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. |
Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes (2nd nomination) Elizium23 ( talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 15#Category:Acts of Reparation the question of capitalization is being addressed; however, this led to a review of the acts of reparation article itself. I'm having serious doubts that this is a specific thing unto itself; it looks to me as though someone took a bunch of similarly named prayers and decided that they were a particular type of sacramental. I can find no evidence that anyone else thinks this way. If we could get some experts to come to the article/talk page and address the issue of sources which talk about this as a category I would appreciate it. Mangoe ( talk) 03:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Prelest (a Russian/Orthodox term for spiritual delusion) is a new article by a new editor that has at least some obvious issues of neutrality ( WP:NPOV) and reliable sourcing ( WP:RS). For example, the section on "Prelest and saints of the Roman Catholic Church" includes St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and St. Thomas à Kempis among those who were guilty of being in delusion and self-deception. It would be helpful for some knowledgable editors to separate the wheat from the chafe in this lengthy and well-cited (but not necessarily well-referenced) article, as I don't know where to begin. First Light ( talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article titled chorbishop is unclear about the question of whether a chorbishop in the Maronite church is or is not actually a Catholic bishop. That's not something that should be uncertain. 128.101.152.128 ( talk) 00:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, with Benedict's resignation, I have started the article on the next conclave. Canuck89 (what's up?) 11:43, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The Lent article has a {{ refimprove}} tag on it, which makes it ineligible to appear on WP:Selected anniversaries/February 13. I realize this is last-minute, but apparently the maintenance tag was just added recently. It appears this should be a relatively easy task, so hopefully someone can fix it up in time. I would do it myself, but I know barely anything about Catholicism/Christianity at all. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could help me fix whatever needs be fixed about the article on the next papal conclave. If anyone can suggest an alternative hook, that would be very appreciated as well. The article appears to be great DYK material and it would be a shame to waste it. Thanks, Surtsicna ( talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding whether legal immunity or possible prosecution is relevant in the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. It seems that us few editors in the discussion are going in circles. Could a few please add their comments as to its relevance? The section is Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI#Legal Immunity but it is already about two screens down to the end of the discussion. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 13:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
perhaps it would be a good idea to put together a task force of sorts, a group of editors , to go around and update the numerous listings for the pope's name, once the new pope is elected. Aunva6 ( talk) 02:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Emeritus, should this be a separate article from Papal resignation? (see talk:Papal resignation) -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, we need a new banner image for the top of Portal:Catholicism. The current one has Pope Benedict XVI prominently displayed, and so is no longer the best option. If we go with a timeless banner, this problem will be avoided the next time the Holy See changes from occupied to vacant (or vice versa). So, are there any image editors on the project who are willing to come up with a new banner? Gentgeen ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you guys probably know more about the issues on how this project may relate to this discussion than I do, so comments will be appreciated. I may stop watching that page after a while anyway, if you guys want to watch it. Thanks. IcarusVsSun ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way we can get these articles consistent? Pope Benedict XVI doesn't have the Pope's retirement date (February 28, 2013) in his infobox 'yet'. Papal resignation continues to have Benedict XVI re-added to the 'resigned popes' table before February 28, 2013 gets here & Papal conclave, 2013, puts out that the popes resignation is pending February 28, 2013. Can we please bring Papal resignation in-line with Pope Benedict XVI and Papal conclave, 2013? GoodDay ( talk) 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I need help at Papal resignation. I'm trying to update the fact that Benedict XVI resigned February 28, 2013. However, an editor keeps reverting to the 'past tense' version of Benedict annoucing his pending resignation on February 11. Furthermore, the editor continues to argue that the Pope resigned Feb 11 & not Feb 28. GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
can we please nix the blinding yellow of the footer templates? it is overly gaudy, and really takes the focus away from page content. also, they are insanely bright, and hurt they eyes, even in a bright room, let alone someone reading wikipedia in a darker room. it's worse than a pure white web background. please use a different color. perhaps a darker, more golden yellow, if it must be yellow. i'm changing them to the standard purple-gray for now. Aunva6 ( talk) 21:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts, someone might want to switch this on by adding it to the bot's project list like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: The article about St Aloysius Church, Glasgow is marked as a stub. Can someone please check to see if it is ready for an upgrade? It looks good to me, but I am not knowledgeable in this area. Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Coronation of Pope Paul VI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of getting a project together to encourage new visitors to write about their parish church. For many people it's probably the first new article they will create. There are quite a few common issues that articles about Catholic parish churches face, so it may be an idea to get them into one place. Do other people think that this would be useful and if so where should it be based and what items should it contain?
JASpencer ( talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
We need input at that article, concerning his numbering as the 265th pope. GoodDay ( talk) 14:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Owen Jackels#He remains bishop of Wichita until his installation. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Following through on excellent suggestion to come here for discussion on possible stub or article re "temporal"—i.e., "Temporal punishment and eternal punishment" inclusive of "temporal punishments during lifetime" before Purgatory—relating to WP article Indulgence. [CCC nn. 1472-3, 1478-9, 1498]
See my Talk Page: Disambiguation link notification for April 17 for relevant info and options I've considered, and editor JaGa's suggestion of possible inclusion of "Temporal punishment" as sub-section of a WP article "but which?".
Editor Pol098 ( talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles removing all reference to "Holy Father" and replacing it with "Pope" and citing WP:NCCL. Unfortunately, NCCL is an article title naming convention guideline, and therefore only governs article titles, not mentions in articles. In my opinion, Holy Father is a perfectly valid name for the Pope and can be retained, especially where it can be explained by a piped link: Holy Father. I suggest we do not remove all these mentions. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Holy father" shouldn't be used anywhere (except in quotes and very specific instances, like when explaining which honorifics and styles of address are used for popes), just like articles should never use "His holiness", "Her Majesty", "Imperial Highness", "His Lordship", "The Reverend", ... It is a POV introducing honorific. MOS:HONORIFIC is quite clear on this. Fram ( talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Would someone mind looking at the changes that Unixbytes90 has made to a large number of articles about popes? This is a brand new editor, and while his/her changes look authoritative to me, I have no idea if they are improvements or (subtle) vandalism or something else. Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just added some navboxes I've made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. I was wondering if anyone could help me with more navboxes such as Domincans, Jesuits, Franciscans, etc.
