found my answer: "At the head of each biography you will find two letters in brackets. These refer to the status: (RM) = a saint found in the Roman Martyrology; (AC) = a cultus approved by Rome; (PC) = a popular cultus without any formal approval." Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 17:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Saint John Bosco--Request For YOUR Comment

A long disputed section in Father Bosco's article has an open RFC. You can help resolve this once and for all. Your input is requested here: RFC re: "Bosco's concerns over his influence". Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, admin needed

I've posted a request at Template talk:Infobox saint#Edit request 2 to add a "quote" parameter to the Saint Infobox, which can only be edited by admins. That doesn't seem to be a well read page, as my two requests there (one of them was 1 1/2 years ago!) have yet to elicit a response. Assuming it's ok, could an admin please add that parameter? Thanks, First Light (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In the future, please use a template such as {{editprotected}} with your request, and it will be slotted into a category that is patrolled regularly. This is the best way to ensure that someone handles your request in a timely fashion - nobody has to be watching that specific talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I went ahead and added the template at the infobox talk page. First Light (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(Psssst. Over here. You can also go ask this guy user:John Carter to make edits for you. He's a really cool admin. But you'd never know he was an admin because he doesn't block people. Don't tell him I sent you.– Lionel (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC))
Thanks — I got a fairly strong 'not done' from an admin who already responded over at that template talk page — they said I needed strong consensus at WP:Christianity and/or here for such a change. Since "strong consensus" and "change" are sometimes difficult to achieve on Wikipedia, I had already said there that I would pass on pursuing this for now. Not because it isn't worth doing, but it isn't worth spending much time on pursuing it, in my opinion. If people here think it's an obvious 'yes,' I would reconsider. If 'no,' there would be no hurt feelings. If you look at the infobox of Symeon the New Theologian in the Edit view, you can see how I was attempting to use it. First Light (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Onuphrius

This article on a forest hermit contained a dubious claim about a gender change which was referenced to a photographer's blog and to a church website which is completely inaccessible. I've yanked it due to a complete absence of book hits, but if someone can find a legitimate hagiographic source I'm willing to reconsider. Further discussion at talkpage please. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the patron saint of a diocese the same as a patron saint of a city?

As the title says. I feel like the section of city patronage on Patron saints of places has the potential to be large, but poses a problem in that I'm not sure where to find (and cite) this information. For example, Saint Vibiana is the patron saint of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, but does that necessarily make her the patron saint of the city of Los Angeles? Same for Didacus of Alcalá (San Diego), James the Greater (Seattle), Francis of Assisi (Santa Fe), and so on.

Also, is a sortable table a possibility for this list? It'd be nice to be able to sort the information in, for example, this section not only by the saints' names but also by city or country. I'm apprehensive about undertaking it because there are cities with multiple patron saints and vice versa, which would make the table sortable (but redundant, since entries would have to be repeated) or organized (but unsortable, since some entries would span multiple rows)...

-70.162.90.39 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Helena Dragas is actually the Greek queen of Byzantium with the name Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos also known as Saint Hipomoni!

In the article Helena Dragas she is not refered with her real full name. She was the Queen of Byzantium with the name Augusta Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos, daughter of the emperor of Slavic nation, Constantine Dragasis. She became empress of Byzantium as wife of Emmanuel B’ the Palaiologos and she was mother of the last emperor of Byzantium Costantine Palaiologos. I strongly suggest to change her name from Helena Dragas (which is slavic) to Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos (which is Greek), because she was an empress of Byzantium and firstly I don't find it appropriate to refer to her with her slavic name (she lived in Byzantium in Greece and not in Serbia) and secondly you can find plenty of reference with her name as Helen – Dragasis Palaiologos. Also many texts refer to her as Saint Patience (Saint Hipomoni). Her memory is celebrated in the Orthodox Greek church on 29 May 688dim (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sainthood of St. Philomena

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philomena#Still a saint. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pope Anterus Confusion.

