Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Catholicism / Canon law (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconWikiProject Catholicism is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
 This page is supported by the Canon Law task force.
 
Catholicism task list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2018-11-13


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg
Part of a series on the
WikiProject Catholicism
Última Cena - Juan de Juanes.jpg
General information
Main templates
Convention proposals
Essays
Related
046CupolaSPietro.jpg Catholic Church portal (Talk)

Categorization and defaultsort[edit]

I please someone to have a look at this discussion.

I've categorized a great number of WP articles into categories like "cardinals created by Pope..." or "Saints canonized by Pope...". But I didn't change the related template:defaultsort where it wasn't setted by the suggested surname order. Therefore, some elements in the related categories aren't ordered by surname.

Are they correct? Do I have to correct their defaultsort manually or it is possible to do so through a somesort of bot? The problem existed before my last edits, given that defaultsort template controlled how the WP title was indexed by all the categories it contains. Hope someone helps.

Catholic vs Roman Catholic[edit]

The use of the term 'Roman' in the English language dates back to anti-Catholic England and was used as derogatory as 'Popish' to deem the Catholic Church as a beast of Rome rather than a universal institution. Indeed, it is not used in other languages of Catholic countries, and indeed it is used less frequently even today in the English speaking world.

Should 'Roman' be removed from pages such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lyon, since it is not the official name, nor is it used by Catholics?

For articles where there is conflict due to other Cahtolic dioceses, such as Diocese of Chicago, the 'Roman' Diocese should be renamed to the more appropriate 'Latin' Diocese, since that is the liturgical rite, or default to no qualifier at all.

Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the general usage has been that "Roman Catholic" denotes someone or something of the Latin Church, as opposed to "Syro-Malabar Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic" of the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is lots of consensus and discussion behind this. See Talk:Catholic Church archives. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I mentioned that. But it is a misnomer in many ways. IN that case, it should be the 'Latin Archdiocese' of Chicago, not Roman. Let alone that many non-Latin Catholics make up the Archidiocese of Chicago, for example. Eccekevin (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Eccekevin, except that if you take a survey of the official websites and materials of dioceses, they self-identify as "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX". Non-Latin Catholics are not members of the Archdiocese of Chicago and not under jurisdiction of the Archbishop. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It depends. Non-Latin Catholics can easily just attend a Latin Mass and never attend any of any other rite. And I just looked at the website of the AD of Chicago, and could not find any mention of the word Roman. In reality, it is only used in English and has its roots in Anglican anti-Catholicism, hence why it is used rarely nowadays. It is also incorrect since many Catholic institutions and individuals do not necessarily see themselves as Latin Catholics, but as Catholics.
As outlined in the page Roman Catholic (term), such term is rooted in anti-Catholicism, like its synonyms 'Popish Romish' and 'Romish Catholic', and was invented by Protestants to deny the idea that the Church of Rome had universal reach. Eccekevin (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
So what? Please read about Reappropriation. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself recognizes that the correct term is the Catholic Church, and not Roman Catholic Church, since indeed the latter is a redirect. Eccekevin (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Eccekevin, Wikipedia recognizes that they are both correct and the more inclusive term is "Catholic Church" because it includes all 24 sui iuris Churches. "Roman Catholic" on Wikipedia is typically used for the Latin Church only, and it is for this and many other reasons that the article remains at "Catholic Church". The article can only be in one place at a time, and the redirects provide other, valid, names for it. There is nothing wrong with using "Roman Catholic Church" on Wikipedia. Please stop removing it. You are believing #fakenews. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTBROKEN, "Roman Catholic Church" is a valid link target, and your attempts to "remove redirect" are not appreciated Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
But the onus is on you do explain why it should use a redirect instead of a direct link. For example, non-Enlgish church buildings, exist in countries where the term 'Roman Catholic' has never been used and the Catholic Church is the only church that is references as Catholic. Using the term Roman is unnecessary, imprecise, and unofficial. Eccekevin (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Eccekevin, WP:IDHT WP:IDHT WP:IDHT Elizium23 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23: let me start afresh. I am sorry if you see my edits as disruptive, they are all in good faith. I started by trying to start a discussion here. I am not your enemy. I am a contributor of this project and my goal is to enrich Wikipedia, particularly on this topic. You'll see in my history that I have been a productive user. I recognize and admire your work on Wikipedia and on this project in particular. I am sorry if I offended you. I truly believe that the term RC, which is anti-Catholic propaganda, has and is being misused. In particular, it is a term that solely exists in English because of Anglican and English protestant propaganda and I simply wanted to start a discussion on whether it should be indiscriminately used every time instead of the more accurate Catholic (in particular in countries where this term does not nor never existed). Once more, I believe we are friends, not enemies. Sorry if you see this as confrontational, I apologize for my role in making it so. Eccekevin (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Eccekevin, I disagree completely with your assertion that "Roman Catholic" is a misnomer. The rite that we use is the Roman Rite, not the Latin Rite, because it originated in Rome, just as the Byzantine Rite is so-called because it originated in Byzantium. Also, I have seen plenty of signs in front of parish churches and chanceries with the phrase "Roman Catholic" on them, and I have NEVER seen a sign in front of a church or chancery with the term "Latin Catholic" on it. Thus, "Roman Catholic" is clearly the standard use, at least in the English-speaking world. Norm1979 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Should "Roman Catholic" be changed to "Catholic", and in what cases? Elizium23 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As the user that gave start to this discussion, I'd like to lay out my thoughts. I'd like to thank Elizium23 for initiating this RfC. To begin with, it's useful to read the page Roman Catholic (term). This terms extist solely in English (which does not per se disqualifies it) but reminds us that it harbors views and sentiments of the Catholic Church that come from cultures that are not historically Catholic. In this sense, this term is an exonym. It is also important to remember that this is not an official term, and the Catholic Church as an institution describes itself as 'One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic' Church and those are the only official terms. Roman is indeed a post-Reformation adjective that was born in Protestant circles to deny the universality of the Church and make it local in character. Synonyms were Romish, Popish, Papist, etc... The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain the term "Roman Catholic Church", referring to the church only by names such as "Catholic Church".
That said, the term has a history of its own and as pointed out by Elizium23 it could be a case of Reappropriation.
So when should it be used on Wikipedia?