On a separate note, there does not seem to be a repository for Catholic Userboxes. The gallery for Religious userboxes ( User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion) seems to lack Catholic, and almost lack Christianity. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I had some concerns regarding a new section in the article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests. Some of the material removed may have a place in the article, or possibly in related articles but not, I would say, in the form it had been presented or with such prominence in the article. Those involved in this project may have a view. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need to stream line the papal bio articles. Many of them use pope in the intro, but not all of them. Some don't use pope in the infobox heading, yet some do. GoodDay ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, 1) The lead sentence start with (for example) "John XXIII, ...", 2) If we go by just the name, then we can continue with "...was Pope of the Catholic Church...", however we 'can' you "Bishop of Rome" for those who weren't called pope, during their reigns & 3) Either is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of restoring the "Pope {name}" convention to the lead sentence per WP:LEADSENTENCE. The honorific was removed within the past few weeks. I conveyed my concern to the editor and he indicated he would not revert my changes back to the long-established convention. Regarding question 2, the minor redundency is preferable to replacing the unambiguous common noun "pope" (linked), which references all of the pope's titles, not just "Bishop of Rome", "Supreme Pontiff", and "Roman Pontiff". Regarding question 3, is there a reason to omit the honorific? Many of these popes have names in common with several other saints, kings, emperors, etc. I see no reason to omit the honorific, which removes ambiguity and connects the infobox title to the article title and first mention in the lead sentence. Bede735 ( talk)
It should be "Pope [name]..." per WP:LEADSENTENCE. There is no good reason to deviate from the guideline. - Rrius ( talk) 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - IMO from an encyclopedic and secular perspective, any of the "pope" articles should start with " Pope (name),..." with "Pope" wiki-linked and continue from there. Pope has its own article that's well done and goes into all the detail that is being questioned or suggested. Lets solve the situation by just removing it entirely. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 17:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep The lead sentence and title make most sense as "Pope John XXIII" etc. since that is how they were known. They changed their name to "Pope X" and not just "X" from whatever it was and Wikipedia respects name changes in general. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, I lean towards excluding Pope, but I'm more interested in haveing all 266 bio articles consistant. GoodDay ( talk) 14:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, we have at least one instance now of an article where this becomes a WP:BLP issue. Benedict XVI is NOT a Pope any longer, so to call him that creates false information in the title and lead. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 14:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep the "Pope {name}" presentation in the lead sentence, consistent with WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". The common names of popes, reflected in the article titles, is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." If you omit part of the common name ("Pope"), you introduce unnecessary ambiguity and end up with odd lead sentences such as, "Linus was Pope ...", "Fabian was Pope ...", "Mark was Pope ...", etc. Retaining the common name in the lead sentence and following existing MOS guidance is the best way of assuring consistency: "Pope Mark (died 7 October 336) was pope from 18 January 336 to his death." Variances in a specific article should be worked out by the editors working on that article, per the MOS. Bede735 ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I've been reading this, don't know why, and was looking at your manual of style for biographies, and all other pertinent info on the subject of popes and opening paragraphs, it clearly shows that "pope" is a title, not part of the persons name, and all other articles start out as "John Does" is "Title" of blah blah blah. We say in a conversational way Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, President Obama, President Mitterand, Queen Elizabeth, King George, yet none of these Titles are part of their name, we just use the title first like Mr. Dr. Father. We don't start all articles with "Mister John Doe was a Blah Blah Blah...". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Notwillywanka (
talk •
contribs) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep. It's in line with
WP:LEAD and is how popes are commonly known.
Andrew
327 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Generally, titles are not included in the person's name in the lead sentence for other individuals, even if they are usually included when referring to the person in day-to-day conversation (see
Bill Clinton and
Henry VIII of England). Unless the title of pope is unique, then it probably shouldn't be included where others aren't. Since the name assumed by the pope is retained following their death or resignation of office (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is a perfect example of this), it seems independent of the title. While I'm not too much of a stickler on consistency, "Pope X was pope..." sounds redundant enough to merit a modification of the lead sentence.
Chri$topher 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, actually. I think you've misinterpreted the guideline.
- According to WP:SOVEREIGN, "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire ..., because they share much the same stock of names.". Since the popes do use a stock of names that overlap with other monarchies, their titles must be disambiguated the same as other monarchs. Names like John Paul II may be unique enough, but Francis I, Gregory I, John I, Leo I, etcetera are not. See Papal name.
- Popes are not "kings of a people, rather than a country". They lead a worldwide church, but are only sovereigns of Vatican City. The "kings of a people" provision does not apply.
- "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" does work. Remember Rome is not the country/state, Vatican City is. It would be "Benedict XVI of Vatican City", not "Benedict XVI of Rome".
- "...in some cases the title rather than the state is followed, including: [e.g.] Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor ..." This would result in "Benedict XVI, Pope".
- 'Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King" ... In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted ... Elizabeth II (rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom") and Napoleon (rather than "Napoleon I of France").' "Not normally" does not mean not allowed. Per WP:NOTLAW, consensus can override the default in unusual circumstances.
— User:Sowlos
If it is already been decided only a month ago, why are we discussing it again. I think this dsicusion is uneeded WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.
