Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities

File:Information.svg

:Category:Hispanic theologians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Please say a word at Talk:Invented_tradition#Merge_from_pseudo-mythology

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thomas Pooley well-sinker#Requested move 11 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Feminism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zizians#Requested move 2 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Haitian Vodou and sexual orientation#Requested move 22 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Worm theology is a completely orphaned article with no sources. I was unable to find any sources supporting this as a legit term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Think we ought to have a page at this title. Bit different from Theology, which is more of a discipline. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcome, if you have one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

== Join Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025! ==

Dear Wikipedia contributors,

We invite you to take part in Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, a global initiative dedicated to expanding and enhancing Wikipedia’s coverage of Ramadan’s cultural, historical, and religious significance.

📅 When?

The event runs throughout Ramadan (Feb 25 - April 15) 2025. All entries must be submitted before 15 April 2025, at 23:59 UTC.

📝 How can you contribute?

• Create and improve articles about Ramadan, its customs, history, and impact worldwide.
• Expand content on notable figures, events, and traditions related to Ramadan.

🌍 Why participate?

• Contribute to a more comprehensive and diverse knowledge base on Wikipedia.
• Collaborate with fellow Wikipedians in an engaging and meaningful way.
• Help improve Wikipedia’s representation of Ramadan across different cultures and regions.

📢 Sign up and start contributing today!

📌 Also, register on Meta-Wiki: event page

If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to reach out on the talk page. Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a great success together!

Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Theism is a level 4 vital article. It is also a very commonly used word in various religious/philosophical debates. Despite all of this, the article is in an abysmal state, being rated as "start-class" (the second lowest rating on the Wikipedia content assessment scale). This article would greatly benefit from some improvements. Brent Silby (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The Thelema article has an introductory section called "Historical precedents" which seems to be doing a lot to link Croweley's Thelema with the historical use of the term and practices. This feels... not encyclopaedic. I've crossposted this at WP:FTN but considering there's definitely a degree of legitimacy in discussing the history of the concept away from Crowley I think the more deft hands here might be able to do some good cleaning it up. Either way, any help is appreciated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Are you actually familiar with the topic? And no, I'm not following you, you just seem to sometimes get it wrong in several different places at the same time. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Seeing as editors at FTN understood what I was asking and had no problem with it, maybe tone down your rhetoric here? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A Talk:Church Fathers#Requested move 11 April 2025 to lowercase Church Fathers is in progress and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Augustus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There’s a discussion on Thelema related articles at WP:NPOV that could use, frankly, a lot of eyes. Much of this won’t require specialist knowledge beyond knowing what is and isn’t appropriate in Wikivoice. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I wrote a draft of an article on the Yujia Yankou rite, which is a ritual in mainstream Chinese Buddhism. However, the review is taking quite a long time. Could someone help me expedite the process? The draft page is here. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

English Reformation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am working on rewrite of Odin and seek input from interested editors familiar with the subject matter. There is a Talk post and a WIP proposal. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure here is the ideal place for this, and if anyone can kindly suggest somewhere better I'll take the enquiry there.

By way of background, in Britain, Anglican bishops are styled "the Right Reverend" (usually abbreviated to "Rt Revd") and archbishops are styled "the Most Reverend" ("Most Revd"). When an archbishop retires, he reverts to being a bishop and is styled "Rt Revd" again. In the last century and this, retiring archbishops of Canterbury and York have often – not always – been given a peerage, enabling them to continue to sit in the House of Lords. The question on which views are sought is how to label the person's infoboxes:

If we label the person by the name by which he was known when archbishop, the form should be

• The Most Revd and Rt Hon Forename Surname
• Archbishop of Canterbury/York.

Alternatively, if we prefer to use the former archbishop's style after retirement, the form, to be accurate, would need to be

• "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Lord Surname of Somewhere" or (if he was not given a peerage on retirement) "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Forename Surname"
• Former Archbishop of Canterbury/York.

Views (or alternative suggestions) most welcome. Tim riley talk 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:*I imagine that the answer is what do the sources do. If you are requesting OR, then I suppose that the only place it may occur is in the first sentence of the lead. Ie "John Smith (1.1.1911-9.9.1999) was Archbishop of Canterbury ..." To start "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Lord John Smith (1.1.1911-9.9.1999) was Archbishop of Canterbury ..." or variants seems to me to be clumsily clunky, repetitive (a reader is effectively told that JS was an archbishop twice) and straying into non-notability terrain (I assume Smith is not notable as a lord, so why are we telling a reader about that before what he is notable for?)

:*Does this help? Have I understood the question? Can you think of anywhere other than the very first sentence where one might want to use "The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Lord John Smith ..."? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::*Thank you, Gog It was really to do with the infoboxes: see here Tim riley talk 17:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:If our treatment of prime ministers (e.g. Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson) is anything to go by, we use a person's style after retirement, and I can't see that a religious leader should be treated differently. However those examples use an infobox which allow various titles/offices to be listed below the image with dates, and unfortunately {{tl|Infobox Christian leader}} doesn't seem to support that. NebY (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*Drat. So using their in office style would look odd, and wouldn't go with their being a lord. I think I'm with NebY in favouring their retirement style. If it weren't for the peerage thing I would say one could argue either way, but no one was ever the Most Revd and Rt Hon Lord Surname of Somewhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Rather than look at how we deal with a different classification of people on Wiki, it's probably best to look at the weight of reliable sources to see how they deal with the question. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:*If only! Wikipedia's infoboxes are not generally used elsewhere, and in normal prose the WP:RS such as the two-volume bio by Bishop Bell of Archbishop Davidson the matter is not addressed. Tim riley talk 12:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with the "What do the RS say" argument above. Is there also a "common sense/what are they commonly known as/for" argument? After repeated back-and-forth, we've established a clear page-consensus that David Lloyd George should carry the infobox title of "David Lloyd George", and not "The Right Honourable The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor". Of course, that doesn't preclude the peerage being noted in the infobox, as it is for LlG. Is this also the established page consensus for Cosmo Gordon Lang? KJP1 (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Thank you, KJP. That's a helpful pointer. I'm going to propose we standardise on the name and style when archbishops rather than in retirement, in line with your "common sense/what are they commonly known as/for" point. (Some standardisation wanted on UK prime ministers' pages too, it seems. As it happens, I am guilty of the inflated title chez Alec Home). Anglicanus, any thoughts? Tim riley talk 12:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:Is there a tension here between two principles? A BLP should describe the person as they are now but an article about a historic figure should describe what they're now known for, so is a living ex-archbishop historic yet? Or should the infobox title be changed on death? (I'm rather sad that this would lose the glorious "The Lord Home of the Hirsel".) NebY (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*That's a very good point. Most of the retired archbishops in question are dead, but not all (Sentamu, Carey, Williams are still with us). I wonder if we should follow your suggestion that historic figures should have the title they are known for but living ones should have their current, post-retirement, styles given here. I hope other editors will have some thoughts on this. Tim riley talk 18:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)