Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2017

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see:

Question here. We have three categories on lay organisations, from top to bottom:

Category:Catholic lay organisations

Category:Catholic lay societies

Category:Roman Catholic lay ecclesial movements

How are the second and third category supposed to be different from the first category? The articles we have in WP don't provide a lot of information on this question. The first and second category share the same main article

Good question. I advocate you merge them. Thanks for good categorisation lately!

talk

) 10:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Further discussion see CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Oriental Catholicism has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for some input on the following thread:

Actually, it's name is St.George Church, Thalayolaparambu, but someone renamed it and redirected all the contents to St. George's Syro-Malabar Church, Thalayolaparambu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George%27s_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Thalayolaparambu).

I have created this article and I am sure about this.

So kindly move all the contents and data to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St.George_Church_Thalayolaparambu&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesopub (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone check the official and common name of this Cathedral please - warning don't trust Google Maps. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on this page I'm guessing you're right in the name above, FWIW. I don't actually know what the "official" site of the Eritrean church would be, though. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@

Talk:St. Joseph's Cathedral, Asmara. Is it conceivable that it used to be St Joseph's and has been rededicated? Bradt. (incidentally had you ever noticed what is at Jesu?) In ictu oculi (talk

) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Good find, that Jesu page should be (band) and the name redirected to 'Jesus', ?. Randy Kryn 20:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I created Jesu (disambiguation), but probably yes Jesu should go to Jesus. Except that not sure the Jesus article needs "Jesu redirects here, for the metal band see Jesu (band)" stamped on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, good point. Probably best to leave that one as is. But at a minimum 'Jesu' should have (band) attached so 'Jesu' isn't a direct link. Randy Kryn 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll put a move discussion template on the dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

282 images of Papal Bullae have recently been uploaded, in Commons:Category:Papal bullae in the Portable Antiquities Scheme. For example:

• 
  Martin IV

  (obverse)
• 
  Bull of Pope Martin IV (reverse)
• 
  Bull of Pope

  Boniface IX

  (obverse)
• 
  Bull of Pope Boniface IX (reverse)

Please use them as you see fit; and if you can, add them to relevant categories on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello all- I would like to bring to your attention a campaign of unilateral and somewhat obsessive mass changes being instituted by a new user on articles relating to churches and dioceses in France. Over 1,000 edits in the eleven days since account creation: user's contributions user's talkpage. Eric ^talk 18:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Eric – Thanks for the FYI. It's been a while since I had updated some articles from Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in France. So now I will update Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in France articles as well. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joe- Do you think what that editor is doing looks like it's improving those articles? My impression is that it's not. Eric ^talk 15:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In the Ukrainian Catholic Church article, it list the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada as having separated from it. Based on the history section of the Orthodox article, this connection seems pretty tenuous, as the article does not state there was even a formal Ukrainian Catholic presence in Canada in 1918 to break off from. The history section is pretty muddled though, and my familiarity with the subject is limited at best. Is anyone familiar with the topic enough to state whether listing the Canadian Orthodox body as a separation in the Ukrainian Catholic article is appropriate? --Zfish118^⋉talk 19:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a new discussion of the location of the University of Notre Dame on Talk:University of Notre Dame--Jahaza (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, i is not my field, so don't expect any help from me (I add sources of scientific articles) but here is IMHO an article-list who might be useful to have somehow. I was looking for a table of apostolic mottos to see their distributions and evolutions over the centuries and I cannot find it. The concept of apostolic motto is not as important or common as papal name (or even Prophecy of the Popes) for a generic reader, but I feel that such red link should be made an article, or some sort of redirect. What do you think?--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a column in the table in Papal coats of arms?--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article failed its FAC, but it was much expanded and edited in the process since it became a GA, and actually got some support: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1. It most probably fulfils all the criteria to be promoted A-Class. Thank you in advance to all future reviewers! --Edelseider (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Recently, the Template:Seven deadly sins was expanded and renamed Catholic virtue ethics. The Catholic philosophy template was similarly recently amended to change a section linking to

I've started a conversation on the template talk about the change. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the earlier discussions about the use of the term "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic", there is a move request relating to this particular issue at

