Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Requested move 2 October 2016 (singular)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close per

Talk:Roman Catholicism in Armenia#Requested move 2 October 2016. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The Armenian Catholic Church is called
talk) 04:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose on the grounds that this is a multiple rename request that is not setting a central venue for discussion. --Erp (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. I'm also applying this consensus to all articles at Category:Roman Catholic Church by country. The argument that won the day was consistency with the main article, currently at Catholic Church. This is without prejudice against an RM for any individual country where there may be a strong case for local usage taking precedent over consistency. Other arguments regarding the use of "(Roman) Catholicism" vs. "(Roman) Catholic Church" would be better off at an RM at the main article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– In consistency with other equivalent articles, including

talk) 13:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Query If the rationale is WP:CONSISTENCY, where's the proof that those proposed are inconsistent with a wider scheme? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistancy not so much by current level of quantity as by quality, meaning what important artcles relate both to the subject and the Anglophone world (and their respective current article name consesus). On top of that, there is the main article itself and its article name consensus. In that light, I would consider
talk
)
  • Oppose, I note that in some countries such the Netherlands the official name is closer to Roman Catholic (Rooms-Katholiek Kerk abbreviated RKK) possibly because there are other Catholic churches in the country (e.g., Oud-Katholieke Kerk, the Old Catholic Church). I note also that this is more of a nomenclature discussion given that there are dozens if not hundreds of articles and categories that use 'Roman Catholic' or 'Roman Catholicism' in their titles. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but, I think this needs a major discussion. --Erp (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are individual such equivalent cases where a discussion could be based on other source conditions. That is why the move requests where initially made on a case by case basis. Not saying that this procedure attempt is necessarly bad though.
talk) 07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, however the article - which you could argue is of greater importance - has it
talk) 21:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose, For example, the American Catholic Church in the United States is an independent church not part of the "Roman Catholic" church. IMO the "Roman" in the title is an important description that needs to be kept as is for clarity. Dropping the "Roman" creates confusion because it is too generic. — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that
Talk) 18:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Excuse me if I'm stepping away from this, and simply stating that I do not understand the need to purge the word "Roman" from all of the "Roman Catholic" articles. I thought the article content already is written specifically about the "Roman Catholic Church" and not generically about a univeral catholic church. — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Do we go with a movement name or with an organizational name (the 'ism' versus the 'ic')? In Armenia for instance members of the Catholic Church (Rome) are mostly in the
    Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands with possibly some necessary modifiers. In some cases that will lead to the 'Catholic Church in X', but, in others not. However that means there is no overarching article about all the different branches of the Catholic Church (Rome) in a particular country minus all the other Catholic Churches that exist in that country (e.g., Old Catholic Church, Liberal Catholic, etc. not to mention those churches that consider themselves 'Catholic' though don't use the term). If we keep the movement form (-ism) then we definitely need the 'Roman' adjective to differentiate it from non-Roman Catholicism. We could also do 'Catholic Church (Rome) in X' --Erp (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We're talking organisational name here ("ic"). For the rest, your concerns reflect an aspect of why I initially proposed individual article name changes rather than en masse, as it has evolved into (although I don't categorically object to that either). As such, you do have a point in that this discussion would probably benefit from moving to
Talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY to match the main Catholic Church article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Several such articles have been moved in recent months; consensus was clear. The job should be completed with those blanket moves. That being said, local exceptions may exist and would be treated according to their merits. — JFG talk 14:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if this collection of arguments doesn't settle the issue (as it did for the
Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support either Catholic Church in Foo or Roman Catholic Church in Foo, the former only if the term is unambiguous in the particular country. While some editors have argued against the inclusion of "Roman", I don't see any opposition to changing from the Catholicism format to Catholic Church. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This proposal doesn't cover all articles at Category:Roman Catholic Church by country. Is there a reason for this? -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    boldly combined into 1 RM. I did not investigate a category, and did not include entries that the nominator did not include, and was assuming the nominator had this covered. I haven't been involved in this otherwise, as far as I know — Andy W. (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@

Talk) 07:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This should not be applied in blanket form to articles not listed in the above move discussion as those watching those articles will not have had a chance to have input here. There was
Roman Catholicism in Scotland where the result was "Not moved" and the participants in that discussion may well wish to advance their arguments in a wider discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
When the biggest argument was consistency with the main article of Catholic Church, it makes no sense to then move these and leave the rest inconsistent. The result of the Scotland RM was basically "wider discussion needed" and we got that here. I left open the possibility of another RM for any individual countries where a local name should take precedent. It's actually been a while since we've had an RM over the name of "Catholic Church", if you want to go that route. This was the latest RM I've come across, and it was in 2009. If there's consensus to change the name of that article, I'll move these to follow suit. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The result of the Scotland RM was basically "wider discussion needed" and we got that here": even accepting the summing up of the Scottish result so, my very point is that anyone who "got (a wider discussion) here" specifically excludes those at the Scottish article, who evidently had an opinion on the matter. Consistency may well make sense but not if it's based on a decision arrived at with only part of the constituency consulted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had had a chance to weigh in on this discussion, it was unknown to me as well. I would have supported the move. Because the vast majority of regions in the world are not merely Roman Catholic, they have the presence of several Eastern Catholic Churches. @Mutt Lunker: should be aware of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of the Holy Family of London which covers Scotland. Therefore the article about the Catholic Church in Scotland is not merely restricted to Roman Catholicism but indeed includes Ukrainian Catholicism as well, and so his revert there and his objection to the move are distinctly counter-productive. Elizium23 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hold right on there. Your points may well be valid (though it could be easily argued that one could have as many articles as one likes about the various types of Catholic in Scotland, including the Roman variety) but nobody interested in the Scottish article is likely to have known about this discussion to raise or to counter them. I'm not even taking a view as to which title would be correct or best but the fact that a decision about one set of articles is being extended as a fait accompli to a wider set of articles, interested editors for which have not been consulted or had a chance to have input. That would seem to be obviously and fundamentally wrong, not to say likely to be counter-productive. A wider and fully-inclusive debate may well have won over the objectors at the Scotland article, and quite possibly other articles. Why was there not a bit of patience while other articles were listed, interested parties notified and the issue resolved consensually, once and for all? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving the above discussion to

talk) 14:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism Elizium23 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't such material supposed to be located in the more accessible realm?
talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not sure what you mean by "more accessible". It seems to me that Talk:Catholic Church should be mainly about improving the article Catholic Church. WT:CATHOLIC is for centralizing discussion that is germane to the whole project, and this widespread renaming project does have meaning to the whole WikiProject, not just those who watch Talk:Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Then I suppose I would support that.
talk) 13:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Church in Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at

talk) 09:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Armenia&oldid=1200702882"