I stumbled across this fellow's bio today. I made a few minor edits, but got stuck on two points. Is his martyrdom at all supported by the given references? Ref #3 doesn't seem to (but I may be overlooking/misunderstanding something) and I can't view Ref #1. And if his ashes were indeed moved, how did they become ashes? Was he burnt alive, cremated, cremated when rediscovered, or was there an accidental fire in the catacombs? Answers or educated guesses would be appreciated. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

honorific-prefix and problem editor

I am having a dispute with an editor who insists on inserting honorifics into the "English name" field of the infobox for early Popes such as Pope Cornelius. The correct place for honorifics is a field called "honorific-prefix" which was not already present in those articles. The dispute is particularly difficult because this editor has changed about 100 similar articles, without ever using an edit summary or a talk page. Some extra eyes on the situation would be helpful, and opinions as to whether this is disruptive or against consensus, as I feel that it is, because my next step is to go to WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean up Listing

There is a link to a clean up listing for this project, but it seems that it hasn't been updated since March 12, 2010. Is there a more current listing somewhere? Mannanan51 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)mannanan51

Never mind, found it.Mannanan51 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

Gregory of Nazianzus FARC

I have nominated Gregory of Nazianzus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Testament saints

Please see Category talk:Old Testament saints#Saints by religion for a discussion on where Category:Old Testament saints should be placed in the Category:Saints by religion hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 13:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason that a bunch of links to Portal:Saints use {{Portalbar|Saints}} in the external links section instead of the normal {{Portal|Saints}} in the see also section? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. --Jayarathina (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Patron saints

I've started a few pages which might be useful for adding material about individual saints as "patron saints" at User:John Carter/Patron saints and User:John Carter/SQPN Patron saints. I regret to say that almost all the information on either of those pages seems to be almost exclusively from a Catholic perspective, but I honestly didn't know that until late in the development of them. The second page is based on the material on patron saints at the SQPN website, which I am almost certain meets at least the minimum standards for reliable sources as per WP:RS, and a lot of the information contained in it is also duplicated in the first list, which is based on print reference sources. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change the scope of this project

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints description currently limits the scope of the project to Christian saints only, with many statements such as:

This WikiProject aims primarily at standardizing the articles about people venerated by some Christians as saints or the blessed and making sure that they maintain a NPOV.

Non-Christian Saints If there is an interest in including saints from religions other than Christianity, please propose those changes on our talk page and we can integrate them into the wikiproject.

Yet reliable sources, along with widely common usage, recognize people in nearly all religions as "saints" as those who have lived a life of sanctity and holiness. The gold standard of academic religion encyclopedias, the Thompson-Gale Encyclopedia of Religion, begins their article on "Saint" with:

Historians of religion have liberated the category of sainthood from its narrower Christian associations and have employed the term in a more general way to refer to the state of special holiness that many religions attribute to certain people. The Jewish hasid or tsaddiq, the Muslim waliy, the Zoroastrian fravashi, the Hindu rsi or guru, the Buddhist arahant or bodhisattva, the Daoist shengren, the Shinto kami and others have all been referred to as saints.

Countless sources have long applied the term "saint" to those of non-Christian religions. Here are just a few examples, mostly academic sources:

  • Anna Suvorova, Muslim Saints of South Asia: The Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004)
  • Mahīpati; Justin Edwards Abbott; Narhar R. Godbole (1933). Stories of Indian Saints: An English Translation of Mahipati's Marathi Bhaktavijaya. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-0469-2. Retrieved 8 December 2012. Published in 1933, written by a Christian missionary, entirely about Hindu saints
  • Josef W. Meri, The Cult of Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
  • Reginald A. Ray, Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)
  • Nile Green, "Oral Competition Narratives of Muslim and Hindu Saints in the Deccan," Asian Folklore Studies 63, no. 2 (2004)
  • Frederique Cifuentes, "Sufi Sheikhs, Sheikhas, and Saints of the Sudan," African Arts 41, no. 2 (2008)
  • Kenneth L. Woodward (10 July 2001). The Book of Miracles: The Meaning of the Miracle Stories in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-0029-5. Retrieved 8 December 2012. Includes chapter on "Sufi Saints," "Buddhist Saints," "Hindu Saints"
  • John S. Hawley (1 October 1987). Saints and Virtues. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-06163-7. Retrieved 8 December 2012. Chapters including Hindu Saints, Islamic Saints
  • Richard Kieckhefer; George D. Bond (1990). Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World Religions. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-07189-6. Retrieved 8 December 2012. Includes chapters on "Sainthood in...." Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism
  • Arvind Sharma (1 September 2000). Women Saints in World Religions. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4619-5. Retrieved 8 December 2012. Chapter on Saints who are Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Taoist, Judaism
  • Huston Smith (12 May 2009). The World's Religions. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-166018-4. Retrieved 8 December 2012. Huston Smith describes Buddha as a Saint, Rabi'a (Muslim) as a Saint, Shantideva (Hindu) as a Saint, Ramakrishna (Hindu) as a Saint
  • etc.

I propose that the two statements I quote at the beginning, which exclude all non-Christian world religions from this WikiProject, be replaced, along with other limiting statements, with something that states essentially:

WikiProject Saints covers all articles relating to those of any religion who are described in Reliable Sources as a "Saint."