The other title should be mentioned somewhere; I suspect a section at the end would be preferred to the lead sentence. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
By having Pope per point #1, it makes "was pope of..." sorta redundant, but I'm guessing it would be more contentious at point #2, to attempt changing pope to Roman pontiff. Meanwhile, we can change it to bishop of Rome, for those popes who weren't called popes during their reign. GoodDay ( talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Alternate papal titles should not replace the word "pope" in the lead sentence when used to denote the office. They can be added in the body of the articles. The term "pope" defines these subjects (per WP:LEADSENTENCE). Their notabilty is linked to that term, not to the term "Bishop of Rome", for example. Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome is the spiritual leader of 2.4 million Catholics in the Diocese of Rome; as pope he is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. The title "Bishop of Rome" is insufficient alone in communicating the nature of his office, his function, his responsibilities, his authority, etc. The title "Supreme Pontiff" denotes the office, but is this title commonly recognized by non-Catholics? Bede735 ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
For point (3) we should only be using "honorific-prefix". Elizium23 ( talk) 22:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The honorific-prefix field of the infobox should be used for the honorific element in a pope's common name. Bede735 ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Move to close this discussion. Point 1: There is no consensus to remove the honorific "Pope" from the lead sentence. Point 2: There is no consensus to replace Pope with another papal title in the lead sentence. Point 3: There is consensus that the English name (or name) field should omit the honorific "Pope". Bede735 ( talk) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I wish we could come to a consensus. At the moment, the papal bios are inconsistant again. GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The History of Roman Catholicism in France article seems to have some serious problems in terms of copyediting/language, wikifying links, NPOV, etc. If any motivated wiki editors can find the time, some work on that article would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, if there are any specialists on the Medieval French church, France in the Middle Ages#Religion and the Church is in need an overview, equivalent to what can be found at England in the Middle Ages. Thanks! - NYArtsnWords ( talk) 21:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
At Category talk:Irish bishops#Reorganisation necessary I have proposed a reorganisation of the articles and subcategories of Category:Irish bishops. Comments there are welcome. jnestorius( talk) 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I was just working with another Wikipedian on the Canon Law project, and after talking with them, I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in taking in the small project as a task force of this project. If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll start moving it over. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a policy on capitalizing the word "Pope" since I have seen different uses. All seem to agree that it's capitalized as part of a name. When it is used in place of the full name but clearly has an antecedent earlier in the article such as Pope John Paul II, I think it should be. I am not sure about when it is used in general to refer to the office, for example "All offices in the Roman CUria are appointed by the Pope / pope." Yahoo Answers and Wiki Answers seem to agree with this but it is not universal in articles. Do we want to implement this? >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 10:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ursuline Convent Riots, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. This article has been bannered as falling within the scope of this project, and its principal editor is not very active. -- Magic ♪piano 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
So the discussion above seems to have been concluded just as its policy is making itself felt out in the street. Someone recently described Callistus, a third century bishop of Rome, as head of the Catholic church. This is not only an anachronistic title, but would have been felt by Callistus' contemporaries (and many today) as blasphemous. Jesus Christ is head of the catholic church. This policy needs to be re-thought. The recent change to Callistus I needs to be reverted. Rwflammang ( talk) 16:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we retain or remove the field metro_archbishop in the {{ infobox diocese}} infobox? Farragutful ( talk · contribs) has been removing the field in many of these, with the rationale that "archbishops have no direct leadership authority in the suffragan sees and should not be listed as "Leadership" in a suffragan see. They preside at the meetings of the provincial bishops, but primarily function as the diocesan bishop of the archdiocese. ..." I think his main objection is that the metropolitan archbishop is listed under "Leadership". Perhaps it would be useful to change the {{ infobox diocese}} fields to make it clearer that the metro archbishop is not a "middle manager" in the hierarchy, but I don't think it is at all useful to be removing it altogether like Farragutful is. (Keep in mind that this infobox is used for other Protestant ecclesial communities and Orthodox eparchies as well as other sui iuris Catholic Churches in the Roman Catholic communion.) Elizium23 ( talk) 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
file:Pope-leo-xiii-01.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't wish to revisit any arguments in relation to uniform style guides across papal biographies (I had a quick look at the discussion above). But I think it's problematic from an NPOV standpoint to describe every single pontiff from the 1st to 16th centuries inclusive as "head of the Catholic Church". You could make the claim from a theological perspective that a unified entity that could unambiguously defined as "the Catholic Church" existed over all that period and the pope was indisputably its head; but you can't make that argument necessarily from a historical perspective. Papal authority was recognised to varying degrees over varying places in sees that might well consider themselves in communion with "the Catholic Church." Put simply, the position of the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis the other Patriarchates was in practice very different in say, the fourth century compared to the fourteenth century. It's a matter of little difficulty to call a post-Reformation pope "head of the Catholic Church" because in practice there is no ambiguity about what entity is being described. That's not, however the case in earlier centuries when the See of Rome's primacy was quite unevenly acknowledged without the breech going so far as a formal schism. I don't have any firm view on what a better alternative to "head of the Catholic Church" but for the earliest few centuries of popes surely a reconsideration is in order. As for say, Linus or Peter - it's a stretch in terms of secular history to be able to describe these as "head of the Catholic Church" when an episcopal hierarchy was very much in its infancy. Slac speak up! 10:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! Slac speak up! 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at this submission whenever possible. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
image:Father Shtjefen Gjecovi, old photo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Eucharist has just been moved to Lord's Supper. Please see discussion at Talk:Lord's Supper (disambiguation)#Requested move. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a guideline called WP:PLAGARISM which has a section called " Copying within Wikipedia" and also a more detailed guideline called Copying within Wikipedia. A few years ago before it was widely known that it was a copyright violation to copy text from one article to another without giving credit this was widely done.
I have recently come across some articles that have problems because of this. The editors who did the unacknowledged copies did so without copying across the long citations (references) in the references section along with the text and the short citations from the body of the artilce. The result is that there are a number of articles about the Roman Catholic Church or sections of articles with information copied other articles that do not carry full citations for that information.
Making a global search on "Franzen 397" and "Franzen 362" returns the following article:
These articles also have Franzen 397 (sorted chronologically)
These article does not contain "Franzen 397" but do contain "Franzen, 362" with no long corresponding reference in the references section along with many other similar short citations for other authors:
Contains "Franzen 350" on an image with a similar image and citation on
Although I do not mind helping fix these problems this is not a area that I usually get involved with and so I would appreciate it if someone or some others would take the lead in fixing these problems. -- PBS ( talk) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The Knights of Columbus article was at one time a Featured Article, but was removed. I've worked on it some more and renominated it, but it hasn't generated much attention or even any comments. If you want to check out the article, and then it's nomination to either support it, or make suggestions to improve it, I would appreciate your time. -- Briancua ( talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a sorely neglected topic that needs the attention of one or two content creators. I first came across the lack of coverage in a discussion at Talk:Catholic Church but I noticed that even the main article Bride of Christ lacks a Catholic POV. What needs to be addressed is the Church's own theology of herself as Bride of Christ in relation to Jesus the Bridegroom. There is plenty of documentation and solid sourcing to be had out there. The scriptural underpinnings are clear, and there are thorough references to this teaching in both the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will have more free time in the coming weeks, so if nobody else wants to jump on this, I am willing to take a look and make an attempt, although I do not often write content. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We need some knowledgeable input on this supposed theological notion. I've never heard of such a thing and can find no evidence for it, and the article is written as a theological argument. But this is far outside my expertise. Seyasirt ( talk) 22:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 08:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Knights Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:New scheme for Bishops in Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Here is the proposal:
Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
First off, I have noticed many of the popes images are being replaced by a bland pencil drawings, and at the same time "pope" is being replaced by "Head of the Catholic Church". First, I see no reason to replace the colored images with these black and white ones which are often inferior in most respects sometimes even portraying anachronistic vestments. Second, Head of the Catholic Church does not make much sense in a historical perspective, also same with calling Bishops of Rome "Pope" when they were not using that title. It seems the whole conversation started when someone complained the pope articles were inconsistent, yet they have to be inconsistent unless you want it to be inaccurate. You don't call for example a Bishop of Cologne "Archbishop" before they were given that title! One person says "Bishop of Rome" does not show the power and authority. What do you mean, the link to "pope" is already in the article! 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 02:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UrbanI.jpg
then, after the anachronistic editing changing the lead to say "head of the [roman] catholic church", the same editor also would change the portrait for many of the pope articles. so, here is the current urban I portrait now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Urban_I.jpg
In what way is this superior to the former portrait? This editor did not even ask for consensus, and his edit simply says "Added a picture" when he does this. Go to the list of popes article, and you can see all those popes portraits. Those are the old ones that were used, since this editor seems to have not wanted to change the portraits on the list of popes article. Almost all of the popes up until Pope Innocent I was changed, that is, almost half of the pope articles. This was not for "consistancy" if that is his excuse he did not even mention, seeing as he left random pope articles with their old portraits. These changes should be reverted, especially since some of these pencil drawings don't even have historically accurate vestments in the first place. Sorry about my IP, I am on my wireless internet laptop at the moment 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 11:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This morning Pope Francis gave a name to the gang of 8 Cardinals that he named in April to help him in the governance of the universal Church and to draw up a plan for revising the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (on the Roman Curia). The name "Council of Cardinals" is hardly unique, but someone might want to at least start an introductory article on it.-- Dcheney ( talk) 01:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Following on from a discussion
here, is there a definitive list of minor basilicas anywhere?