Dioceses? The standard right now it to call all Latin-rite Dioceses as 'Roman Catholic Diocese of X'. But this is technically incorrect. The Annuario Pontificio and all official publications omit any qualifier at all. Cupich is the Archbishop of Chicago, not the . Indeed, GCatholic, an excellent resource, uses the technical term of 'Matropolitan Archiocese of Chicago' while it has qualifier for non-Roman rite dioceses (Syro-Malabar Diocese of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/ztho2.htm). If you wanted to separate it from other Catholic dioceses with different rites, the technical term is Latin Archidiocese, not Roman Archdiocese, since it is a diocese part of the Latin Church.
Individuals: Most Catholics refers to themselves as such, without a qualifier. In particular, this is true for non-English speaking Catholics.
Institutions: Many institutions, such as schools, universities, or hospitals, are affiliated or owned by the Catholics Church. But not being themselves liturgical institutions, the distinction between Latin rites and Eastern rites is meaningless. Indeed the page List of Catholic universities and colleges in the United States is appropriately names, but many institutions it lists are called 'Roman Catholic'. In here the term Roman has no specific or technical term.
Church buildings: while Church buildings do have a liturgical rite, once again the 'Roman' is not the accurate term for such rite. Calling a church building, especially one not in the UK or USA, 'Roman Catholic' in incorrect and confusing. For example: the Italian San Giorgio in Braida, Verona is defined as having the denomination as: Roman Catholic. Not only is this not the technical term, but it is a redirect to the page Catholic Church. Why not skip the redirect and link directly to Catholic Church? Especially cause the term Roman has no meaning in Italian context.
A better way is, in my opinion, what other wikis due (for example the Spanish or Italian wikies - not coincidentally from Catholic countries): they have denomination: Catholic Church (or just Catholic) of Roman Rite, if needed. This is often omitted because it does need clarification, or because the diocesan attribution also covers it.
In common speech, the term Roman Catholic is used far less than it used to be, also owning to the emancipation of Catholics in America, and the fact that the terminology is less dictated by the Protestant majority.
Eccekevin (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
You are correct in some part interpreting the usage of the term. As such it is perhaps a method for enwiki to distance itself from the source; not a bad thing? It can be interesting to discuss this. I would like to add, it is not unique to English. Here is just one example from the relatively small Catholic Church in Norway, where they take 5 to discuss the term, and not distancing themselves from the term, rather cement the meaning in history of the Catholic Church. (Reappropriation) As such it is interesting to document the history of the term to understand the Catholic Church relation to the term. Regarding the redirects, can you please provide the examples as that list article is quite long. I think I agree about Diocese, but please be more clear about the rites as it is quite technical Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Elezium23 and Eccekevin, people do sometimes get sloppy in normal conversation, but use in a forum such as this should be precise: "Roman Catholic" when referring to an entity (diocese, parish, etc.) or practice of the Roman Rite (Latin Church) and "Catholic" when referring to an entity or practice of the whole Catholic Church. The distinction could be important in certain situations. For example, some cities are sees of both a Roman Catholic diocese and a diocese of a sui juris ritual church. These structures do evolve in due course, so it will spare us a LOT of pain down the road if we keep things differentiated in this way.
There's another very important issue at stake here. What happens if a body such as the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) or a similar body returns to the full communion of the Catholic Church as a sui juris church of a western rite? The titles of its dioceses could be identical to the titles Roman Catholic dioceses, especially if its dioceses are renamed to conform to standard Catholic practice. With such a development, the distinction between "Roman Catholic" and "Polish Catholic" (or whatever name such a body acquires in the reconciliation) will be critical for disambiguation. We do ourselves a big favor by anticipating such possibilities. Norm1979 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment We should use Catholic. This is not "sloppy". This is the common usage. Even in academic circles. People refer to the "Catholic vote" and on and on. Here [1] is a huge showing of how every discussion on the Catholic vote, Catholics in the US, and on and on and on uses Catholic. The opening point that many feel the insistence on adding "Roman" is just as pejorative as using the term "Popish" is also well taken. Catholic is what is used in common speech, in most sources, and should be what we use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think you've surveyed enough sources, because I can come up with a large crop of e.g. American dioceses which self-identify as "Roman Catholic". Pejorative, my foot! Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "Catholic" refers to the Catholic Church in general, and "Roman Catholic" (in common parlance) refers to the (Roman Rite) Latin Church. "Roman Catholic" is a subset of "Catholic." If the context pertains to Roman Catholics specifically (e.g. dioceses), say "Roman Catholic." If the context pertains to Catholics generally, say "Catholic." It's not that hard! The only change worth discussing along these lines is whether to change "Roman Catholic" to "Latin Catholic," since the latter is more technically correct, though the former is more common. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In the context of, say, America, it makes no difference. In the context of England, Roman Catholic should be used, to differentiate from the Church of England - which also considers itself Catholic, though not Roman Catholic; but the English Church was Roman Catholic previously, but it severed ties with Rome.