I do understand that there was a failed proposal to change the name of this Project to "WikiProject Christian Saints." It could be that if people feel the need to have a project that is exclusive to Christian Saints, it could be a subproject of this one. I think it's time for Wikipedia to reflect both common and academic usage of this widespread and important term.

First Light (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposal has been made before, actually, and rather solidly rejected. I can and do see the logic of the proposal, and have supported the creation of a broader group to deal with the matter of "saints" outside Christianity. However, this particular group was specifically created for the purposes of dealing with those individuals who have been identified as "saints" in one or more Christian groups. There are, in fact, I believe a much larger number of reference books, such as "Butler's Lives of the Saints" and numerous other works titled with the words "Encyclopedia of Saints," "Dictionary of Saints," or similar, which deal exclusively with Christian saints. I acknowledge that several of them deal more or less exclusively with Catholic saints as well, but I believe, as a bit of a latecomer to this project, that the emphasis has been, from the very beginning, on those Christian sources and Christian saints.
Many churches within Christianity also have a rather formal process required before someone is declared a saint, which many other groups do not. So, for instance, while acknowledging Huston Smith is a very reliable source on religion, I would be very, very hesitant to base determining who is and is not a saint on such independent or scholarly sources, because, ultimately, the description could be based solely on the individual opinion of individual scholars, many of whom have wildly different opinions.
Also, it should be noted that this particular WikiProject is now more or less fully incorporated into the broader Christianity WikiProject, and in many if not most of the articles the "Saints" assessment data is given through the Christianity banner.
That being the case, I do think that the difficulties of changing the scope of this group more or less outweigh the advantages. I acknowledge that there can be and are other religions, like Islam, which give some degree of recognition to saints, and also think that the saints of those religions are probably, more or less, best addressed by the WikiProjects which deal more clearly with those faiths. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I was able to find a discussion over whether to change the name of the project to reflect the reality, but I couldn't find a discussion to change the scope of the project. If you could point to that, I would appreciate it. Thanks, First Light (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee: Thomas Traherne

After undertaking a revision of the article, I've nominated Thomas Traherne for promotion to Good Articles. It is under this WikiProject and I invite anyone to take a look. If you're interested in reviewing, take a look at the article's talk page or WP:GAN. Thanks for your time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bishops of Liege

See Talk:Frederick_of_Liege#Confusion. PamD 10:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Byzantine saints

As Byzantine saints is a notifiable category for this project, please be advised of discussion on Category talk:Byzantine saints. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NCCL. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCCL. Thanks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject France talk page

Please come participate in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France#Painting used in William of Gellone. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johns

Do we really need 4 articles for John? We have John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, John of Patmos and the Disciple whom Jesus loved. We also have a disambiguation page for John the Revelator. Seriously? Can they not be merged? It is the Holy Tradition of the Church Fathers that they are the same person. This would not preclude the inclusion of sections showing how certain modern scholars have evidence that more than 1 person is involved. Such inferences could be given due weight in the merged article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

