Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2016

In the article List of heads of state and government who died in office, aswell as the Years articles - List of state leaders in 2016, 2015, 2014 etc etc. We've the Presidents of the Governate of Vatican City & the Vatican Secretaries of State, being listed with the popes. Is this correct? Isn't the Pope both Vatican head of state & government? GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: yes, the pope is the elected absolute monarch of the Vatican City State. This is not the Holy See. The Vatican City State has a civil government delegated by the pope to act on his behalf with an executive body (headed by the President of the Governate of Vatican City State), a legislative body, a judicial body, a gendarme, a post office, etc. (see vaticanstate.va). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So should the President of the Governate of Vatican City State, be included in such articles? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I think yes, with maybe a footnote to explain that he serves as the executive at the pleasure of the elected absolute monarch. "The exercise of executive government is entrusted to the Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State who, in this context, assumes the title of President of the Governorate."

I see. Howabout the Secretaries of State? Should they remain, too? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: the Secretariat of State is part of the Holy See.

"The task of representing Vatican City State and managing its relations with foreign States is the prerogative of the Pope who does so through the Secretariat of State."

"Both the Holy See, the sovereign body of the Catholic Church, and Vatican City State have always received full recognition of their particular international natures."

The Secretary of State is not a head of the Vatican City State government but is part of the Holy See Curia. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So include the Presidents of the Governorate of Vatican City State & exclude the Vatican Secretaries of State, from those articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: yes, because the Secretary of State is not a head of the Vatican City State government. Yet, obviously the pope is the supreme leader of the church structure (Holy See) and the state structure (Vatican City State). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While the Vatican City State is an independent country, the Holy See is a sovereign entity, and it is the Holy See that is a member or obsever in many international organizations (including the UN), and that's the one that handles the Catholic Church's diplomatic relations, not the Vatican. And accordingly the United Nations' list of heads of state and government (https://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/hspmfm.pdf) includes the Secretary of State as the head of government of the Holy See. Therefore the Holy See and the Vatican City State are two distinct entities and therefore it is appropriate to list their respective leaders besides their common supreme leader, the Pope. ZBukov (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay and Zoltan Bukovszky: The entry in the United Nations' list is for the Holy See, the older sovereign entity, which has observer status. I am confused however, I did not know that the Secretary of State was considered the head of government of the Holy See. I think finding and citing a source that explains these intricacies would be the most informative edit:

• "The secretary of state constitutes the church's combined foreign minister-prime minister."^[1]
• "the Vatican's secretary of state, a cardinal who is the ranking official in the Roman Curia."^[2]
• The "Secretary of State, a title which dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century, is in effect the papal Prime Minister, ultimately responsible for both the issues arising internally within the Church, and those relating to other states."^[3]

