This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
A fact from Care cloth appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that during the time of the Church Fathers, the velatio nuptialis was used by the church to validate the sacrament of marriage and emphasize its importance?
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
@RAJIVVASUDEV and Red-tailed hawk: I really want to promote this, but I'm stuck on a few of the sources for this article. There are a few religion blogs that I'm not familiar with, plus a book called Guide for Celebrating® Matrimony that looks a bit dodgy (because of the commercial aspect in the title). Could you please explain if any of these blogs are considered RS and/or look at leaving some of them out if you don't actually need them? (I see a lot of footnotes in places that maybe don't need quite so many.) Another thing that often helps is to try to find the books or articles that the blogs themselves were using as sources to begin with. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
With respect to the Guide for Celebrating Matrimony, the first author is Richard B. Hilgartner, a qualified academic who has a long history of publishing works on liturgy and liturgical history. At worst, that book is expert SPS, which is perfectly fine for this sort of stuff (WP:SPS notes that [s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, which is met here).Which other citations are the specific ones that you have problems with? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Cielquiparle:NLM is admittedly a bit of a niche site, but I think it's reliable in the specific sort of traditional Catholic liturgy context that it's used for in the article. The website has a set of regular writers, as well as editorial oversight in the form of an editor. One of the authors cited from NLM is Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, a legitimate academic who has published several books on Catholic liturgy and its history. The other NLM piece cited was written by Gregory DiPippo, who is NLM's editor. The way that NLM is being used in this article seems fine; at worst we have expert WP:SPS here, and at best we have an organization that's a reliable source within a specific niche that's being cited for facts about that specific niche.I ignored Latin Mass Wedding because it's never cited alone and it's never the sole source for facts. Could it be removed? Sure. But I don't see why that's a blocker if we also are citing RS for all the claims it's used for—the existence of a superfluous ref doesn't seem pose an issue for meeting WP:MINREF. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV and Red-tailed hawk: I really want to promote this, but I'm stuck on a few of the sources for this article. There are a few religion blogs that I'm not familiar with, plus a book called Guide for Celebrating® Matrimony that looks a bit dodgy (because of the commercial aspect in the title). Could you please explain if any of these blogs are considered RS and/or look at leaving some of them out if you don't actually need them? (I see a lot of footnotes in places that maybe don't need quite so many.) Another thing that often helps is to try to find the books or articles that the blogs themselves were using as sources to begin with. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Restoring tick. Thanks for the thorough explanation, Red-tailed hawk! Cielquiparle (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)