WikiProject Catholicism is within the scope ofWikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to theCatholic Church. For more information, visit theproject page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
I've added some of the many ones in England and Wales. I think this will end up a very long page if we add every jubilee church in the world.Secretlondon (talk)23:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on the draft articleDraft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites, about a Roman Catholic women’s religious institute founded in Kerala in the 19th century.
The draft is structured with sections on *History*, *Charism and Apostolate*, and *Legacy of Mother Eliswa*. I have added references, but some are church-related sources, and I am working on expanding with more independent ones.
Before it goes through the Articles for Creation review queue (which may take some time), I would greatly appreciate any feedback from editors here regarding:
Article neutrality and tone
Whether the structure and headings seem appropriate
Suggestions for reliable independent sources I may have missed are especially welcome. Any advice to improve the draft before formal review would be much appreciated. Thank you!Desertstorm1000 (talk)00:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's more info on their own website - including that they split into two. I would make more of the fact that they were the first indigenous order of women in Kerala.Secretlondon (talk)16:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Melchior2006: I am unfamiliar with any MOS policy forbidding a template that is used across thousands of articles simply because it is "too large". The box contains information that cannot, and should not, be included in the infobox but doesn't really work well in a prose paragraph either. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs19:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Darth Stabro, you have added a lot of big graphics which are redundant because we already have the arms in the info boxes of each article. I think most would agree that having the same graphic twice is unnecessary. And yes, "simply because it is too large" is a valid reason to change something on a Wikipedia page. If you want to describe the arms, that is a very technical matter with questionable relevance for an enyclopedia. Still, I could image including an arms description section on this page, but just as text, not as repeated pictures. Have you talked to other editors about this? --Melchior2006 (talk)06:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you wait with further edits like your recent ones, until other editors have joined the discussion and we have reached a consensus. --Melchior2006 (talk)06:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how having the blazon and description of symbols is too technical with questionable relevance. The description especially is precisely something that someone might be curious about when they see the arms. It doesn't work well in prose format, however, and there is a template that perfectly meets the purpose that is used across 4,300+ pages forpeople,companies,universities,cities,etc,and many diocesesthat I didn't add them to - several dozen, actually. Cf.Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Emblem table. It's not something I started doing with no precedent. If some strong consensus develops that they should be removed then sure, but their existence in many articles and dioceses is not something I came up with. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs18:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You have here many good examples, Darth Stabro! Thank you for starting this, and thanks to both of you for shining a light on this topic... it might be a bit large, but it looks like wiki loves it.Spes15:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro I would also suggest that the box with the coat of arms be put lower down in the article, probably just before "see also" as it is much less important than e.g. who the bishops of the diocese have been.Jahaza (talk)17:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to check in and say I agree with Darth Stabro and Jahaza, I think we have reached consensus on the blazon and description of symbols being important. While it is true that there is a certain doubling going on here, I think that is ok as long as the blazon and description appear pretty much at the end of the page. --Melchior2006 (talk)04:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for posting such an incomplete draft. Thought I’d share it as Leo was just named by Time Magazine to theTIME100 AI 2025. While the Time list doesn’t really mean much, there’s clearly an overwhelming amount of material to use to build an extensive article. I’m not deeply proficient in church doctrine so I thought to ask this project to see if there’s interest.Thriley (talk)16:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion around this article on abishop raises the question of "see also" clutter. A lot of Catholicism pages have these sections which are basically redundant. The categories at the end of the article are sufficient for those seeking further references. Of course, "see also" sections can be relevant, but there is a lot of overkill out there. I welcome other opinions and constructive arguments. --Melchior2006 (talk)09:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall who, but a much better editor than myself once said that "see also" sections ought to be safe, rare, and legal. A single link to an index page is perhaps all that's necessary on bishop articles. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)15:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm the one who puts in theSee also section on the bishops pages. This is my explanation:
If you wanted to find out all the current US bishops appointed byPope Francis, then look it up in theCategory:Bishops appointed by Pope Francis and thumb your way across all 669 pages. Same hold true forPope John Paul II,Category:Bishops appointed by Pope John Paul II(727 pages) andPope Leo XIV,Category:Bishops appointed by Pope Leo XIV(22 pages so far). Or you can look at theList of Catholic bishops in the United States which would be a lot quicker. Same hold true if you wanted to see all the bishops of the US from its founding as a nation,Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States. That's why they are in theSee also section. More info to expand the mind for those who want to learn. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Understand now?Roberto221 (talk)09:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Roberto221 is having trouble accepting the consensus we have established so far. His repeatedly re-inserting long lists of "see also" after they have been removed is edit-warring behavior. He does not seem willing to participate in talk. How to proceed? --Melchior2006 (talk)18:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think framing it as edit warring is unhelpful. Some of the links we need to make sure are in the body of the article. If something is in the body of the article then it should not also be in see also.Secretlondon (talk)05:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this "see also" is clutter and out of keeping with the spirit of "see also". There are all sorts of things that a user "might want to see" that we don't spoonfeed them. The fact that the same group of links is being added to many bios gives you a clue that these links are generic rather than geared to the subject of the bio. They often serve as padding to fill out bios of people who are rarely mentioned in secular sources and whose notability is questionable. (A subject for another discussion, I know.) If properly organized, this set of links might make for a decent footer template: Catholic Church hierarchy in the US or some such.Rutsq (talk)15:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also is displayed on mobile, while footer templates and categories are not, so neither can replace the properly utilized "See Also".Jahaza (talk)16:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no requirement that sources be "secular" as much as some would like there to be, merely that they be reliable and independent.Jahaza (talk)16:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Review Request: Draft on Congregation of Teresian Carmelites."
Hello, I have been working on a draft for the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites and would appreciate it if a member of the WikiProject could review it. I believe the draft meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article and would like to get it published. Any feedback on how to improve it would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you!Desertstorm1000 (talk)16:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a Catholic bishop has been tagged as unsourced for almost 15 years. It was proposed for deletion, but I de-prodded it. As you may know, this is just a short delay. Please add reliable sources as soon as possible, as in this week. There is an Egyptian Arabic language article that appears to have about 7 references. That is a start. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.Bearian (talk)02:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a search but as of right now I've discovered that he may have a tendency to appear in questionably reliable sources due to his association with a particular and unusual apostolic succession. More to come hopefully. ~Pbritti (talk)15:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lacessori: Still haven't found an RS that mentions this, but Thuc-line bishops claim that their succession goes through David and that the presence of David as a co-consecrator to a Latin bishop in Thuc's succession nullifies an issue associated with most other Catholic successions, which go through a Cardinal Rebiba that nobody knows the consecrator of. Again, no RSs for that, but an angle I may try to attack when I have the time. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)02:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure ofWP:N here? I'm not sure if there's a discrete set of criterion for Marian titles but in looking across a number of source hosts (Jstor, Archive.org, university library EBSCO search, Newspapers.com), I see absolutely no mention of this title.Maximilian775 (talk)14:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit. The diocesan website also mirrors our content, which isn't helpful. The article needs work as it confuses the Augustinian recollects and the Franciscan recollects. According toOur Lady of the Pillar she is the patron of lots of places in the Philippines, includingImus Cathedral. Perhaps it could be merged into the article on the cathedral.Secretlondon (talk)14:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, "Our Lady of the Pillar of Imus" isnot a Marian title, but only one particular image ofOur Lady of the Pillar (albeit a canonically crowned one). The entire background section has nothing to do with either. I think it would make sense to merge the information about theimage into the article on the Cathedral housing the image.Long is the way (talk)19:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Church portal (talk)