This one (and a number of others in
the category) make(s) the claim without any corroboration; some central source (or a list page with such sources) would be helpful in substantiating these claims.
Also, are there any naming conventions for them? Should they be referred to throughout in the text as basilicas, or is "church" sufficient for general use? Do we have a set pattern for article titles? Most in the category simply have the saints name/dedication as title; otherwise the examples I’ve given
here would meet the ordinary guidelines. Does the project need anything different? And when should they be used? The major basilicas seem to have it in the title; the minor ones general don't, so far.
What does anyone else think?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear RC experts: The above article is about to be deleted as a stale draft which about the same subject as Our Lady of Guidance. I have moved the references to the existing article. Is there any useful content to be rescued before the article disappears? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! A large number of names of saints actually lead to disambiguation pages, which list various saints by that name. Please use all of your knowledge help fix these links, so that they point to the intended target. A list of the most heavily linked-to pages is below. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be glad of some help please, in editing Magdalene asylum for neutrality. A student is apparently working on it as a class project to a tight deadline, and has been inserting a great deal of opinion, along with a combination of good and poor sourcing for many of the assertions made. This article appears to have had a history of disputes over neutrality. Thanks. Ruby Murray 09:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I tried to create one at User:Piotrus/sandbox#Struktura_administracyjna_.C5.82aci.C5.84skiego_Ko.C5.9Bcio.C5.82a_katolickiego, using pl:Podział administracyjny Kościoła katolickiego, but I gave up. The terminology is too difficult for me, and the source ( [14]) doesn't always correspond to the pl wiki article. Please note that the existing Global organisation of the Catholic Church does not address this, and the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church focuses on people, not organization.
The reason I would like to see this list is so that we have a framework for articles about administrative divisions of Catholic Church in given countries. Pl wiki has detailed articles on those topics (see here), we don't seem to have any. We have some sections like Roman_Catholicism_in_Poland#Hierarchy but they are not developed as well as they could be. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Further, we do not seem to have any list of categories of metropolises. I wanted to stub the Polish metropolises, but we don't seem to have a structure for those articles. Pl wiki has articles for all Polish metropolises, see Kategoria:Polskie metropolie katolickie (category) and Szablon:Metropolie katolickie w Polsce (template) through I note it doesn't have articles for non-Polish metropolises. Still, if dioceses are notable, I'd assume that the larger administrative unit, the metropolises, are so as well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.-- Jayarathina ( talk) 11:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Catholicism experts! Here's an abandoned AfC submission about a bishop that just needs a little improvement to be ready for the encyclopedia. I have added some sources. Would anyone like to work on it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to have a page titled List of cathedrals in Vatican City even though there are no cathedrals there? The page would explain that St. Peter's Basilica is not a cathedral, and the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome, which includes Vatican City, is the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. The reason I'm proposing a page to list an empty set is that it's a set that people might expect to exist. Note that Vatican City doesn't appear in the template below:
... because the template is set up to only include Vatican City when there is an applicable article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I recently started an article on the founder of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, Fr. Bruno Lanteri. I am a novice seminarian in the institute. We (Wikipedia) previously only had information about him in a few biographical notes in the Congregation's article. I opened with some facts about him that I thought immediately established notability, following the Biography guidelines; there are plenty of scholarly works completed by members of our institute and also by non-Oblates, and I have already cited a variety. I am also taking the orientation of Saint articles as this develops (currently Venerable), rather than a simply historical/biographical approach.
My question is: is this a good direction? What resources might I use as I (and any of my willing confreres) continue to develop the article? I got no response at WP:SAINTS. Any editors willing to stay in touch over the coming months to follow this? Thanks! Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone here offer an opinion as to whether any individual or group has ever been theologically opposed to Catholicism in the U.S.? I'm getting a ongoing and repeated push back by a handful of users at Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States who, rather than send the category to WP:CFD, keep trying to add a "policy" to the top of the category essentially insisting that it be emptied. [15] [16] [17] [18] Reverting them has become a lonely task, as they keep claiming to have "consensus" even though I've repeatedly pointed out that I do not consent to their rather screwy world view. -- Kendrick7 talk 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
So the same stooges are also insisting that no one ever, alive or dead, belongs in Category:Anti-Catholicism worldwide. I'm trying to hold down the fort here, but if no one on this project thinks this matters, I'll go ahead and give up the ghost. :( -- Kendrick7 talk 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
sorry for my english, I come from the french WP and I’m not very fluent in your language.
I notice more things wrong on the english article
Jean-Marie Speich, a french bishop from Alsace.
I tried to improve the biography by supress lot parts of the original article (I hope I didn’t something wrong), but I ask here your point of view for this article : what shall we do now? how improve the article?