In [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2016#Renaming of Australian articles from "Roman Catholic ...." to "Catholic ...."] I have previously raised concerns about this type of renaming by this editor and the subsequent discussions revealed that there was no decision taken by this WikiProject to do this kind of renaming. Has there been some discussion that I cannot see here in which there was subsequently some agreement to make such changes? As far as I can see, this Brisbane template contains only Roman Catholic archbishops in a Roman Catholic Diocese. Where is the consensus for this? Kerry (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well,

talk

) 13:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Since you know I have previously raised concerns about these changes and there did not appear to be the consensus you claimed, naturally I am very concerned when I see the same changes happening again in the absence of any apparent consensus here. These templates are all within WikiProject Australia as well as WikiProject Catholicism. Please include that project in your discussion. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Kerry (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems 'Catholic' may be the common name now, although I have no figures to back that up aside from this n-gram Chicbyaccident's bold moves may be ahead of the curve and in line with the common name but, again, I'm not coming in with much evidence aside from personal observations and the n-gram. Randy Kryn 14:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

For reasons I've previously discussed in WP:Catholic or Roman Catholic?, I oppose changing the naming conventions from Catholic to Roman Catholic, except when it adds clarity. In the case of dioceses and related articles, adding "Roman Catholic" to the name succinctly identifies it as in communion with the pope, especially among similarly named non-Catholic entities. For instance, there is an Archdiocese of Hartford, and a Diocese of Connecticut - which is the Catholic one? Even though each article name would be unique, they still geographically overlap. Similarly, there is Diocese of Philadelphia and an Archdiocese of Philadelphia - which one is the Episcopalian? The article title Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia clearly conveys which entity is being discussed. Chicbyaccident's argument in the edit summaries is that it more "consistent" to remove "Roman Catholic". Yet, given the benefits of distinguishing overlapping regions, we risk a patch work of ambiguous article unless we consistently use a single convention. Now, one could argue that "Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia" could be an alternative. However, we then run into to the Diocese of Pennsylvania - an Old Catholic Diocese! So in some areas, we will have an Episcopal Diocese, a Roman Catholic Diocese, and an Old Catholic Diocese. As far as I am concerned, it makes the simplest way of keeping all these straight is explicitly append Roman Catholic, Episcopal, or Old Catholic to the article title. Otherwise, the opening lines of each article are going to spend many words communicating what a clear and consistent article naming convention could convey. --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On the diocesan level it can get quite messy. My general thoughts are that it should reflect what the diocese/archdiocese/eparchy calls itself unless there is a clear need to disambiguate. At the same time, that runs into problems where the diocese refers to itself as Catholic Diocese of Foo but the legal personhood of the bishop is Roman Catholic Bishop of Foo, which is the case in at least several dioceses that I can think of off of the top of my head. For this case, I think keeping it Roman Catholic makes sense because the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane uses Roman Catholic. If there is an RM on that page, and it is moved, I would also be fine moving moving the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you just answer yourself? Old Catholic sufficiently clearly is not the same as Catholic. For other, exceptionate cases, they could well also be treated in exceptionate manners.

I am not sure I understand what you mean, and it may be a language barrier. Could you please clarify? --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant that "Catholic" typically refers to things related to the Catholic Church. As for other meanings of "Catholic", there is

talk

) 12:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not solved - there is a need for consensus - if editing is done by

WP:AGF

- rather than proving the logic to yourself, and going off an editing further in your own self ascertained logic - it would be also much more diplomatic to see whether the editors who have commented here so far, wish to return or comment further - exceptionate ? - this is english wikipedia - the word does not hit my dictionaries.

This topic is a major naming convention issue, that needs others to clarify whether they can agree with your changes - from reading above, there is not a general consensus as to your interpretation or actions to date. JarrahTree 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Various moves and not moves require a central point of reference, surely