Claims of "Roman Catholic" being pejorative are baseless. Just because England WAS anti-Catholic does not make the proper name for the Catholic Church pejorative.

There are plenty of Catholics that proudly call themselves Roman Catholic. As does the Church itself.

I cant help wondering if the real motivation behind these absurd claims of Roman Catholic being pejorative is actually to delegitimise other churches by asserting that the Roman church is the ONLY true 'Catholic' church and all other churches are false. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  • No the reason to make this statement is that it is by far the most common for to say Catholic. We should follow common use and this clearly is the common use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment" This topic rears its ugly head every couple of years. There is simply no justification for mass changes of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic"; any change needs to be carefully done to avoid creating unnecessary ambiguity. The idea that "Roman Catholic" is offensive or inappropriate does not hold water. Many, if not most, parishes and dioceses directly refer to themselves at "Roman Catholic", and systematically changing articles about these entities would be an editorial judgement directly at odds with the reliable sources about the diocese or parish. See Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? for a summary of this topic. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

When I am categorising clergy there is a well established heirarchy of Category:Italian Roman Catholic clergy which extends back to the 11th century. I am a humble categoriser and know little about church history. From a categorising point of view it makes sense to differentiate different churches. But does it make sense to take that back to the 3rd century? or shall I call these very ancient clergy something else?Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Apostolic writings of pope Pius XII needing attention[edit]

The articles in Category:Pope Pius XII apostolic writings need attention: they must be corrected (grammar, MoS, italics, etc.), and an infobox (Template:Infobox papal document) should be added. Veverve (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I decided to do it myself. Veverve (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Catholic Diocese of Helsinki § Requested move 30 December 2020[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Diocese of Helsinki § Requested move 30 December 2020. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Catholicism in Japan[edit]

I'm working on saving Hasekura Tsunenaga from being demoted from FA status. A number of the references that are needed have to do with Catholicism, including records from Spain, Italy, and other places in Europe. I've made a list at Talk:Hasekura Tsunenaga#Refs needed, and any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pope infoboxes[edit]

I come to request your input on whether we should include two fields in the infoboxes of popes. They, of course, use {{Infobox Christian leader}} and some of the papal articles include diocese = [[Diocese of Rome]] and see = [[Holy See]]. See, for example, Pope Leo I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is not uniform, but it seems like useful information - yes? And I think we should come to a uniform decision so that all articles may be treated equally. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a useful thing to include, especially if we consider the scope of the infobox Christian leaders rather than popes specifically. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ad orientem[edit]

Ad orientem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Recent revisions to this article may require attention by others. Elizium23 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Will have a look. Vikram Vincent 06:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ligatures in the names of dioceses[edit]

@Jdcompguy: Hi, I understand that Ecclesiastical Latin may use ligatures as standard, but WP:RS are another thing. Catholic-Hierarchy does not use them, and vatican.va does not use them. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume websites don't use them for technical reasons (namely, keyboards don't have Latin ligatures). Libreria Editrice Vaticana (which I take to be an authority on ecclesial Latin) uses them consistently in their published books (at least, in the books that I own). Jdcompguy (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The term isn't in dispute; the question is whether to use ligatures in the term ("Dioecesis" vs. "Diœcesis"). MOS:LIGATURE is rather clear: "Ligatures should be used in languages in which they are standard (hence Moreau's last words were clin d'œil is preferable to Moreau's last words were clin d'oeil)." I was applying the MOS based on the usage of the printed books of the sole present-day authority on ecclesial Latin, which is the Vatican. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I have quoted you from WP:DIACRITICS which is also part of the guideline we're working with. The Vatican website includes Chinese, Arabic, and Polish; they don't seem to have trouble typing anything, and we are not here to second-guess a webmaster's Unicode proficiency but to reflect what is given in the preponderance of reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The use or non-use of a ligature is a stylistic variable. Unlike diacritics, which are different, and which can affect the meaning of the word in certain languages, ligatures do not affect the meaning or the content of the word. This is a language-level style issue, not a content issue, and therefore not a source issue. Ligatures, by definition, are stylized combinations of two letters. Therefore, it is not uncommon that the letters of those ligatures will be found separate, even in reliable sources, for the simple reason that typing separate letters is easier. The MOS example is the French phrase "clin d'œil." You will just as readily find "clin d'oeil"—which doesn't change the meaning—in reliable sources. In spite of this, MOS:LIGATURE says that the ligature version is preferred. And the Manual of Style is very clear on this point: on Wikipedia, ligatures should be used where standard. The Vatican is, as I said, the sole present-day authority on ecclesial Latin, and they are very particular about using ligatures in their published ecclesial Latin books. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I have requested a 3rd Opinion per WP:3O and I agree to be bound and abide by the opinion given, if it is definitive. Elizium23 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: {{{1}}} {{subst:signature}} 