Best regards, -- O-Mann ( talk) 22:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to any reliable sources about Saint Arthur of Glastonbury. The article we have seems confused and unsupported.— Rod talk 11:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes (2nd nomination) Elizium23 ( talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 15#Category:Acts of Reparation the question of capitalization is being addressed; however, this led to a review of the acts of reparation article itself. I'm having serious doubts that this is a specific thing unto itself; it looks to me as though someone took a bunch of similarly named prayers and decided that they were a particular type of sacramental. I can find no evidence that anyone else thinks this way. If we could get some experts to come to the article/talk page and address the issue of sources which talk about this as a category I would appreciate it. Mangoe ( talk) 03:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Prelest (a Russian/Orthodox term for spiritual delusion) is a new article by a new editor that has at least some obvious issues of neutrality ( WP:NPOV) and reliable sourcing ( WP:RS). For example, the section on "Prelest and saints of the Roman Catholic Church" includes St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and St. Thomas à Kempis among those who were guilty of being in delusion and self-deception. It would be helpful for some knowledgable editors to separate the wheat from the chafe in this lengthy and well-cited (but not necessarily well-referenced) article, as I don't know where to begin. First Light ( talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article titled chorbishop is unclear about the question of whether a chorbishop in the Maronite church is or is not actually a Catholic bishop. That's not something that should be uncertain. 128.101.152.128 ( talk) 00:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, with Benedict's resignation, I have started the article on the next conclave. Canuck89 (what's up?) 11:43, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The Lent article has a {{ refimprove}} tag on it, which makes it ineligible to appear on WP:Selected anniversaries/February 13. I realize this is last-minute, but apparently the maintenance tag was just added recently. It appears this should be a relatively easy task, so hopefully someone can fix it up in time. I would do it myself, but I know barely anything about Catholicism/Christianity at all. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could help me fix whatever needs be fixed about the article on the next papal conclave. If anyone can suggest an alternative hook, that would be very appreciated as well. The article appears to be great DYK material and it would be a shame to waste it. Thanks, Surtsicna ( talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding whether legal immunity or possible prosecution is relevant in the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. It seems that us few editors in the discussion are going in circles. Could a few please add their comments as to its relevance? The section is Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI#Legal Immunity but it is already about two screens down to the end of the discussion. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 13:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
perhaps it would be a good idea to put together a task force of sorts, a group of editors , to go around and update the numerous listings for the pope's name, once the new pope is elected. Aunva6 ( talk) 02:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Emeritus, should this be a separate article from Papal resignation? (see talk:Papal resignation) -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, we need a new banner image for the top of Portal:Catholicism. The current one has Pope Benedict XVI prominently displayed, and so is no longer the best option. If we go with a timeless banner, this problem will be avoided the next time the Holy See changes from occupied to vacant (or vice versa). So, are there any image editors on the project who are willing to come up with a new banner? Gentgeen ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you guys probably know more about the issues on how this project may relate to this discussion than I do, so comments will be appreciated. I may stop watching that page after a while anyway, if you guys want to watch it. Thanks. IcarusVsSun ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way we can get these articles consistent? Pope Benedict XVI doesn't have the Pope's retirement date (February 28, 2013) in his infobox 'yet'. Papal resignation continues to have Benedict XVI re-added to the 'resigned popes' table before February 28, 2013 gets here & Papal conclave, 2013, puts out that the popes resignation is pending February 28, 2013. Can we please bring Papal resignation in-line with Pope Benedict XVI and Papal conclave, 2013? GoodDay ( talk) 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I need help at Papal resignation. I'm trying to update the fact that Benedict XVI resigned February 28, 2013. However, an editor keeps reverting to the 'past tense' version of Benedict annoucing his pending resignation on February 11. Furthermore, the editor continues to argue that the Pope resigned Feb 11 & not Feb 28. GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
can we please nix the blinding yellow of the footer templates? it is overly gaudy, and really takes the focus away from page content. also, they are insanely bright, and hurt they eyes, even in a bright room, let alone someone reading wikipedia in a darker room. it's worse than a pure white web background. please use a different color. perhaps a darker, more golden yellow, if it must be yellow. i'm changing them to the standard purple-gray for now. Aunva6 ( talk) 21:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts, someone might want to switch this on by adding it to the bot's project list like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: The article about St Aloysius Church, Glasgow is marked as a stub. Can someone please check to see if it is ready for an upgrade? It looks good to me, but I am not knowledgeable in this area. Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Coronation of Pope Paul VI.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of getting a project together to encourage new visitors to write about their parish church. For many people it's probably the first new article they will create. There are quite a few common issues that articles about Catholic parish churches face, so it may be an idea to get them into one place. Do other people think that this would be useful and if so where should it be based and what items should it contain?
JASpencer ( talk) 09:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
We need input at that article, concerning his numbering as the 265th pope. GoodDay ( talk) 14:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Owen Jackels#He remains bishop of Wichita until his installation. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Following through on excellent suggestion to come here for discussion on possible stub or article re "temporal"—i.e., "Temporal punishment and eternal punishment" inclusive of "temporal punishments during lifetime" before Purgatory—relating to WP article Indulgence. [CCC nn. 1472-3, 1478-9, 1498]
See my Talk Page: Disambiguation link notification for April 17 for relevant info and options I've considered, and editor JaGa's suggestion of possible inclusion of "Temporal punishment" as sub-section of a WP article "but which?".
Editor Pol098 ( talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles removing all reference to "Holy Father" and replacing it with "Pope" and citing WP:NCCL. Unfortunately, NCCL is an article title naming convention guideline, and therefore only governs article titles, not mentions in articles. In my opinion, Holy Father is a perfectly valid name for the Pope and can be retained, especially where it can be explained by a piped link: Holy Father. I suggest we do not remove all these mentions. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Holy father" shouldn't be used anywhere (except in quotes and very specific instances, like when explaining which honorifics and styles of address are used for popes), just like articles should never use "His holiness", "Her Majesty", "Imperial Highness", "His Lordship", "The Reverend", ... It is a POV introducing honorific. MOS:HONORIFIC is quite clear on this. Fram ( talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Would someone mind looking at the changes that Unixbytes90 has made to a large number of articles about popes? This is a brand new editor, and while his/her changes look authoritative to me, I have no idea if they are improvements or (subtle) vandalism or something else. Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just added some navboxes I've made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. I was wondering if anyone could help me with more navboxes such as Domincans, Jesuits, Franciscans, etc.