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Scotland#Requested_move_14_May_2016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Armenia#Requested move 2 October 2016

and the relevant discussions that followed or precede those moves - if for nothing else, as something to base any further discusssion, but noting editing in the last 2 hours, there is substantial change whether anyone has discussed it or not JarrahTree 13:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I would view the above "N-gram" with caution. At a minimum, "Catholic" seems to be double counting itself within the phrase "Roman Catholic", given the similar peaks and troughs of the the two graphs. Secondly, there will simply be more contexts where the word "Catholic" is used, where as "Roman Catholic" can refer to only a limited number of topics. It is impossible to tell from the graph whether "Catholic" is being used in the context of the name of the church or not. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I've found the right place to remark on this page. However, I got here from a notice at
  Roman Catholic/Latin Church churches, but still "Catholic". We recently made a point of naming Australian articles to include the denomination in their titles where relevant for consitency, even when not required for disambiguation. Some Anglican and Roman Catholic dioceses had matching names, so all were named to include the denomination even if they did not conflict, and Uniting Church in Australia synods (roughly-equivalent regional councils) got the denomination name in their titles too. Without any reference point of how many "non-Roman/Latin" Catholic churches/dioceses/bishops/whatever that there might be in Australia, it is clearly appropriate to name articles that could be misleading with sufficient precision to avoid that confusion. Hence if it is necessary to say "Catholic", and non-Romans are not included, then the article/template should be titled "Roman Catholic". --Scott Davis ^Talk
  11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Scotland#Requested_move_14_May_2016 that in actual fact there is more to the various discussions that might suggest that there is perhaps a need for a more careful explanation of what has happened to date JarrahTree 12:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, There are two Diocese of Delaware church articles tagged for deletion.

• St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (Wilmington, Delaware)
• Resurrection Catholic Parish (Wilmington)

Asking for help, if anyone can improve these articles. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help me improve my article about the late Stratford Caldecott. His work is of real importance, I believe, to contemporary Catholics, as he is something of a bridge between the church and the culture. His work cites great sources like Aquinas, Pieper, Balthasar, Chesterton...and he is cited by some other contemporary Catholic intellectuals. So he is a kind of hub of real interest, with a love for the church and the world. I am somehow not connecting with the 'use enough references' vibe on wiki, though he has been in the news, cited by many people, profiled on many sites he wrote for. I could really use your help! Here's a link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stratford_Caldecott CharOster (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard concerning the Miracle of the Sun. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is

There's a little dispute at the infobox of Pope Benedict XVI, as to whether or not to use "Bishop of Rome". GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2017/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Catholicism, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, FYI I added wikilink for "Popular pages" to the WP Catholicism Project page, sidebar and "Subpages" section. — JoeHebda • (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

From its omission from our WikiProjects, I would conclude that the

American linguist and political critic Noam Chomsky has contrasted the reception of dissidents in Eastern Europe at that time with that of the slain priests, who remain relatively obscure: "Eastern European dissidents were supported by the US and the Vatican, unlike dissidents elsewhere, who were supported by no one with any power or influence. But that is a great understatement: they [Eastern European dissidents] were given massive support and attention by the entire Western world, quite unprecedented support, vastly greater than the support given to people within Western domains who were suffering far worse oppression and were defending freedom and justice with far greater courage. The disparity is so extraordinary that the very word "dissident" in Western languages refers to East Europeans; no one, except those few who have extricated themselves from the Western propaganda system, even uses the word "dissident" for people like the Central American Jesuit intellectuals who were assassinated in November 1989 by elite forces armed and trained by the US. And while every word of East European dissidents is widely publicized, hailed, and treasured, try to find even a reference to the very important and courageous writings of Fr. Ellacuría and his associates, or other Central American dissidents who had to flee from slaughter or were simply tortured and killed by US-run forces." Jzsj (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I am uncertain why you are taking such a confrontational tone. There is no particular reason that the article is not tagged for the wikiproject. Simply add the tag so that interested project members can find it in the future! –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes think we make more of titular bishop assignments than we should. It's one thing to say Pope X named Person Y titular bishop of Z. But we often include that appointment in two other places: in the Infobox under "Other posts" and in a succession box under "Catholic Church titles". I find both of these questionable. In the first case, a titular bishopric is more title than post, a detail bordering awfully close on trivia. In the second, setting it up in parallel to other titles with a predecessor and/or successor makes more of its significance than appropriate IMHO. The fact that someone is a titular bishop is not open to question, but I wonder about how we handle it, as if it were an assignment with responsibilities rather than, for WP purposes, just a title.