These do not mention the President of the Governate of Vatican City State as a head of government? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC); modified 17:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State states that "The Supreme Pontiff, Sovereign of Vatican City State, has the fullness of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers." I think that reads straightforwardly as stating that the pope and only the pope is the head of State ("Sovereign of Vatican City State") and government ("has the fullness of...executive powers"). I don't object to a footnote mentioning the President of the Governorate of Vatican City State, but I think that only the Supreme Pontiff as such should be included in the actual list. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 03:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The Pope is a special case, because he one of only a handful of absolute monarchs still in governing positions. The head of government tags were not set up with this scenario in mind; it would not be inappropriate to list the Secretary of State as head of government, with a footnote as to the real subordinance of his position. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Something crazy is going on at Our Lady of Akita, take a look at the history. We could use the opinions of more editors. Sro23 (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There are various articles about the Church in individual countries that have inconsistent titles and leads. In keeping with the main Catholic Church page calling the Church simply the "Catholic Church", I propose that all such pages be moved such that their titles read "Catholic Church in ____" and their leads begin "The Catholic Church in <country> is a part of the worldwide Catholic Church, under the spiritual leadership of the pope." Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the Terminology page, the consensus of which coincides with my proposal here. (HT Athomeinkobe) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think there will be much support for this proposal. There are thousands of articles, and each would need to be manually revised to avoid nonsensical results (such as might be produced by a script). "Roman Catholicism in X" is not incorrect, at most somewhat inconsistent. The main category of Catholic Church-related articles is still "Category:Roman Catholic Church", and numerous navigation templates use the term (ex:template:Roman Catholicism) In some cases, "RC in X" serves as a natural disambiguation in countries that were historically Orthodox Christian. You might get more support if you suggest a list of pages that might strongly benefit from such a revision, but there is little benefit relative to the needed effort from wholesale revisions for mere consistency. --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no automatic requirement that all related pages have to match the title of a main page. There are also, presumably, questions regarding Polish Old Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches and other groups in various areas, and on that basis I think that keeping the existing titles to provide a less ambiguous name is warranted. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion. Adding my two cents worth: This is where Wikipedia:Redirect is most helpful to point from an "Alternate title" to the actual article title. For example: if the article content is located at Roman Catholicism in xxx then it would be okay to make a redirect for Catholic Church in xxx and vice versa. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal due to the amount of work that would be involved for very little information gain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of it had already been done, until someone labelled it "disruptive" and reverted most of it back last night/this morning. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Crusadestudent: I poked around a bit to see what might be the issue. This was a bit difficult, as you had not provided a list of articles that you wanted to edit as I had suggested (while not strictly required, it is helpful to provide links to articles when you comment about difficulties you were having, such as edits being reverted). One page I found was Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan, which you edited here. There were several minor formatting and style issues that you inadvertently added. For example, the article is called "Roman Catholicism in ..." but you removed the in text reference to the article title when you changed "The Roman Catholic Church in Afghanistan" to "The Catholic Church in Afghanistan". Such changes should usually only be made at the same time that an article is renamed (you were, however, correct to use WP:MOS#boldface formatting for the in text reference!). While other edits were helpful, such as removing unnecessary abbreviations, and capitalizing "Mass" for consistency, it is an accepted practice to revert edits that introduce problems, even if the helpful edits are also removed. It is an editor's responsibility to following the formatting standards; others editors are not expected to carefully clean up problematic edits. Browsing through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style may help you avoid simple formatting issues, and make it more likely that your edits will be accepted! --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Zfish118:. It looks to me like you misread the history, at least in part. I had done the following: Roman Catholic Church in -> Catholic Church in (there was no link here to begin with, so I couldn't have removed it); Pope -> pope; mass -> Mass; mission sui iuris -> mission sui iuris; Father -> Fr. Then you reverted, and then made another edit to bold the name in the lead. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I had read an edit history backwards, and may have misread some details. There does not need to be a "link" to the title in the lead paragraph. Any text referencing the article title is acceptable. The problematic edit was that the article was titled "Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan", and you had removed the reference to "Roman" in "The Roman Catholic Church in Afghanistan" within the lead. This change normally should not be done until the name change request has been approved by consensus, and the article name change was completed. It would also be helpful, though not strictly required, to provide a list of all the articles you wish to rename, rather than individual discussion on each page's talkpage. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So after finding Parish of the Holiest Saviour, Włocławek, and then Category:Parishes which includes entries like San José de Gracia, Michoacán, I came to the conclusion that we need to discuss the topic of whether individual parishes are notable by default. Relevant guildelines include WP:GEOLAND, which does not mention parishes, and WP:NPLACE which does ("Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities."). However, given that both of the above focus on government, I think they mean Parish (administrative division). In other words, it seems to me that a religious parish is not notable by default, and unless it can meet WP:N on individual basis, they should be deleted. At the same time, it's worth considering whether this should be the case; on Polish Wikipedia parishes are assumed to be notable by default and have extensive articles (albeit focusing mostly on their history), see pl:Parafia św. Bartłomieja Apostoła w Osiecku. Here is the well-populated Polish Wikipedia category which has no English equivalents, as far as I can tell: pl:Kategoria:Polskie parafie katolickie (Polish Roman Catholic parishes). As far as I can also tell, English Wikipedia has assumed that dioceses are notable by default (Category:Roman Catholic dioceses), through I cannot figure out why (there's no mention of them on GEOLAND/NPLACE). Was the notability of dioceses and parishes ever a subject of discussion? Who and when drew the line at dioceses (notable) and parishes (not so)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: a parish is a church organization with a defined territory. It is not necessarily a type of WP:GEOLAND. It is sometimes a WP:NPLACE that is found in Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) but more often the church building of the parish organization has an associated GNIS authority file as a church building (see type list) feature (see example Sacred Heart of Jesus Roman Catholic Church) – not all church buildings have that kind of record. In another example, Shrine Church of St. Stanislaus, I have added various external authority file links to the building and the surrounding area, see (Shrine Church of St. Stanislaus § References). Parish local histories may be also be notable.

A diocese article, in my opinion, is notable even as a stub by default. It serves as an organization name anchor (and include links to external authority files, see Library of Congress list example and lccn.loc.gov/n81085503, an individual authority file) for other articles especially about regional structure of the Catholic Church, depending on the historical period and location. Again, it is a type of church organization with a defined territory. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC); modified 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

* Vote Cleanup parish articles, not delete: – I agree with Piotrus about the Diocese notable by default. And I do understand that in places like Poland with over 1,000 years of Catholic history, there will be much historical content for many of these ancient parishes, vs. like here in United States & mission countries where a newer parish may not meet the notability guidelines. From time to time, while doing WikiProject Catholicism article assessments I find articles created without the talk page assessment completed. For parish articles, they are for the most part either Stub class or Start classifications. If an article is less than stub, does it need to be discussed before AFD? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that dioceses or eparchies or any similar sort of well-established similar structures are not notable. If bishops are, basically, considered notable by default, so would dioceses be. Also, dioceses are, pretty much, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, discussed in works by the main bodies themselves, which are sort of independent of the diocese anyway, and thus qualify as basically independent RS's. Regarding parishes, that would be a separate story, particularly for some of the younger parishes in the Americas and Asia, which will not have been so closely tied to so many possible historical events as European parishes of long standing. And I am not aware of any particular source from the Vatican, for instance, or other global organization or work with describes in detail all the parishes of the world, although Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Almanac here pretty much describes most of the dioceses that would be of interest to that source's audience, anyway.