On a separate note, there does not seem to be a repository for Catholic Userboxes. The gallery for Religious userboxes ( User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion) seems to lack Catholic, and almost lack Christianity. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I had some concerns regarding a new section in the article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests. Some of the material removed may have a place in the article, or possibly in related articles but not, I would say, in the form it had been presented or with such prominence in the article. Those involved in this project may have a view. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need to stream line the papal bio articles. Many of them use pope in the intro, but not all of them. Some don't use pope in the infobox heading, yet some do. GoodDay ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, 1) The lead sentence start with (for example) "John XXIII, ...", 2) If we go by just the name, then we can continue with "...was Pope of the Catholic Church...", however we 'can' you "Bishop of Rome" for those who weren't called pope, during their reigns & 3) Either is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of restoring the "Pope {name}" convention to the lead sentence per WP:LEADSENTENCE. The honorific was removed within the past few weeks. I conveyed my concern to the editor and he indicated he would not revert my changes back to the long-established convention. Regarding question 2, the minor redundency is preferable to replacing the unambiguous common noun "pope" (linked), which references all of the pope's titles, not just "Bishop of Rome", "Supreme Pontiff", and "Roman Pontiff". Regarding question 3, is there a reason to omit the honorific? Many of these popes have names in common with several other saints, kings, emperors, etc. I see no reason to omit the honorific, which removes ambiguity and connects the infobox title to the article title and first mention in the lead sentence. Bede735 ( talk)
It should be "Pope [name]..." per WP:LEADSENTENCE. There is no good reason to deviate from the guideline. - Rrius ( talk) 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - IMO from an encyclopedic and secular perspective, any of the "pope" articles should start with " Pope (name),..." with "Pope" wiki-linked and continue from there. Pope has its own article that's well done and goes into all the detail that is being questioned or suggested. Lets solve the situation by just removing it entirely. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 17:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep The lead sentence and title make most sense as "Pope John XXIII" etc. since that is how they were known. They changed their name to "Pope X" and not just "X" from whatever it was and Wikipedia respects name changes in general. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, I lean towards excluding Pope, but I'm more interested in haveing all 266 bio articles consistant. GoodDay ( talk) 14:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, we have at least one instance now of an article where this becomes a WP:BLP issue. Benedict XVI is NOT a Pope any longer, so to call him that creates false information in the title and lead. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 14:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep the "Pope {name}" presentation in the lead sentence, consistent with WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". The common names of popes, reflected in the article titles, is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." If you omit part of the common name ("Pope"), you introduce unnecessary ambiguity and end up with odd lead sentences such as, "Linus was Pope ...", "Fabian was Pope ...", "Mark was Pope ...", etc. Retaining the common name in the lead sentence and following existing MOS guidance is the best way of assuring consistency: "Pope Mark (died 7 October 336) was pope from 18 January 336 to his death." Variances in a specific article should be worked out by the editors working on that article, per the MOS. Bede735 ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I've been reading this, don't know why, and was looking at your manual of style for biographies, and all other pertinent info on the subject of popes and opening paragraphs, it clearly shows that "pope" is a title, not part of the persons name, and all other articles start out as "John Does" is "Title" of blah blah blah. We say in a conversational way Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, President Obama, President Mitterand, Queen Elizabeth, King George, yet none of these Titles are part of their name, we just use the title first like Mr. Dr. Father. We don't start all articles with "Mister John Doe was a Blah Blah Blah...". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Notwillywanka (
talk •
contribs) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep. It's in line with
WP:LEAD and is how popes are commonly known.
Andrew
327 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Generally, titles are not included in the person's name in the lead sentence for other individuals, even if they are usually included when referring to the person in day-to-day conversation (see
Bill Clinton and
Henry VIII of England). Unless the title of pope is unique, then it probably shouldn't be included where others aren't. Since the name assumed by the pope is retained following their death or resignation of office (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is a perfect example of this), it seems independent of the title. While I'm not too much of a stickler on consistency, "Pope X was pope..." sounds redundant enough to merit a modification of the lead sentence.
Chri$topher 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, actually. I think you've misinterpreted the guideline.
- According to WP:SOVEREIGN, "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire ..., because they share much the same stock of names.". Since the popes do use a stock of names that overlap with other monarchies, their titles must be disambiguated the same as other monarchs. Names like John Paul II may be unique enough, but Francis I, Gregory I, John I, Leo I, etcetera are not. See Papal name.
- Popes are not "kings of a people, rather than a country". They lead a worldwide church, but are only sovereigns of Vatican City. The "kings of a people" provision does not apply.
- "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" does work. Remember Rome is not the country/state, Vatican City is. It would be "Benedict XVI of Vatican City", not "Benedict XVI of Rome".
- "...in some cases the title rather than the state is followed, including: [e.g.] Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor ..." This would result in "Benedict XVI, Pope".
- 'Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King" ... In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted ... Elizabeth II (rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom") and Napoleon (rather than "Napoleon I of France").' "Not normally" does not mean not allowed. Per WP:NOTLAW, consensus can override the default in unusual circumstances.
— User:Sowlos
If it is already been decided only a month ago, why are we discussing it again. I think this dsicusion is uneeded WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.