John the Revelator (disambiguation) has John of Patmos and 3 pop songs. Nothing wrong there. That something is "the Holy Tradition of the Church Fathers" is not a very strong argument in a merge discussion. John the Apostle and John the Evangelist do seem to contain excessive overlap, and "Evangelist" has in places more detail really relating to "Apostle". There is a good case for some re-arranging; not sure about a merge. One might move stuff from Evangelist to Apostle, and merge the rest to the authorship article. John of Patmos and the Disciple whom Jesus loved need to be distinct I think. Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The Holy Tradition argument is about something that has been held true in most of Christendom for more than 1600 years versus novel questioning by some scholars. It's about apportioning the right weight, not about discounting entirely some counter arguments. One will always find flat-earth advocates; it would be improper in any discussion of the geology of the earth to give them any more than footnote status. The same treatment may be warranted in the case of the Johns. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Modern scholarship does not support the flat earth theory, but it does very often disagree with the combination of all the Johns & the beloved disciple into the same person, so your example is rather oddly chosen. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, many if not most most of the longer, highly-regarded reference books which aren't clearly associated with individual churches seem to include them as separate articles, sometimes very lengthy articles, so I can't see any reason we should not do so as well. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Which individual church does not support the single person position of the mainstream churches? I'd be happy to list it in the merged article, alongside a statement that it is, at best, a fringe view of a minority of denominations. To Johnbod, my position is that I have no difficulty with the inclusion of the evidence of modern scholarship regarding multiple persons; rather it is my position that it would best help readers to have a single unified article that has a comprehensive treatment of all theories, no matter how fringe they may be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, several churches make no explicit statement regarding the matter one way or another, so the question above could, not unreasonably, be seen as being at least somewhat leading. I am going to repeat something I have been saying repeatedly in past months, or maybe years, it feels like years anyway, that probably the best way to determine what content should go where is to consult the more highly regarded relevant reference sources and see what they include in their articles on these subjects. There does to my eyes seem to be a basic idea that the "main" article for the matter of the dispute would be John the Evangelist, although I might be wrong, so checking to see how much WP:WEIGHT they give the topic there would be useful. And if there is sufficient content and material to establish notability for the topic as a standalone article, I could see creating it, but we would need clear evidence that the controversy about this topic is itself separately sufficiently notable for a separate article. If it is, though, I can't see any reason not to create it. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Might it not be more accurate to say that it is not the question that is misleading but rather the claim that prompted the question in the first place ("reference books which aren't clearly associated with individual churches"). I take that to mean that only reference books associated with individual churches adhere to the single person position, the implication being that there are other reference books associated with other individual churches that do not support the position. It is that implication that needs support I think. Regarding the possible vehicle for a "main" article, I would have thought that Apostleship would trump Evangelism. But I can be persuaded on this point. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea where you get your conclusions from. You can take anything however you want, but I referred to such independent books because they are among the better sources as per WP:RS. Also, at no point did I intentionally imply that there were any such reference books, because, honestly, I don't know of many, outside of perhaps the official Catholic martyologies, which tend to be in Latin which I don't read real good. I really think that it would be in everybody's best interests if they tried to stick to the main topic, rather than trying to engage in trying to draw conclusions based on implications which may or may not have been intended. And, FWIW, having not checked the independent reference books myself yet, I won't draw conclusions regarding which "John" they give the greatest amount of space to, although I would assume that whichever John that is is probably the primary topic among the lot. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are the only editors defending having several "John" articles also named John? WP:COI I say :-). First Light (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it might just be that the rest of you don't quite have the same sort of terror when they see the opening of Dear John letters as we do. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Denominational ownership of Christian saints

Centralising a discussion here from Philip the Apostle and Talk:Mary Magdalene. The question is whether the current category names imply denominational "ownership" of saints. For example Category:Roman Catholic saints and CAtegory:Eastern Orthodox saints. For ancient saints, such ownership is really ludicrous as no such denominations existed at the time. Would it not be more accurate to speak of "Saints venerated by the Foo Church" or "Saints listed in the liturgical calendar of the Foo Church"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the current names really "imply denominational "ownership" of saints". If you do, suggest different names at WP:CFD, but don't just remove a couple of articles from these enormous categories because you think the name is inappropriate. Your comments show that you are well aware of the intended function of the category, and don't have an issue with that or the inclusion of these articles in it. I'm slightly baffled why you can't see just removing a couple of random articles from a valid but (in your opinion) badly named category is unconstructive. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
A good example may be seen in Saint Acacius of Amida who is listed in the List of Catholic saints. The late bishop of blessed memory went to meet his Maker in 425. The List, rather strangely, describes him as a Turkish national but then goes on to comment helpfully that he "lived in present-day Turkey but not a Turk". As the Turks were grazing their flocks beyond the Caspian Sea at that time, I doubt that many readers would fall into the error of calling Acacius a Turk. I would happily revert any such categorisation. As with nationalities, so with denominations that fall outside their chronology. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
As you must surely know, the categories are about which churches venerate the saint, not about their own supposed affiliation. Category:Anglican_saints contains the Emperor Constantine, Pope Gregory I, and so on. I see you launched an unsussessful CFD nom a year ago. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod is right. It could be argued that the categories imply that the individuals involved were members of the bodies in the category title, but I think most people would generally realize that people like the Blessed Virgin Mary, who I think is included in all the various lists of saints, wasn't an Anglican, or a Lutheran, or even a Catholic or Orthodox church member. I suppose, if one wanted, an RfC on the topic of relevant category names could be launched, but that would probably be about the only sort of really useful way to deal with this. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the categories listed in the lead sentence of this thread. However, certain population of the editors on Saint Peter during a recent discussion to change the page name (which ended w/o change because there was no majority concensus) expressed the opinion that non-denominational Christians simply do not think of the apostles or Mary as "Saints". Thus the Wiki page thus implies Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican ownership simply by the Wiki title. So when John Carter talks about "The Blessed Virgin Mary" - this is not a title for the mother of Jesus that a large swath of churches even use. This may not be a germaine argument to the Thread, so feel free to ignore if it is. Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Red herring. Very few of these articles have "Saint" in the title - look at the categories. In the few exceptions it is essentially a form of disambiguation, as with Peter. Mary (mother of Jesus) is our biography. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what your red herring comment refers to John. I think my point is that calling the page for the apostles Peter or Andrew, Saint Peter or Saint Andrew is using a term that probably half of the Christian world does not use to refer to these figures. Which is why I've suggested on both Talk pages renaming these pages to something less "Catholic-y". If this is not part of the thread discussion and is off-topic, that's fine, but I question the off-hand dismissal. Ckruschke (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
You say "feel free to ignore", then complain of an "off-hand dismissal". I'd better stop responding. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the project's position then? Is it (A) The current category names imply "Venerated by Foo Church" so no name change is required, (B) A category name change to "Saints venerated by the Foo Church" or "Saints listed in the liturgical calendar of the Foo Church" would be preferable as it removes ambiguity. Laurel Lodged (talk)