From wikipedia legibility guidelines: "Eye tracker studies support the theory that increasing complexity of shapes reduces legibility. ... Freestanding letters are easier to recognize than ones with adjacent elements; this is known as crowding effect." Because these pages are written in English and not in Latin, and because there doesn't seem to be a gain to adding ligatures other than aligning with ecclesiastical convention, we should give preference to English readability and not use ligatures other than words like piñata or cliché. DHHornfeldt (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@DHHornfeldt: Thank you for weighing in. The examples you give ("piñata" and "cliché") use diacritics, not ligatures. Do you understand the distinction between the two concepts, and are you familiar with how the MOS handles each? Jdcompguy (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jdcompguy: A third party opinion is required to be neutral, not an expert. Fortunately, I don't need to be an expert to point out the Wikipedia Legibility page. It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legibility and discusses the "ability to distinguish one letter from the other." Please stick to the issues and not the user in an effort to reach consensus. DHHornfeldt (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@DHHornfeldt: I was asking if you were familiar with the relevant MOS because this is an MOS application issue, and I am trying to keep the discussion on-topic. The MOS expresses a preference for ligatures where appropriate. If you disagree with the MOS because of what a mainspace article says about legibility, that's fine, but this isn't the appropriate forum to argue for MOS changes. I am simply trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines as written. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

New legislation[edit]

Hi folks, it's a new year and we have a new law from Pope Francis. The main article is

and we have activity happening in the following related articles:

So please join in and at least watchlist these articles or contribute to the ongoing discussion... there is a lot of misinformation going through would-be "reliable sources" about what the change of one word hath wrought. Elizium23 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Basilian bishops?[edit]

I've noticed that there are many Eastern Catholic bishops in the category Order of Saint Basil the Great. Would it be more appropriate to create a category such as Category:Basilian bishops or Category:Order of Saint Basil bishops? The only issue is that the tree Category:Roman Catholic bishops by religious order makes it seem as if all the sub-Categories apply to Roman Catholic bishops, although Category:Redemptorist bishops in particular contains many Eastern Catholic bishops. I was unsure about this topic so I would like to have a discussion here first. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Inter&anthro, couple of things. Most religious orders are divided according to sui iuris church, but there are exceptions. I am not sure about the details of the Order of St. Basil, but the EC orders may be separately governed. In any case, we should endeavour to keep EC bishops out of RC categories because the presence of a RC category implies the need for an EC parallel tree, however leafy that tree may become. Elizium23 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I suppose I would not object if the religious orders were parented by both "RC bishops by religious order" and "EC bishops by religious order" because they're simply grandparents and not really displayed in the article anyway. We would sacrifice a little clarity and precision, but it would be convenient. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I wish to again register my distaste for the whole Catholic category hierarchy and reiterate my plea for it to die in a fire per WP:TNT. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There are Eastern Catholic bishops such as Nil Lushchak and Milan Lach who belong to religious orders (Francisans and Jesuits respectfully) that are traditionally thought of as Roman Catholic. I was thinking that maybe the best option would be to move Category:Roman Catholic bishops by religious order to Category:Catholic bishops by religious order to clear things up (although that might also introduce to problem if Old Catholics or Anglo Catholics should be included). Either way that is probably a discussion that if it happens should probably be on a CFD rather than here. I was planning to see how this discussion goes though if anyone else has additional opinions/proposals. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Inter&anthro, we could have three branches. One for RC bishops, one for EC bishops, and a shared one for both RC/EC bishops. Since, as I said, most religious orders are divided and unique among the EC, we could accurately categorize most people into EC and RC branches. Shared orders such as Jesuit, Franciscan, Benedictine, can go in the shared branch for categorization without prejudice. That would be an ideal solution within the framework we've already been dealt here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Churches by century[edit]