The other title should be mentioned somewhere; I suspect a section at the end would be preferred to the lead sentence. >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
By having Pope per point #1, it makes "was pope of..." sorta redundant, but I'm guessing it would be more contentious at point #2, to attempt changing pope to Roman pontiff. Meanwhile, we can change it to bishop of Rome, for those popes who weren't called popes during their reign. GoodDay ( talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Alternate papal titles should not replace the word "pope" in the lead sentence when used to denote the office. They can be added in the body of the articles. The term "pope" defines these subjects (per WP:LEADSENTENCE). Their notabilty is linked to that term, not to the term "Bishop of Rome", for example. Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome is the spiritual leader of 2.4 million Catholics in the Diocese of Rome; as pope he is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. The title "Bishop of Rome" is insufficient alone in communicating the nature of his office, his function, his responsibilities, his authority, etc. The title "Supreme Pontiff" denotes the office, but is this title commonly recognized by non-Catholics? Bede735 ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
For point (3) we should only be using "honorific-prefix". Elizium23 ( talk) 22:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The honorific-prefix field of the infobox should be used for the honorific element in a pope's common name. Bede735 ( talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Move to close this discussion. Point 1: There is no consensus to remove the honorific "Pope" from the lead sentence. Point 2: There is no consensus to replace Pope with another papal title in the lead sentence. Point 3: There is consensus that the English name (or name) field should omit the honorific "Pope". Bede735 ( talk) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I wish we could come to a consensus. At the moment, the papal bios are inconsistant again. GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The History of Roman Catholicism in France article seems to have some serious problems in terms of copyediting/language, wikifying links, NPOV, etc. If any motivated wiki editors can find the time, some work on that article would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, if there are any specialists on the Medieval French church, France in the Middle Ages#Religion and the Church is in need an overview, equivalent to what can be found at England in the Middle Ages. Thanks! - NYArtsnWords ( talk) 21:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
At Category talk:Irish bishops#Reorganisation necessary I have proposed a reorganisation of the articles and subcategories of Category:Irish bishops. Comments there are welcome. jnestorius( talk) 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I was just working with another Wikipedian on the Canon Law project, and after talking with them, I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in taking in the small project as a task force of this project. If anyone is interested, let me know, and I'll start moving it over. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a policy on capitalizing the word "Pope" since I have seen different uses. All seem to agree that it's capitalized as part of a name. When it is used in place of the full name but clearly has an antecedent earlier in the article such as Pope John Paul II, I think it should be. I am not sure about when it is used in general to refer to the office, for example "All offices in the Roman CUria are appointed by the Pope / pope." Yahoo Answers and Wiki Answers seem to agree with this but it is not universal in articles. Do we want to implement this? >> M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 10:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ursuline Convent Riots, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. This article has been bannered as falling within the scope of this project, and its principal editor is not very active. -- Magic ♪piano 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
So the discussion above seems to have been concluded just as its policy is making itself felt out in the street. Someone recently described Callistus, a third century bishop of Rome, as head of the Catholic church. This is not only an anachronistic title, but would have been felt by Callistus' contemporaries (and many today) as blasphemous. Jesus Christ is head of the catholic church. This policy needs to be re-thought. The recent change to Callistus I needs to be reverted. Rwflammang ( talk) 16:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we retain or remove the field metro_archbishop in the {{ infobox diocese}} infobox? Farragutful ( talk · contribs) has been removing the field in many of these, with the rationale that "archbishops have no direct leadership authority in the suffragan sees and should not be listed as "Leadership" in a suffragan see. They preside at the meetings of the provincial bishops, but primarily function as the diocesan bishop of the archdiocese. ..." I think his main objection is that the metropolitan archbishop is listed under "Leadership". Perhaps it would be useful to change the {{ infobox diocese}} fields to make it clearer that the metro archbishop is not a "middle manager" in the hierarchy, but I don't think it is at all useful to be removing it altogether like Farragutful is. (Keep in mind that this infobox is used for other Protestant ecclesial communities and Orthodox eparchies as well as other sui iuris Catholic Churches in the Roman Catholic communion.) Elizium23 ( talk) 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
file:Pope-leo-xiii-01.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't wish to revisit any arguments in relation to uniform style guides across papal biographies (I had a quick look at the discussion above). But I think it's problematic from an NPOV standpoint to describe every single pontiff from the 1st to 16th centuries inclusive as "head of the Catholic Church". You could make the claim from a theological perspective that a unified entity that could unambiguously defined as "the Catholic Church" existed over all that period and the pope was indisputably its head; but you can't make that argument necessarily from a historical perspective. Papal authority was recognised to varying degrees over varying places in sees that might well consider themselves in communion with "the Catholic Church." Put simply, the position of the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis the other Patriarchates was in practice very different in say, the fourth century compared to the fourteenth century. It's a matter of little difficulty to call a post-Reformation pope "head of the Catholic Church" because in practice there is no ambiguity about what entity is being described. That's not, however the case in earlier centuries when the See of Rome's primacy was quite unevenly acknowledged without the breech going so far as a formal schism. I don't have any firm view on what a better alternative to "head of the Catholic Church" but for the earliest few centuries of popes surely a reconsideration is in order. As for say, Linus or Peter - it's a stretch in terms of secular history to be able to describe these as "head of the Catholic Church" when an episcopal hierarchy was very much in its infancy. Slac speak up! 10:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! Slac speak up! 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at this submission whenever possible. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
image:Father Shtjefen Gjecovi, old photo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Eucharist has just been moved to Lord's Supper. Please see discussion at Talk:Lord's Supper (disambiguation)#Requested move. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a guideline called WP:PLAGARISM which has a section called " Copying within Wikipedia" and also a more detailed guideline called Copying within Wikipedia. A few years ago before it was widely known that it was a copyright violation to copy text from one article to another without giving credit this was widely done.
I have recently come across some articles that have problems because of this. The editors who did the unacknowledged copies did so without copying across the long citations (references) in the references section along with the text and the short citations from the body of the artilce. The result is that there are a number of articles about the Roman Catholic Church or sections of articles with information copied other articles that do not carry full citations for that information.
Making a global search on "Franzen 397" and "Franzen 362" returns the following article:
These articles also have Franzen 397 (sorted chronologically)
These article does not contain "Franzen 397" but do contain "Franzen, 362" with no long corresponding reference in the references section along with many other similar short citations for other authors:
Contains "Franzen 350" on an image with a similar image and citation on
Although I do not mind helping fix these problems this is not a area that I usually get involved with and so I would appreciate it if someone or some others would take the lead in fixing these problems. -- PBS ( talk) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The Knights of Columbus article was at one time a Featured Article, but was removed. I've worked on it some more and renominated it, but it hasn't generated much attention or even any comments. If you want to check out the article, and then it's nomination to either support it, or make suggestions to improve it, I would appreciate your time. -- Briancua ( talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a sorely neglected topic that needs the attention of one or two content creators. I first came across the lack of coverage in a discussion at Talk:Catholic Church but I noticed that even the main article Bride of Christ lacks a Catholic POV. What needs to be addressed is the Church's own theology of herself as Bride of Christ in relation to Jesus the Bridegroom. There is plenty of documentation and solid sourcing to be had out there. The scriptural underpinnings are clear, and there are thorough references to this teaching in both the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will have more free time in the coming weeks, so if nobody else wants to jump on this, I am willing to take a look and make an attempt, although I do not often write content. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We need some knowledgeable input on this supposed theological notion. I've never heard of such a thing and can find no evidence for it, and the article is written as a theological argument. But this is far outside my expertise. Seyasirt ( talk) 22:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 08:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Knights Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:New scheme for Bishops in Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Here is the proposal:
Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
First off, I have noticed many of the popes images are being replaced by a bland pencil drawings, and at the same time "pope" is being replaced by "Head of the Catholic Church". First, I see no reason to replace the colored images with these black and white ones which are often inferior in most respects sometimes even portraying anachronistic vestments. Second, Head of the Catholic Church does not make much sense in a historical perspective, also same with calling Bishops of Rome "Pope" when they were not using that title. It seems the whole conversation started when someone complained the pope articles were inconsistent, yet they have to be inconsistent unless you want it to be inaccurate. You don't call for example a Bishop of Cologne "Archbishop" before they were given that title! One person says "Bishop of Rome" does not show the power and authority. What do you mean, the link to "pope" is already in the article! 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 02:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UrbanI.jpg
then, after the anachronistic editing changing the lead to say "head of the [roman] catholic church", the same editor also would change the portrait for many of the pope articles. so, here is the current urban I portrait now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Urban_I.jpg
In what way is this superior to the former portrait? This editor did not even ask for consensus, and his edit simply says "Added a picture" when he does this. Go to the list of popes article, and you can see all those popes portraits. Those are the old ones that were used, since this editor seems to have not wanted to change the portraits on the list of popes article. Almost all of the popes up until Pope Innocent I was changed, that is, almost half of the pope articles. This was not for "consistancy" if that is his excuse he did not even mention, seeing as he left random pope articles with their old portraits. These changes should be reverted, especially since some of these pencil drawings don't even have historically accurate vestments in the first place. Sorry about my IP, I am on my wireless internet laptop at the moment 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 11:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This morning Pope Francis gave a name to the gang of 8 Cardinals that he named in April to help him in the governance of the universal Church and to draw up a plan for revising the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (on the Roman Curia). The name "Council of Cardinals" is hardly unique, but someone might want to at least start an introductory article on it.-- Dcheney ( talk) 01:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Following on from a discussion
here, is there a definitive list of minor basilicas anywhere?