Actually, I'm not sure it necessarily does remove ambiguity, considering many of the Protestant churches which maintain ecclesiastical calendars don't necessarily indicate that the people included are "saints". That being the case, some sort of category name not including the specific word "saint" seems most indicated. Also, honestly, even for the "saints" grandfathered into the calendars of some Protestant era churches, I'm not sure that even all of them are necessarily regarded as "saints" in those churches. So, yeah, I think not including the word "saint", while it might seem to some to make the categories ambiguous, is probably less ambiguous than adding the word "saint", which may not be necessarily appropriate in the cases of all the groups that maintain liturgical calendars or the individuals commemorated in them.John Carter (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
So is this option (C) category name change to "People venerated by the Foo Church" or "People listed in the liturgical calendar of the Foo Church" ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Only for those groups, like the Lutherans, who don't use the word "saint", and I think Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran liturgical calendar‎ is already constructed that way. The Anglican category can be a bit of a problem, because they more or less grandfathered in the then-existing Catholic saints as "saints," although they've only very rarely made any sort of categorical statements regarding indiviudals. At this point, to respond directly to your question posted 3 comments above, the existing names were basically chosen because they are the shortest and easiest to remember category names which can be reasonably considered appropriate. Now, it would still make sense for the category "page" itself to include some text specifically indicating the parameters for inclusion in that category, material similar to that which I recently added to the top of Category:Christian saints by denomination. But, yeah, on the basis of the category names being among the easiest understood, shortest, and generally most accessible names, the names were chosen, although, like I said, it would certainly be appropriate for the category page itself to indicate the parameters for inclusion in the category. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't expect "any sort of categorical statements" on anything from the Anglicans. Before we get too caught up in this trope of "saint" being a controversial term, the following links should be considered (re-used from my comment in another discussion):" I don't know how Protestant you have to be to rear up in horror at the term "Saint Peter" - obviously Anglicans and Lutherans shouldn't have a problem with it, and "Saint Peter's Methodist Church" produces plenty of results from Kent to Texas. "Saint Peter's Baptist Church" produces no fewer than 88,000 results. "Saint Peter's Presbyterian Church" 55,000 hits, and "Saint Peter's Evangelical Church" 173,000." Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification, by "categorical statement" I more or less meant a statement in the category "page" which specifically indicates the parameters for inclusion. Also, regarding Johnbod's statements about the use of "Saint Peter," I have to agree, and point out in that particular case it may well be true that the 2/3 or so of humanity who aren't Christians probably would recognize that term as the most common way to refer to the person, and that should be taken into account as well. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.--Jayarathina (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for help/mentor at Bruno Lanteri

Hi WP:SAINTS! I recently forked a redirect and started writing a full article on the founder of the religious congregation Oblates of the Virgin Mary (Bruno Lanteri was previously redirected to that page, which did contain some biographical notes about him). I am a seminarian in the community and desire to share some of the history I have been learning in this regard. I have been active in the WP:GOCE and understand generally the Wikipedia boundaries, citation scrutiny, NPOV, encyclopedic style, etc. I'm reaching out here for anyone willing to be a contact/mentor along the way as I and others I know who would have a basic subject-matter competence help build the article. Some of the more curious points (and there are existing second/third-degree scholarly sources) concerning the life of Bruno Lanteri are those whom he influenced, particularly other saints, the Pope, Napoleon and the counter-revolution, etc. So I hope those points help satisfy the notability requirements for biographies, and in this department, make the article even more interesting. Thanks for reading this, and I look forward to hearing from potential collaborators! --Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Saints/Archive6&oldid=1142157813"