This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Churches in England by County" and " Category:Churches"

This isn't an exclusively Anglican issue, but this is the most relevant WikiProject I have found (please bear with me!)...

Having discovered there were 10 'Churches in <county>' sub-categories under Category:Churches in England, and needing to use one that didn't exist, I have created and part-populated another 32 similar sub-cats. These group all churches, chapels and cathedrals (etc) by English 'ceremonial county', being lists of the buildings rather than the congregations that meet there, and hence covering both Anglican and Roman Catholic establishments.

This is an ongoing process (please feel free to join in!) as 'church' articles are randomly spread across a wide range of parent categories, mostly due to differences in the interpretation of the word 'church'. Now, at least, the only churches under Category:Churches in the United Kingdom are those (congregations) which are not listed because of the buildings they meet in; and, under Category:Churches in England, every article is now arranged by county cat.

Having viewed so many articles about churches, it is clear that the vast majority are listed primarilly on architectural or historic merit. However, it is also clear that in many cases the churches have active congregations and the articles would be considered incomplete without a description of their activities too. This leads to another categorisation issue, since I perceive a need for a categorisation of the same churches by denomination instead of by geography.

I think it would become needlessly complicated to have a full set of 'Category:Anglican churches in <county>' and 'Category:Roman Catholic churches in <county>' (for example), since these would be sparsely populated and would heavilly overlap the existing 'Churches in <county>' cats. Yet, without sub-division, the cats would be unmanagebly large and impossible to use. So, instead I propose creating a hierarchy of lists - the list format allowing for additional information not obvious from the article title:

• List of Protestant churches in Great Britain – top-level list
  • List of Church of England churches in England – sub-list
• List of Roman Catholic churches in Great Britain
• etc... (additional lists depending on need!)

These could be subdivided first by country and then by county. Categorising in this way would avoid the naming issues surrounding the subcategories of Category:Churches by denomination.

My reason for writing this essay here was prompted by a recent discussion concerning the proposed renaming of Category:Churches to 'Category:Churches (buildings)' (see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Category:Churches.

Any thoughts?

EdJogg 13:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (not-yet project member!)

Part of the point of categories is that they are hierarchical, so if we were to put things in Anglican Churches by County, then those same churches should not appear in churches by county. I suspect that in general a parish church (or equivalent) will generally only be notable on other grounds (architecture, historical importance etc etc), rather than being inherently notable so I doubt we would ever have huge numbers in any county category. One problem is taht church boundaries rarely coincide with secular ones - for example some Church of England parishes cross the border into Wales (and some Church in Wales parishes vice-versa). I will elave it to others to comment on whether the Church of England should be characterised as Protestant... And to argue as to whether the most appropruate listing would actually be by diocese rather than county. David Underdown 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that there's no reason not to have two classifications i.e.

1. Churches in County — depending on its geographical location
2. Churches in Diocese/Presbytery/Synod... — depending on the ecclesiastical organisation of the church in question

PM J 11:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started managing this again. Your nominations are most welcome. I'll roll over the previous ones, and would invite you all to vote on them. Fishhead64 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

January

The collaboration for January is Scottish Episcopal Church. Please feel encouraged to contribute to it and to related articles. Nominations and voting for February's COTM are now open. Fishhead64 07:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

February

Get your votes in! So far, there are two nominations and NO votes. Fishhead64 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The collaboration for February is Anglican realignment. Please feel encouraged to contribute to it and to related articles. Nominations and voting for March's COTM are now open. Fishhead64 06:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New Articles

I went through the New articles section and either moved the entries to the Articles for Improvement section or removed the entry if I thought the existingarticle was presentable. Those who disagree are welcome to add the removed ones back. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Church (Building) Articles

As further described in the 'Categories' and 'Naming Conventions' sections above, I have recently viewed a large number of articles describing English churches. The majority of these are (presumably) part of the Church of England, yet I find them described randomly as either Anglican or Church of England, or even, in at least one case: [[Church of England|Anglican]]!

I had never really considered this carefully before, and like many people, used the terms interchangeably. But I need some guidance for the correct usage here. What should the correct terminology be? Would " Anglican ( Church of England)" be a good way of describing these churches consistently?

Incidentally, St John the Baptist, Egglescliffe shows an example of the under-utilised but potentially useful info box for use with Church of England churches. (see Template:Parish church).

Another possibly useful template is Template:Infobox church, although this requires more architectural knowledge.

EdJogg 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ECUSA bishops Philander Chase and Charles Pettit McIlvaine

Yesterday, a driveby anonymous IP expanded Philander Chase from a stub into a short biography. Worth a read. Meanwhile, Serpent's Choice ( talk · contribs) created a brief stub for his successor, Charles Pettit McIlvaine. I have not put bishop infoboxes on them, because arguably they are more noted for other roles (I don't think they drew salaries as bishops.) -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 10:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no opinion right now about McIlvaine, but Philander Chase is one of the most notable bishops in the history of ECUSA. I'll see if I've got some documentation handy and add it to the article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 02:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Need help with Christian views of marriage

This is tagged as part of this project, but from what I see it hardly represents an Anglican perspective at all. Instead, it seems to have been overrun by someone's personal categorization of evangelical views. Any help would be appreciated. Mangoe 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dean of York

Dean of York and dean of Canterbury - 2 lists in urgent need of attention, most likely from this project. Neddyseagoon - talk 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