A good recently created example is

I actually agree. Although I think it should be noted somewhere (especially titular bishop vs titular archbishop), the actual title is typically pretty obscure. There are exceptions, for example Marion Francis Forst who was named the first titular bishop of Leavenworth after retiring as Auxiliary Bishop of Kansas City in Kansas. (Leavenworth was the original city for that archdiocese.) --Dcheney (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The related . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabado (talk • contribs) 02:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk:Catholic Church about our naming conventions for categories about church buildings. Anyone is welcome to join the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple ones. Please see here.

Catholicism refers to a religious affiliation, while the Catholic Church is a proper noun for the Church itself. As such, the change doesn't make sense to me, as Catholicism covers a more broad range United Massachusetts (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is still open and more input is probably necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@

• @
  Chicbyaccident: Category:History of Roman Catholicism is already a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk
  ) 10:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• @
  Chicbyaccident: I see. There is also education and lists at the top level in Category:Catholic Church. I hadn't planned anything myself but if you would nominate any of them I'll most likely support. Marcocapelle (talk
  ) 10:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have the technical expertise to be more fitted for that than I am, though.

talk

) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say specify it to Roman Catholicism in every circumstance where the only group mentioned in detail is the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.United Massachusetts (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new template, Template:Episcopal lineage. It is used to display the lineage leading up to a bishop (including archbishops, cardinals, popes, patriarchs, etc.). It is configured to be used for Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Christian denominations that maintain a historical episcopate. An example of its use can be found on the template page or in the Pope Francis article. Ergo Sum 04:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, While visiting another WikiProject I found they had a link to a bot-generated daily log of activity. I checked & found the same for WP Catholicism. So yesterday I added bot-generated daily log link to the assessment page. This may be helpful for those who would like to view which articles are being worked on. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the Albigensian Crusade article. On July 21, I mentioned a concern on the talk page, but I think I will get a more timely response here, which is important as I intend to nominate the article for GA status. There are a large number of citations in the article made out to "VC," "PL," or "CCA." I have no idea what these mean, and can find nothing to direct me in the article. I will appreciate any assistance in helping me to understand what these citations are for. Display name 99 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You have to dig back into the file history. Here's a mod from October 2007 that explains VC and CCA. The editor responsible hasn't been active since then. You can also look at that editor's contributions, all from that period and including many rather imperious notes left on other editors' talk pages.

Looks like you're taking on quite a chore. Good luck!

talk

) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• That is not actually as bad as I feared. It doesn't appear to be a wholesale copy of the Catholic encyclopedia of 1911, which we often see in early Wiki articles (though you'll want to check to see if that is where the uncited paragraphs come from.) You'll want to get academic sourcing. If you have access to ILL and are in the states, I recommend searching Duke University Library to see if they have anything you want. Probably one of the best and most accessible libraries for the academic study of religion. This is a bit before the time period I am most familiar with, but there should be solid academic sourcing out there. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll take that advice. And yes,

Bmclaughlin9, that Jelmain certainly was a colorful character. Display name 99 (talk

) 19:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

With the new Template:Episcopal lineage created, I propose merging Template:Ordination with the other. I think the aesthetics of episcopal lineage are preferable and recommend creating a new collapsible section within that template to include the information contained within ordination. Thoughts? The merger discussion is located at Template talk:Ordination#Merge templates. Ergo Sum 17:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have started an RM on

• Following the RM, the relevant category has been nominated for discussion for potential renaming at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_10#Category:Lawrence_of_Rome. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at the above location that members of this Wikiproject might be interested in. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello all- FYI regarding an editing campaign of unsourced, unexplained changes being made to pope articles by a new user (Special:Contributions/Kimley_Labasan), many of which seem to be repeats or continuations of the activity of an editor at IP 119.93.41.213. I reverted several of the IP editor's changes a couple days ago, but this is out of my area of expertise and interest, so I thought I'd alert others who may want to look into the matter. Eric ^talk 00:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. If I had to guess, they are probably doing it based on (the bane of my wiki-existence) S. Miranda's self-published cardinal/conclave website. Its where half the stuff we have on cardinals pre-1900 comes from, if not more. He's normally good on titles but contradicts some academic published sources on conclave attendance. I generally consider Miranda to be one of the biggest problems we have in our historical papacy articles, but for this info it might be fine. The other possibility is that it's from Catholic-Hierarchy, which is also technically self-published, but has been held by RSN to be a generally reliable source since it is frequently referenced by contemporary official Church websites and the like as reliable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 31

I've proposed these two redirects for deletion: Consistory of 1644 and Consistory of 1655

No links point to them and I don't think they can be modified to point anyplace useful. I expect that editors who normally comment on deletions will hesitate to weigh in on this specialty topic, so I'm posting this note here in the hope that editors with Catholic cred will contribute.