There is an editor - Vami IV - currently overhauling Category:Churches by century. I would like more input on this large-scale process to form strong consensus to do the right thing. Please see the discussion at Talk:Old St. Peter's Basilica#Defaultsort for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § RFC: sortkeys for church articles[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § RFC: sortkeys for church articles. Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Succession boxes for auxiliary bishops and others[edit]

Auxiliary bishops and others without a line of succession: should they have succession boxes? (Yes/No) Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • No there is no single "office" for auxiliary bishops and they do not actually succeed one another, so creating a succession box for them conveys no good information and clutters up the article. It gives a false impression to the reader that the office is succeeded. Auxiliary bishops can be none or four or six in a diocese, who succeeds whom? Elizium23 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Elizium23: Incorrect. Take the Archdiocese of Toronto for example. It is divided into four pastoral regions, each headed by an auxiliary bishop. After Wayne Kirkpatrick (auxiliary responsible for the Northern Pastoral Region) was appointed to another diocese in December 2019 and consecrated in February 2020, Ivan Camilleri was appointed shortly thereafter in November 2020. Once again, your Americentrism is showing … I'm frankly not surprised that you are trying to impose that worldview on every biography re RC bishops you come across, regardless of where they come from and the geographical specifics of their dioceses. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    Canon Law doesn't have "pastoral regions" while the Archdiocese of Los Angeles does; it's a local innovation and not something that confers a stable "office" to an aux. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Elizium23: "Canon Law doesn't have "pastoral regions"" Wrong again. Birmingham in Great Britain is also divided into regions (called "Areas" there). And they clearly explain that "Under Church Law the Parishes are grouped into 18 Deaneries which themselves are grouped into three Areas - each being overseen by an Auxiliary Bishop responsible for the Area." Or are they operating under a different church law? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And debunking your second false claim that this arrangement is "not something that confers a stable "office" to an aux.", the new auxiliary bishops of Birmingham were appointed on the same day that the resignation of the outgoing auxiliary bishop was accepted. Quite an orderly and stable succession to the objective eye … —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes – per my examples above. Some of the times the office is succeeded (e.g. Toronto), other times they are not. For the latter situation, there is always the "vacant" parameter available. Judging from Elizium23's edits (like this one to a 2.5 year sede vacante), I doubt whether he knows how or when to employ that parameter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No - While an Auxiliary Bishop is often requested by the ordinary, their appointment is by the Pope alone. The formal document of appointment never says anything about subdivisions within a diocese - it names their titular see and that they are an Auxiliary of where-ever. Dcheney (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, and so we do, fundamentally already have succession boxes for auxiliaries: their titular sees. I am not sure, but it may be customary that the same diocese gets the same pool of titulars as auxes are assigned. Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It does happen sometimes (especially when the titular see has a relationship to the diocese), but typically Auxiliaries retire so the titular see of a previous Auxiliary may not be available yet. Dcheney (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Yes — provided it can be shown that the office has a stable line of succession through reliable sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No I don't think a succession box is necessary as long as they're listed on the page for the titular see. That, I think, is both consistent and broadly applicable, while succession to a posting in a diocese would appear to be primarily a matter of local administration. Some diocesan appointments may be geographical while others might be subject- oriented, eg. Catholic Charities, Faith Formation, Pastoral Planning, etc. People can be shuffled between assignments, or the Ordinary may decide to reconfigure vicariates. It might also cause some confusion when individuals are translated from one diocese to another. Manannan67 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Manannan67: "as long as they're listed on the page for the titular see" – there lies the problem; most titular sees do not have their own article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No. On the level of universal law, the position of auxiliary bishop in a given diocese is not a stable office with a line of succession. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Pastoral regions[edit]