This one (and a number of others in
the category) make(s) the claim without any corroboration; some central source (or a list page with such sources) would be helpful in substantiating these claims.
Also, are there any naming conventions for them? Should they be referred to throughout in the text as basilicas, or is "church" sufficient for general use? Do we have a set pattern for article titles? Most in the category simply have the saints name/dedication as title; otherwise the examples I’ve given
here would meet the ordinary guidelines. Does the project need anything different? And when should they be used? The major basilicas seem to have it in the title; the minor ones general don't, so far.
What does anyone else think?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear RC experts: The above article is about to be deleted as a stale draft which about the same subject as Our Lady of Guidance. I have moved the references to the existing article. Is there any useful content to be rescued before the article disappears? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! A large number of names of saints actually lead to disambiguation pages, which list various saints by that name. Please use all of your knowledge help fix these links, so that they point to the intended target. A list of the most heavily linked-to pages is below. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be glad of some help please, in editing Magdalene asylum for neutrality. A student is apparently working on it as a class project to a tight deadline, and has been inserting a great deal of opinion, along with a combination of good and poor sourcing for many of the assertions made. This article appears to have had a history of disputes over neutrality. Thanks. Ruby Murray 09:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I tried to create one at User:Piotrus/sandbox#Struktura_administracyjna_.C5.82aci.C5.84skiego_Ko.C5.9Bcio.C5.82a_katolickiego, using pl:Podział administracyjny Kościoła katolickiego, but I gave up. The terminology is too difficult for me, and the source ( [14]) doesn't always correspond to the pl wiki article. Please note that the existing Global organisation of the Catholic Church does not address this, and the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church focuses on people, not organization.
The reason I would like to see this list is so that we have a framework for articles about administrative divisions of Catholic Church in given countries. Pl wiki has detailed articles on those topics (see here), we don't seem to have any. We have some sections like Roman_Catholicism_in_Poland#Hierarchy but they are not developed as well as they could be. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Further, we do not seem to have any list of categories of metropolises. I wanted to stub the Polish metropolises, but we don't seem to have a structure for those articles. Pl wiki has articles for all Polish metropolises, see Kategoria:Polskie metropolie katolickie (category) and Szablon:Metropolie katolickie w Polsce (template) through I note it doesn't have articles for non-Polish metropolises. Still, if dioceses are notable, I'd assume that the larger administrative unit, the metropolises, are so as well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.-- Jayarathina ( talk) 11:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Catholicism experts! Here's an abandoned AfC submission about a bishop that just needs a little improvement to be ready for the encyclopedia. I have added some sources. Would anyone like to work on it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to have a page titled List of cathedrals in Vatican City even though there are no cathedrals there? The page would explain that St. Peter's Basilica is not a cathedral, and the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome, which includes Vatican City, is the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. The reason I'm proposing a page to list an empty set is that it's a set that people might expect to exist. Note that Vatican City doesn't appear in the template below:
... because the template is set up to only include Vatican City when there is an applicable article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I recently started an article on the founder of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, Fr. Bruno Lanteri. I am a novice seminarian in the institute. We (Wikipedia) previously only had information about him in a few biographical notes in the Congregation's article. I opened with some facts about him that I thought immediately established notability, following the Biography guidelines; there are plenty of scholarly works completed by members of our institute and also by non-Oblates, and I have already cited a variety. I am also taking the orientation of Saint articles as this develops (currently Venerable), rather than a simply historical/biographical approach.
My question is: is this a good direction? What resources might I use as I (and any of my willing confreres) continue to develop the article? I got no response at WP:SAINTS. Any editors willing to stay in touch over the coming months to follow this? Thanks! Paul M. Nguyen ( chat| blame) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone here offer an opinion as to whether any individual or group has ever been theologically opposed to Catholicism in the U.S.? I'm getting a ongoing and repeated push back by a handful of users at Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States who, rather than send the category to WP:CFD, keep trying to add a "policy" to the top of the category essentially insisting that it be emptied. [15] [16] [17] [18] Reverting them has become a lonely task, as they keep claiming to have "consensus" even though I've repeatedly pointed out that I do not consent to their rather screwy world view. -- Kendrick7 talk 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
So the same stooges are also insisting that no one ever, alive or dead, belongs in Category:Anti-Catholicism worldwide. I'm trying to hold down the fort here, but if no one on this project thinks this matters, I'll go ahead and give up the ghost. :( -- Kendrick7 talk 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
sorry for my english, I come from the french WP and I’m not very fluent in your language.
I notice more things wrong on the english article
Jean-Marie Speich, a french bishop from Alsace.
I tried to improve the biography by supress lot parts of the original article (I hope I didn’t something wrong), but I ask here your point of view for this article : what shall we do now? how improve the article?
Best regards, -- O-Mann ( talk) 22:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to any reliable sources about Saint Arthur of Glastonbury. The article we have seems confused and unsupported.— Rod talk 11:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)