Related categories have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

--Grabado (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Several new discussions and proposals were initiated recently on the page

Hi. I'd like members to have a look at these edits and the accompanying discussion at

Notifying everyone here about the RM at the above page. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Wondering if someone with wikitable expertise could fix the excess column widths on the project home page? At the "Templates" section. Right now you have to scroll sideways to see the far right column contents. Regards. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Related categories have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

--Grabado (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note, there are two sidebars on the

made, at great speed, a whole lot of edits giving all the Popes back to the 2nd century birth and death dates, usually to the day. History simply doesn't have this information, & I don't trust anything he does. I have started rolling them back, from the first edits, & oldest popes, but would be grateful if someone could take over (&maybe check my work). He also adds info re cardinalcies, which I rather doubt exists. People can see where I got to from my contributions just now. Please report progress here. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears the OP may have derived his information from The Deaths of the Popes by Wendy J. Reardon, (McFarland 2012).[1] Checked thus far,

talk

) 17:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also,

talk

) 21:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks reliable, but I can't see the text for anyone after Peter. But I don't believe for a moment that this edit can be supported by RS. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to make of Reardon's book as she lists "Further reading", but I didn't happen to see any references for any of the entries.

talk

) 02:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Have moved the list of pages checked to my Talk page, as it's getting a bit cumbersome here. I do not trust any of the d/o/b entries made by this particular editor. (Please note,

talk

) 04:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Such as this IP who kept on adding the hymn to

Sigh. Yes, unfortunately Catholicism articles are prone to the text of unsourced popular devotions that are likely in the public domain being copied whole cloth into articles. See some of the older versions of the

WP:ONUS, invite them to take it to talk. If they continue to restore the text, you seek admin intervention. Just be sure not to edit war yourself. TonyBallioni (talk

) 05:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, for the record my folks do keep images of saints and such, and I wasn't being a total pain to the editor in question at all. All I said was we have sister projects for other, non-encyclopedic texts. Simply taunting a fellow editor just because he did the right thing is just plain mean and sinful imo. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, The list showed only 43 articles vs. 70 actual FA articles, so I changed the list into a Cat.FA wikilink. With this link there is no need to manually maintain the list of articles. If there are any concerns with this change, let's discuss here. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

For details, please see

Related categories have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

--Grabado (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion: Catholic schools (II)

Related categories have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

--Grabado (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at

I started the article about Bishop Patrick Nair of India. I added a WikiProject Catholicism template to the article. However, an IP editor changed the template to the WikiProject Christianity with WP Catholicism as a subproject. I feel adding the WP Christianity template is redundant and not necessary. The question I have is: should WikiProject Catholicism be a subproject to the WikiProject Christianity or remained separate? Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RFD - When WikiProject Catholicism articles need the assessment criteria for upgrading to Class=B the following wikicode is added (example below).

{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=C|importance=Mid | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = yes | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> }}

This can only be done via a separate WP Cath. line and not within WP Christianity talk page line. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@

142.160.131.202: please see JoeHebda's response. He is the person most active in tagging and assessment for this WikiProject. TonyBallioni (talk

) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I am not entirely opposed to having two separate templates. I am opposed to the leaving out {{WikiProject Christianity}} from projects within its scope. I used the combined template at Talk:Patrick Nair in line with RFD's interest in eliminating redundancy. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinions on this issue. WikiProject tagging really isn't my thing. I'm just trying to connect the dots between the people who care about the topic. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: While that is not relevant to the issue of whether {{WikiProject Christianity}} is included on Talk:Patrick Nair, would that be solved were Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity to adopt Template:WPBannerMeta/class? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: a related discussion also exists at Template talk:WikiProject Christianity#WikiProject_Catholicism_template. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this discussion would be better off centralized in one place, i.e., Template talk:WikiProject Christianity § WikiProject Catholicism template? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The official name of a diocese does not contain the "Roman" part. The 'Roman' part was added during the Reformation as an oxymoron of the universality of the church 'over the entire world' with the specificity of 'only one single see'". Most languages, like Latin or Italian, don't use it. It's really just used in English and it's a relic of the anti-Catholic Protestantism and seems very belittling.