Do pastoral regions exist under canon law? I'm not certain. The archdiocese of Los Angeles has them (§ 1.2.1.1 L.A. Archdiocesal Admin Handbook). In canon law, Ecclesiastical regions are something else; and in this targeted search I haven't found anything that fits the bill. This page discusses apostolic succession generally. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, not in universal law. Particular law is a whole other story. (Arch)bishops can legislate what they want. That won't affect how we denote auxiliaries here on Wikipedia.
The term Bloom is thinking of is "Deaneries". Deaneries exist under Canon Law and are used, for example, in my home diocese. The head of a deanery is a dean, also known as a vicar forane. This is not an episcopal vicar and not a vicar general. In Los Angeles, the auxes are all vicars general. Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Elizium23: stop putting words into my mouth. The page from the Archdiocese of Birmingham in Great Britain] (which I already cited above) explains that deaneries and areas are covered by church law. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
No, pastoral regions do not exist under universal canon law. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: sede vacante in succession boxes[edit]

Should sede vacante be indicated in bishops' succession boxes? How long does the vacancy need to last? Should the extraordinary nature of the vacancy be supported by reliable secondary sources? Elizium23 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes – per the Template:S-vac which provides a header replacement for "sedevacante" instead of merely "vacant". As well as the sede vacante article, which has a table for papal vacancy periods in excess of a year. A vacancy of 2+ years seems fair to describe a see as vacant. Using the term "extraordinary" to describe the nature of a vacancy in an article violates MOS:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No: sede vacante is usually only recognised in the public domain with papal vacancies. It is not notified to the faithful nor the public in the case of other dioceses. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No - sede vacante should not be indicated unless WP:RS indicate there was an extraordinary incident requiring an extended vacancy. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Short description proposal[edit]

I hereby propose a uniform short description for all Pope articles thus:

  • For bishops of Rome prior to 1054:
    • Nth bishop of Rome who reigned XXX–YYY [,venerated as a saint/blessed]
  • For bishops of Rome after 1054 (East-West schism)
    • Nth pope of the Catholic Church who reigned XXXX-YYYY [,venerated as a saint/blessed]
  • Overhauls of short description are in progress now. Please comment and have your voice heard. Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support standardizing short descriptions, as the current ones are arbitrary. However, I would replace "who reigned" with just "from" for brevity, and drop the ordinal. Shortdescs are for distinguishing similarly-named articles, and I suspect few people are going to be specifically looking for Clement, the the 183rd pope, without also knowing the date. You might be able to get away with "pope of the Catholic Church" → "Catholic pope" as well.
    I also think that we should keep this open to exceptions in cases where there's something particularly notable about a particular pope. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I support the comments and suggestions made by Vahurzpu. Chewings72 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose dropping "who reigned" due to the ambiguity inherent in "from" - are these birth-death dates? Elizium23 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity if you immediately prior brought up them being pope/bishop of Rome... I can't see how "10th bishop of Rome from 1000–1040" could ever be read as their birth-death dates. Aza24 (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Aza24. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

New article opportunity[edit]

References

  1. ^ Mares, Courtney. "Pope Francis proclaims World Day for Grandparents and the Elderly". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 2021-01-31.

Use of "ordination" template[edit]

Should the {{ordination}} template be used where applicable (bishops, popes)? Elizium23 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes. Ordinations are three distinct ranks in the Catholic Church, and each one has a corresponding property in Wikidata. There is no way to "fake it" using the {{Infobox Christian leader}} template which does not have enough fields or the proper connections to Wikidata. Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I do have a question about "Episcopal succession" - can that be auto-filled from WikiData? I have to admit I'm curious to see if my website comes up as a source often for this template in the future ;-) Dcheney (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, at least in the interim. It may make more sense to move {{Ordination}}'s features into {{Infobox Christian leader}}. Or at least duplicate them there; I suppose various notable ordained people are not necessarily leaders, and might be authors, etc., so the separate template may still need to exist. But it would be nice to not have additional "template cruft" in the article if a single infobox could be made to handle it, at bios that do use that infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    If the concern is having multiple boxes on a page, then the "module" parameter may be used to embed {{ordination}} inside {{Infobox Christian leader}} so they appear as one. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This sounds sensible.Eccekevin (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it sounds sensible. Can we see how that would look, please? Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Surtsicna, User:Elizium23/sandbox Elizium23 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Elizium23. Frankly, it looks crammed in. What I like about it is that it is collapsed, which presumably would not be the case if the fields were duplicated the way SMcCandlish suggested. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but what's the status of adding parameters to the {{Infobox Christian leader}} infobox? Eccekevin (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If it works inside |module=, I don't have any objection to doing it that way.
  • No to any kind of mandated use of any template across thousands of pages. Infoboxes have never been mandated either. No to the addition of information that does not appear (sourced) in the text. Yes to the use of the template when there is a lot of information about ordination to be presented and when the template makes that easy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Because we have adopted Catholic-Hierarchy as WP:RS, ordination, consecrator, and succession information is sourceable for just about anyone this side of Scipione Rebiba. Elizium23 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Surtsicna has a good point; if the page isn't using infoboxes at all, this shouldn't be seen as an excuse to add an ordination-specific one. (Even if I think the "down with infoboxes" position is doomed in the long run, the current site-wide consensus is that they're optional for most things, especially bios, and their inclusion/exclusion is determined on an article-by-article basis).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Templates are used on a article-by-article basis, there is no reason to not use them as the above editor says. The word in the RFC is applicable, does not mean this is mandatory. Swordman97 talk to me 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Lists of Catholic popes to Category:Lists of popes?[edit]

