Talk:John VI of Constantinople

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was oppose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose. I can't find any consensus justification on the clergy-naming talk page for the addition of titles only for Eastern Orthodox clergy. We don't use them for Popes and western Bishops and see no reason why it should be any different for eastern Bishops. Powers ^T 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The user above seems to be mistaken. We use the title 'Pope' in the respective articles. Please see the Category:Popes. Flamarande (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mistaken indeed; I could have sworn what I stated was the case. Patriarchs should indeed parallel Popes, although I cannot see the reasoning in either case. I would still prefer leaving off the titles. Powers ^T 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe I take issue with the Patriarchs and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops sections of
  Michael Cerularius.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well, the guideline is in place, and the overwhelming majority of articles use it already. Furthermore, it does IMO serve a useful purpose of disambiguation: "Patriarch" alone is obviously unacceptable, "of Constantinople", "of Antioch" etc alone are also somewhat obscure. The full form proposed by the guideline is somewhat awkward, but it is precise. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
• In this case I believe the guideline is flawed and contrary to higher guidelines. The
  Michael Cerularius (that still has my full support).--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]