Ex. the Archdiocese of New York is the 'Archdiocese of New York', not the 'Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York'.https://archny.org/Eccekevin (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 09:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:COMMONNAME) and its official name. --Grabado (talk

) 10:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• It is a case-by-case basis for local dioceses. The Archdiocese of New York unambiguously refers to the Catholic one (it is the most prominent see in the United States. Everyone will know what you are talking about.) The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Foo, however, might be known as that and also might be incorporated as that. Wikipedia does not report the truth, we report what is verifiable to reliable sources. There is no need to
  right great wrongs on this point. We simply report the most common name that is also the most unambiguous name. Sometimes that includes "Roman Catholic" sometimes it doesn't. TonyBallioni (talk
  ) 11:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:I absolutely agree with you, but the fact is that "Roman Catholic" is nearly always included in titles, ignoring common name. See pages categorised under Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States or Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy as example. --Grabado (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because in the United States it nearly always should be as a country that has historically had a Catholic minority and where many diocese always refer to themselves that way. The Archdiocese of New York is unique in that people will know exactly what you are talking about. Most others that won't be the case. In your change re: Italy, it depends on what the common English name is for these sees, not the common Italian name. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:but there is not one case in which there is on "Roman Catholic". For example, in Italy, where all the dioceses are unabigously catholic, whay not at least take the "Roman" part out of it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter what the Italian name is or if there are no other dioceses. The English Wikipedia bases its naming policy on the most common English-language name. We don't have a firm rule on this for diocese (and nor should we). That means we default to the standard practice at RMs, which to examine each diocese on an individual basis. I neither support or oppose renaming Italian dioceses: I'm simply explaining why it might very well be the case that a Catholic diocese in a country where there are no other Christian dioceses might be appropriately referred to as Roman Catholic on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion has almost missed the main point: the term "Roman Catholic" designates only those Catholic dioceses that are of the Latin Rite, since within the Catholic Church there are also numerous parallel Eastern-Catholic dioceses that are designated as "Byzantine Catholic" or "Greek Catholic" or "Melkite Catholic" or "Chaldean Catholic" etc. In many cities, there are parallel seats of Roman Catholic bishops of the Latin Rite and Eastern Catholic bishops of various Eastern-Catholic rites. That is why designation "Roman Catholic" is very useful and should be kept universally in titles of articles on Catholic dioceses of the Latin Rite. Sorabino (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@

archeparchies, so using "Roman Catholic" as desambiguation is not necessary. You can see Category:Ukrainian Greek Catholic eparchies, Category:Maronite Catholic eparchies, Category:Armenian Catholic eparchies or Category:Melkite Greek Catholic eparchies. --Grabado (talk