Hi. I noticed that Category:Lists of Catholic popes is named differently from List of popes, which also is specifically about Catholic ones, and Pope has the primary topic as Catholic popes. Shouldn't this category be moved, or am I missing something? Thanks, DemonDays64 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

DemonDays64, we should probably move it to List of Catholic popes in deference to the Copts, et. al. Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Elizium23: but the Pope article refers specifically to the Catholic Popes, a pretty clear primary topic; the Pope is very prominent outside of just religion, e.g. he's always meeting world leaders. The other two lists of popes are of the ones in two movements with a total ~14 million people vs. about 1.3 billion baptized Catholics. I think the list article could be moved to just popes, probably? DemonDays64 (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

New disambiguation page[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton § Requested move 27 January 2021[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton § Requested move 27 January 2021. Elizium23 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Vatican City § Sovereign or not?[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Vatican City § Sovereign or not?. Elizium23 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Which titles comes from which.[edit]

Interesting discussion at Pope Francis article. The question: Does being Bishop of Rome, make one Pope? Or is it the other way, being Pope makes one Bishop of Rome. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome. "Papa" is an informal title: literally "Daddy". This is like asking whether being ordained "Father" makes one a priest. Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a discussion that you've been involved with, btw :) Concerning the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Traditionalist Catholicism[edit]

Regarding {{Traditionalist Catholicism}}, I believe that its entries should be alphabetized for uniformity. Most of them already are. Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novis-M: please justify your rationale for non-alphabetizing random order. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church → Titles of Mary[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church → Titles of Mary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reassesment of Thomas (bishop of Finland)[edit]

Thomas (bishop of Finland), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cardinals[edit]

There are a lot of articles on cardinals referenced to Miranda's The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Looking today at Astorgio Agnensi I found that the FIU link was dead - last year they changed the URLs, and they are all now found here. I updated the Agnensi article, which ought, I would have thought, be at "Agnesi" since that is how the major refs have it, with Agnensi and Agensi (as in the illustration) as variants/redirects. Just a heads-up for editors in this area. Davidships (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

For those more familiar with them, wouldn't this be a good case for creating a template? Dcheney (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Brelle[edit]

I recently created an article for Archbishop Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Brelle. He crowned Henri Christophe of Haiti. It is has the potential to be a great article. Best, Thriley (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Congregation of the Holy Cross bishops?[edit]

I believe that there are enough articles about bishops in Category:Congregation of Holy Cross to warrent creating a separate category for bishops of that religious order. The question I have is what name should the category have? Most of the similar categories have either a condensed name or a nickname, for example it is not the Category:Society of Jesus bishops, rather it is the Category:Jesuit bishops, etc. Is there any similar name that the congregation of the Holy Cross have or am I making a non-issue out of this? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Holy Cross Fathers" is all I have, which isn't much better. Dcheney (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&oldid=1009339807"