Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Non-Orthodox"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I see a serious problem with ''most'' of the articles in this category right now, as they don't qualify for the Style Manual's stipulation that such articles be mainly about the group's relation to the Orthodox Church. That is, they should read as though the article title is "Group X and the Orthodox Church." | + | I see a serious problem with ''most'' of the articles in this category right now, as they don't qualify for the Style Manual's stipulation that such articles be mainly about the group's relation to the Orthodox Church. That is, they should read as though the article title is "Group X and the Orthodox Church." The ''bulk'' of the material in these articles is currently not about Orthodoxy at all. |
| − | I'm tagging all the articles that are questionable. I propose that they either get deleted or completely revamped. The ones on [[John Paul II]] and the [[Rosary]] are almost the only ones which fulfil the requirement. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 16:54, January 11, 2006 (CST) | + | I'm tagging all the articles that are questionable. I propose that they either get deleted or completely revamped. The ones on [[John Paul II]] and the [[Rosary]] are almost the only ones which fulfil the requirement (though the latter is iffy). {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 16:54, January 11, 2006 (CST) |
Revision as of 23:11, January 11, 2006
I see a serious problem with most of the articles in this category right now, as they don't qualify for the Style Manual's stipulation that such articles be mainly about the group's relation to the Orthodox Church. That is, they should read as though the article title is "Group X and the Orthodox Church." The bulk of the material in these articles is currently not about Orthodoxy at all.
I'm tagging all the articles that are questionable. I propose that they either get deleted or completely revamped. The ones on John Paul II and the Rosary are almost the only ones which fulfil the requirement (though the latter is iffy). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 16:54, January 11, 2006 (CST)