) 11:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but they are also commonly called "dioceses" and "archdioceses", and because of that we have many redirects with that terms, not to mention common use in scholarly and other literature. Sorabino (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorabino, yes. I've argued pretty strongly for the Roman=Latin Church disambiguation in the past. That's definitely true for areas with more than one Catholic see (Pittsburgh and Chicago come to mind in the United Stayes). Most diocese, however, won't have that problem, so the COMMONNAME issue is more important. Nice areas with high Eastern Catholic populations the distinction you raise is more important than COMMONNAME in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That is true, traditional Eastern Catholic dioceses are mainly situated in the Eastern Europe and in the Middle East, but in recent times the structure of Eastern Catholic Churches has developed globally. Also, there is a question of principle here - the Catholic Church has many rites, so we might ask: why should dioceses of only one rite (in this case Roman rite) be privileged here by omitting the designation of rite in the titles of articles? The term "Roman" in the title of Latin Catholic dioceses is the designation of the Roman rite, the same way as the terms "Byzantine" or "Greek" or "Melkite" etc. are the designations of other particular rites within the Catholic Church. For the sake of consistency and clarity, it would be better to keep the designations of Roman rite in the titles of articles on Catholic dioceses of Roman (Latin) rite. Sorabino (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Rites are not part of the name of any diocese, neither Latin dioceses nor Eastern eparchies. So, using COMMONNAME in both cases also provides consistency and clarity. --Grabado (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by: "Rites are not part of the name of any diocese, neither Latin dioceses nor Eastern eparchies" ?! Please, look at the official sources of the Catholic Church, every single diocese has a designation of its rite by definition! One of the main reason for that is because for years, specially prior to Vatican II Council, Eastern Catholics were complaining that they have been often treated as "second class" Catholics, and therefore it is the official position of the Catholic Church that all its rites are equal. If we remove "Roman" from the titles of articles of Catholic dioceses of Roman rite, it will reopen the heated discussions about divisions between "pure" (roman rite) Catholics and so-called "second class" Eastern Catholics. The impact of articles in English Wikipedia is huge - if we rename Roman (Latin) Catholic dioceses just as Catholic, it might have very negative effect on social networks. Not to mention some other, very complex issues of ecumenical importance. This is a huge question, and very serious discussion is needed here. Sorabino (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For clarity to non-native English speakers: rite often = sui iuris particular church in speech or writing. This is different than the official definition of a rite, but it is very common in English usage. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:: Thanks for the clarification.

@Sorabino: I meant:

• Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy of Ujjain -> Eparchy of Ujjain (common name)
• Archdiocese of New York (common name
  )

--Grabado (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've discussed why here:
  WP:Roman Catholic?. This is the naming convention that allows all diocese to be consistent, without the need to disambiguate with non-Catholic diocese with similar names. Further, at least in the United States, most diocese are legally incorporated using "Roman Catholic" in their name. –Zfish118^⋉talk
  18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see (preceded by the words... "Welcome to....")

• "The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles." [2],
• "The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York!" [3],
• "The Roman Catholic Church In And Around Liverpool and Region" [4].

This is taken from the webpages of the two largest Archdioceses in the US, and the largest in the UK. It appears to be how they self-identify.

talk

) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The essay

-- PBS (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, after 100s of talk pages of discussions throughout the years regarding this issue, of which you have participated in a few before the settled

talk

) 20:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why you start you statement with "sorry". Consensus can change. -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus has changed before in some cases, such as whether we should use Latinised names for Greek-speaking historical figures from the Middle Ages, which often rendered the original name unrecognizable and differed from modern academic sources. However, constantly reopening the same discussion may lead to the situation helpfully covered in our essay Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 22 October 2017 that members of this Wikiproject might be interested in. All are invited to participate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time we agree to rename the articles from Pope Name to just Name, with Name (pope) for those that need disambiguation. Example: change Pope John Paul II to John Paul II & Pope John XXIII to John XXIII (pope). Take note for example, that we have Elizabeth II & not Queen Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the problem that would suggest disapproving your proposal is that in comparison with royalties such as Elizabeth, the popes' names are often shared with a more vast amount of other ecclesiastical dignitaries of varying traditions in time and space.

talk

) 22:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see no need to change this. The "Pope X" format clearly and ambiguously identifies the subject as a past or present pope. I am aware of no circumstances that have changed to make this "the time". –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I often edit Pope-related articles (and I have edited or created most Antipope-related categories), though I am not a member of WikiProject Catholicism. In several cases the "Pope" is necessary for disambiguation purposes from other historical figures. Some examples:

• Pope Linus. A 1st-century pope, using a Greek name which appears frequently in Greek mythology. The most notable figure with this name is Linus of Thrace, a legendary musician of disputed historicity and reputed son of Apollo. He is supposedly the creator of the "linos", a type of musical lamentation that resembles the dirge.
• Pope Anacletus. A 1st-century pope whose name is the Greek term (in both ancient and modern Greek) for being "recalled". His name is also rendered as "Cletus" in some sources, and might be a variation of the Greek name Cleitus. The most notable person of this name Cleitus the Black, a military officer under Alexander the Great. Cleitus famously rescued the life of Alexander in a battle, but was later killed by Alexander in a drunken quarrel between them.
• Alexander I of Moldavia (a monarch primarily known for his internal reforms, and for switching from a vassal to an invader of Poland), Alexander I of Georgia (the last king of a unified Georgia, as his kingdom was already fragmenting during his reign), Alexander I Jagiellon (a monarch who created a crown union of Lithuania and Poland), Alexander I of Kakheti (a monarch whose diplomatic skills secured the kingdom from external threats, but who ended up murdered by one of his own sons), Alexander I of Russia (one of the combatants in the Napoleonic Wars and the key founder of the Holy Alliance), Alexander I of Bulgaria (the first monarch of modern Bulgaria), Alexander I of Serbia (the first constitutional monarch of Serbia, and primarily known for his assassination), Alexander I of Greece (a monarch with a brief-three year reign during World War I and the Greco-Turkish War), and Alexander I of Yugoslavia
  (a monarch primarily known for abolishing the constitution, reigning as a dictator, and for his assassination getting filmed and recorded). Most of them have a better claim to fame than the Pope.
• Pope Telesphorus. A pope with a Greek (and pagan) name. Telesphorus was the name of a Greek god or demigod, to whom people prayed for recovery from an illness. There is also a historical general called Telesphorus. The general was a disloyal vassal of Antigonus I Monophthalmus, who briefly attempted to create his own splinter state.
• Pope Hyginus. Same name with Gaius Julius Hyginus (often called just "Hyginus" in sources), a Roman mythologist, astronomer, and professional librarian, whose works are still extant (not all of them). Hyginus the writer is famous as one of our few primary sources on ancient mythology and astronomy.
• a Roman admiral (served under emperor Nero, primarily known for assassinating the empress Agrippina the Younger on Nero's orders), and an anti-Roman rebel and pirate chief (primarily known for destroying Vespasian's Roman fleet in a successful ambush). There is also a genus of wasps called Anicetus
  , but it is poorly covered in Wikipedia.
• Pope Soter. A Pope with a Greek name, though a bit peculiar. Soter is a Greek epithet which means "saviour", and typically applied to various Pagan gods, and a number of Hellenistic monarchs who were credited with saving one or more cities from destruction. Christians applied the term "Soter" to Jesus, considering him as their saviour. Soter does not typically appear as a personal name, though the modern Greek name Sotirios is a linguistic derivative.
• Pope Eleutherius. A Pope with a Greek name. "Eleutherius" means "Liberator", and was typically an epithet of the god Dionysus. Christians adopted the name, and we have articles on multiple Saints, bishops, patriarchs, and even a Byzantine Exarch who are all called Eleutherius.
• Victor I, Duke of Ratibor (a Prussian noble, politician, and military officer). "Victor I" is also the abbreviation used for the original version of the Victor-class submarine, a class of nuclear-powered submarines of the Soviet Union. Dimadick (talk
  ) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

So you're opposed? Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Can't see any gain except consistency with other types of article, but there will clearly be newly-introduced inconsistency within the papal bios (see above). Bound to cause lots of work and confusion. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not broken. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Note that
  Elizabeth I of England. There is no good equivalent for Popes (you could invent "Francis of the Holy See", but that would be wildly at odds with common usage) so 'Pope' as a prefix instead seems the best option. TSP (talk
  ) 11:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

For those interested, please join this discussion about categorisation of the Deuterocanonical books. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion taking place at

The wikipedia article on Amoris Laetitia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoris_laetitia) is highly biased in favor of critics of the document. Criticisms of the document are given a prominent place and in fact take up more of the article than the actual content of Amoris Laetitia. Most of the links are to publications that are critical of AL (NCRegister, EWTN's "World Over").

I think this should be a high priority for WikiProject Catholicism because it strikes at the very unity of our Church. I recommend WikiProject Catholicism take control of the article on Amoris Laetitia, rewrite it to focus on the actual content of the document, and leave the controversy for another article.

Happy to discuss.

PluniaZ (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have made a substantial rewrite of the article on Amoris laetitia. I would appreciate this community's feedback. PluniaZ (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Catholicism

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Many of these are easily modified, but some need someone with a geographical bent. See

talk

) 18:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at them. This sort of example is why we need specialists to help with the process.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)