William Porcher DuBose

I have added an article for W. P. DuBose. Would someone mind dropping by and adding categories, and maybe something specifically about DuBose's theology? Thanks, Pastordavid 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Marian theology

I started this article just the other day and I'm kinda stuck. Is there anyone with more information on just "what" we think about the Virgin Mary and her place in the Communion? Lord Balin 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an article evaluating the ARCIC report, so I'll have a gander when I get a chance. Cheers! Fishhead64 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've overhauled the templates for The Archbishops of York, Canterbury and the Bishop of Durham. They're now collapsible, since for some (e.g. Michael Ramsey) they were taking over the page... PMJ 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also played around with Template:Anglican Bishops & Archbishops - Great Britain. Now the three Churches can be hidden. PM J 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reformed Church in America claims "It is the oldest Protestant church with a continuous ministry and also the oldest corporation in North America." Is this an accurate, NPOV statement? Ministry in Nieuw Amsterdam began in 1628, several years after Protestant worship in Jamestown had begun.-- Bhuck 10:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Challenging this would require opening the "Is Anglicanism Protestant?" can of worms. Carolynparrishfan 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how this song to the tune of "God Bless America" goes? I forget the parts where I wrote "hm hm"...

I am an Anglican

I am P. E. (Protestant Episcopal)

Not hm hm hm

Nor hm hm

But Protestant and Catholic and free

Not a Methodist

Not a Presby

Not a Baptist, white with foam,

I am an Anglican, one step from Rome!

-- Bhuck 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Google is your friend... [1] -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, if looking at the historical context, I think it is fair to say that seventeenth-century Anglicanism (pre-Oxford movement) was most definitely Protestant. What was the Glorious Revolution about, anyway?-- Bhuck 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a bot of a Wikibreak, but I am back and ready to put nose to the grindstone. Cheers! Fishhead64 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that there will be a new collaborative article of the month? I was actually just coming back to see if I could find out what is actively being worked on and what isn't. In additional to internet and marketing relating articles that I've been working on, I'm lookin to contribute something in the area of Anglicanism (or religion and philosophy generally). Uberveritas 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeedly-do! Give me some time to get my Christmas baking done first, though! Fishhead64 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On the article's talk page, the reviewer noted that there are very few references for such a long article, and has placed the article's nomination on hold. Anyone who can add references to the article to satisfy the reviewer's request would be greatly appreciated. Badbilltucker 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I performed a substantial revision of the article back in June, I'd be happy to cite references. I'll get on it over Christmas. Fishhead64 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I drum up any support for improving this? Particularly anyone who lives near the Minster and can consult/upload a better list from there. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Archbishop of Canterbury currently reads ""The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England and of the worldwide Anglican Communion" Is *head* the right word here?".

Is 'head' the right word here? And should the same word be used of the CofE and the AC? 'Head' can have an important theological meaning, and I just wonder if it is really a term that the Bishop would use. RCs sometimes refer to the pope as the 'head' of the Church, a claim that Protestants have generally objected to ('the head is Christ'), I didn't think it is a title that Canterbury would use, but I don't really know. -- Doc^g 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a little imprecise, if nothing else. More accurately, he is the Primate or presiding bishop of the Church of England, and spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion. I'll go make the fix, if it hasn't been done already. Fishhead64 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. User:Wighson has been going around various Anglican pages adding this link to a privately created google co-op search page called "Anglican Search." Needless to say, random links to search engines don't belong on Wikipedia pages; and a cursory glance shows that obviously this search engine really offers nothing special that regular google doesn't. Those alone are reasons to remove the link; but furthermore note that the creator of this so-called "Anglican search" has made the Anglican Communion Network a featured link, thus promoting it to the top of the list (clear POV); and furthermore may have a financial stake in the matter. (I quote from the Google Co-op description page: "Harness the power of Google search technology to create a free Custom Search Engine that reflects your knowledge and interests - and make money from the resulting traffic.") Please keep an eye peeled for attempts to push this patently and blatantly un-wikipedian link onto articles. Doops | talk 07:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) PS -- if in doubt, please see Wikipedia:External Links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; this link fails by several of the listed criteria. Doops | talk 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been playing with the {{ anglicanismproject}} template, so that it is now possible to identify and assess articles from the talk page rather than from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/Assessment. The design is here, basically the same as all of the other WikiProject templates. Should I replace the current template? PM J 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I vote yes. Fishhead64 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article Priest, User:HarvardOxon, insists that the following is accurate:

"Roman Catholic, Orthodox and a small minority of Anglican Christians who reject traditional interpretations of Anglican theology [citation needed], therefore, believe that priests and bishops share in the one priesthood of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Orders, and are empowered to offer the one sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist which, as Hebrews says, is offered "once for all," being identical with the very sacrifice of the Cross: the Mass, or Divine Liturgy, as the eucharistic celebration is known, is therefore literally a re-presentation (making present again) of Christ's single sacrifice, according to this theology." (emphasis added)

While certainly some Anglicans would reject this understanding of priesthood, would not many, if not most, Anglicans basically accept it? I would appreciate your comments here: Talk:Priest#Anglican_theology_of_priesthood. -- Midnite Critic 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at sorting out the project page, since I thought it was getting a bit cluttered - first draft here. Shameless rip-off of the Eastern Orthodox project, but hey... PM J 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and go ahead... feel free to revert! PM J 15:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a great improvement over my original design! Thanks, PMJ! Fishhead64 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)