This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia This redirect is supported by Los Angeles area task force. Christianity: Reformed Christianity / Charismatic This redirect 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 This redirect is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Is it significant that Britney Spears is an anagram of presbyterians? JMcC (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This is the neutrality comment? Can this be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbslocum (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the above comment has anything to do with the neutrality concerns. Many people put in comments. Looks like the person who put on the NPOV tag (here) didn't add a comment in this talk page. Maybe they forgot, maybe they thought it was obvious, or made some other mistake (see WP:BELLY). Assuming that they must be full of it, because they didn't quite follow the procedures (or because somebody else was full of it) isn't going to get us anywhere. -- Why Not A Duck 03:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See EAR request

I have removed the two sections on Theology that were worded in the first person perspective. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to be presenting information in this way. If the sections can be worded into prose and incorporated in balanced article with context then all good, but a list of "We believe..." statements, not quoted out or with working references is not appropriate at all. Mfield (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the sanctuary image and swapped the images in the article around so that the image of the sanctuary was in the infobox instead of the fair use logo in keeping with other articles. The change was reverted. I am reverting it back for the following reasons....

1. The infobox image should contain an very representative image of the church. An image of the building is that.
2. The logo is in an unsuitable aspect ratio for a thumbnail (and consequently is undiscernable as a result)
3. The logo and motto is mentioned in the text and should accompany that text accordingly
4. The fair use of the logo is in doubt as it really conveys nothing that could not be put in text anyway.

I feel the images being this way is much more in keeping with the manual of style and would appreciate discussion on the matter here if people disagree with that assessment. Mfield (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In keeping with other articles" - what other articles? If you look at other megachurch articles, such as Willow Creek Church, Saddleback Church, Mariners Church, etc., they all have their logos at the top of the info box, so clearly with churches, putting the logo is the standard practice. Manutdglory (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, those are but 3 articles of the thousands of churches on WP. Further, for each, you were the one placing the logo in the info box (Willow Creek, Saddleback, Mariners). That hardly constitutes "standard practice". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be changed too. Mfield (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles has no other images at all aside from the logo anyway. The other two would also be better represented by an image of the church itself. These are not big disributed organizations like a multinational company, they have a clear central purpose and operation based around a church. Look at all the articles on cathedrals and you will find pictures of the cathedals, not logos. It is normal on all wikipedia articles to prefer an illustrative free use image over a fair use logo, and certainly when the logo is unreadable in the article. Just because something is abnormal on another article doesn't make it right or standard. If I was to go looking for the church, the most obvious thing I would be looking for would be the church itself, not its letterhead. Mfield (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that if the logo is unreadable, it has no place in an article whatsoever. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have disputed the fair use of that logo too, as it conveys nothing that could not be conveyed by text and it it exceeds the size guidelines for fair use images. I think the other ones are equally not required under fair use. If a logo could be created in SVG without the extra text so that it was in a more useful aspect ratio, it would be better. Mfield (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]