|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A de facto renaming of this article is taking place. @ Bealtainemí: has created a redirect named Post-Vatican II Mass (fair enough) and has begun to replace links pointing to Mass of Paul VI with the new redirect. I am not cool with this. We agreed that the current name of this article is the most appropriate one. Therefore there is no basis to arbitrarily begin renaming it per the failed proposal. Elizium23 ( talk) 09:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Bealtainemí: could you explain this and this? Veverve ( talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Dear Veverve, since you object, I'll revert. I thought the more common name is the more appropriate. Bealtainemí ( talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies since I'm not sure how this works, but has the name "Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite" been considered as a title for thr page? It's a much more common name, and it's technically more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozone742 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen any reference to this notion in Traditionis custodes. That letter generally refers to the forms of the Roman Rite by their particular missals. I.e. 1962 and 1970 missals. Ozone742 ( talk) 01:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the quote, but where does he actually dismiss the terms that Benedict XVI? Just because someone took it that way doesn't really mean anything. Beyond that, I haven't seen him ever use the term "Mass of Paul VI." Instead he just seems to refer to it as the 1970 missal. It's certainly not a slap in the face to the other forms found in the Latin Church but that's a separate discussion. Ozone742 ( talk) 01:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the liturgy used in 95% of parishes, religious communities, missions, etc. of the Catholic Church is without a doubt the most commonly-used, and it bears mention in the article so that people who are reading who haven't the faintest clue what different Masses look like, can differentiate the most commonly-used liturgy from less commonly-used ones. Elizium23 ( talk) 12:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Jahaza: when do you expect to have finished your research on this section? What is unsourced should be removed, as per WP:V. Veverve ( talk) 22:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not the collaborative process through which the encyclopedia is supposed to work: it definetely is. Removing unsourced claims is the best way to ensure WP:V and to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS. You must have a very good reason to oppose the removal of unsourced material.
I added a source and you removed the sourced material: my bad, the source you added does source more than one line
you wrote falsely in your edit summary that I stated that I did not intend to add any additional sources; yet you stated:
It's not just up to me to do the work.
You
wrote: much of what you're saying isn't there is in fact there
. This is false. There is no mention of any of those information apart from the last one. Otherwise, please tell me where those information are in the source.
Veverve (
talk)
09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Ozone742: you have removed sourced info and changed other info, despite the fact those info were sourced. Veverve ( talk) 01:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I take it that my correction ("published by him in 1970") is the right one to make, given the later sentence "The editions of the Mass of Paul VI Roman Missal (1970, 1975, 2002)..". Harfarhs ( talk) 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A de facto renaming of this article is taking place. @ Bealtainemí: has created a redirect named Post-Vatican II Mass (fair enough) and has begun to replace links pointing to Mass of Paul VI with the new redirect. I am not cool with this. We agreed that the current name of this article is the most appropriate one. Therefore there is no basis to arbitrarily begin renaming it per the failed proposal. Elizium23 ( talk) 09:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Bealtainemí: could you explain this and this? Veverve ( talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Dear Veverve, since you object, I'll revert. I thought the more common name is the more appropriate. Bealtainemí ( talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies since I'm not sure how this works, but has the name "Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite" been considered as a title for thr page? It's a much more common name, and it's technically more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozone742 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen any reference to this notion in Traditionis custodes. That letter generally refers to the forms of the Roman Rite by their particular missals. I.e. 1962 and 1970 missals. Ozone742 ( talk) 01:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the quote, but where does he actually dismiss the terms that Benedict XVI? Just because someone took it that way doesn't really mean anything. Beyond that, I haven't seen him ever use the term "Mass of Paul VI." Instead he just seems to refer to it as the 1970 missal. It's certainly not a slap in the face to the other forms found in the Latin Church but that's a separate discussion. Ozone742 ( talk) 01:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the liturgy used in 95% of parishes, religious communities, missions, etc. of the Catholic Church is without a doubt the most commonly-used, and it bears mention in the article so that people who are reading who haven't the faintest clue what different Masses look like, can differentiate the most commonly-used liturgy from less commonly-used ones. Elizium23 ( talk) 12:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Jahaza: when do you expect to have finished your research on this section? What is unsourced should be removed, as per WP:V. Veverve ( talk) 22:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not the collaborative process through which the encyclopedia is supposed to work: it definetely is. Removing unsourced claims is the best way to ensure WP:V and to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS. You must have a very good reason to oppose the removal of unsourced material.
I added a source and you removed the sourced material: my bad, the source you added does source more than one line
you wrote falsely in your edit summary that I stated that I did not intend to add any additional sources; yet you stated:
It's not just up to me to do the work.
You
wrote: much of what you're saying isn't there is in fact there
. This is false. There is no mention of any of those information apart from the last one. Otherwise, please tell me where those information are in the source.
Veverve (
talk)
09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Ozone742: you have removed sourced info and changed other info, despite the fact those info were sourced. Veverve ( talk) 01:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I take it that my correction ("published by him in 1970") is the right one to make, given the later sentence "The editions of the Mass of Paul VI Roman Missal (1970, 1975, 2002)..". Harfarhs ( talk) 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)