For purposes of clarity, I would personally be inclined to think that notability of individual parishes should not be considered virtually automatic. There will be a lot of parishes which are created within, for instance, a huge city, which, in some cases, merge into another after only fifty or so years. Ideally, the best way to proceed in these matters might be to generate a list of sources which can be expected to deal with parishes, either from a national-history perspective, or documents of a diocese, like its newspaper, which would, presumably, discuss parishes, etc. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Clean up as well. A large portion will independently qualify based on NRHS or local historic listings. In rare casrs, parish articles might be merged into the diocese or parishes of diocese article. --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_encyclical#Use_for_all_papal_documents--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

wikisource:Index:TheRosaryItsHistory.djvu is a work of I think rather obvious interest to some of the members of this project, and all it needs is some editors familiar with the wikisource system to proofread it for accuracy and completion. Just thought some of you might be interested. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I created a new 1983 Code of Canon Law citation {{CIC1983}}. Add a code number and get a linked {{sfn}} citation with a link to the code number on vatican.va. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! --Zfish118^⋉talk 18:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fairly new to the group, so I just saw this. Awesome, very helpful! Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: The template doesn't seem to work. It takes up a whole line like some other templates and can't be used as a normal ref. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Crusadestudent: discussion continued at Template talk:CIC1983. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If anyone would like to use it, here's a brand-new userbox for ya:

This user believes sexual orientations are a "fact" fabricated in the 19th century. Read up!

...And a complementary First Things article to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadestudent (talk • contribs) 21:18, 02:58, 19 May 2016‎

@Crusadestudent: I think since WP:USERBOX says believes is a "potentially divisive" term, that the infobox text would be improved by removing "to make so-called 'straight' people feel better about their own unchastity." This box will become a distraction that some editors will use as a red herring to challenge what you contribute. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Crusadestudent: I do not see why this is the least bit relevant to the purposes of editing an encyclopedia. It certainly had no relevance to Wikipedia:Catholicism: it does nothing to improve the organization or content of articles relating to the Catholic Church. It reflects no official belief of the Catholic Church; it reflects at best a tangential view held by a small minority of individuals that might be associated with the Catholic Church. As a distinct issue from its lack of relevance to the Wikiproject, I concur with @BoBoMisiu:, that the template may suggest that your edits are intended to promote a biased WP:Point of view, that may undermine the credibility of your future contributions. --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's no less relevant than all the other "This user identifies as..." boxes. Since every sexual orientation under the sun has one, it's only fair for those who think it's bunk to have one of their own. No, it's not an official teaching of the CC, but I figure someone out there might agree and maybe want to use it. If that's not you, then of course you don't have to. (And the box itself doesn't say anything about being Catholic; anyone of any faith or none at all can use it; it's listed alongside its counterparts at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User boxes are primarily meant to help Wikipedia editors identify topics they are knowledgeable and interested in, specifically topics they are interested in editing articles on. The content of the infobox would suggest that your are interested in editing articles about sexual orientation to promote a minority point of view. Wikipedia does not promote particular viewpoints, only documents what reliable sources state. The content of your infobox seems to come vary close to prohibited advocacy (see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions for details). In addition, the use of sarcastic tone, such as the use of "fact" in scare quotes to mean myth, or the use of the LGTB rainbow to promote an opposing viewpoint is inconstant with Wikipedia's commitment to WP:civility. Wikipedians are expected to use a respectful tone when interacting with others, particularly those with whom they disagree. I would recommend you revise or remove your infobox.--Zfish118^⋉talk 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"The content of the infobox would suggest that your are interested in editing articles about sexual orientation to promote a minority point of view. Wikipedia does not promote particular viewpoints, only documents what reliable sources state."

Then so do all the "This user identifies as..." infoboxes.

"the use of the LGTB rainbow to promote an opposing viewpoint is inconstant with Wikipedia's commitment to WP:civility"

1) How? 2) By extension, that means that I don't identify as straight, which throws me under the LGBTQA+ (i.e., not-straight) umbrella. I didn't add the +, it was already there. 3) So again, how, exactly?

"I would recommend you revise or remove your infobox."

I already did, perhaps before you commented. (I'm way too lazy to check all the timestamps.) If you don't like it, don't use it. If you dislike it that much, go ahead and remove this section from the talk page. I really don't care. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: we are really trying to help you fit in here. Wikipedia is a complex place; not everything is perfectly consistent. Some of your edits have seemed over-enthusiastic, that make us other editors uncomfortable. There are a lot of norms that are only learned by incrementally editing, seeing how these edits are accepted, and being gracious when you receive feedback, even if it is a reversion. While it is good to be WP:Bold, it helps build your credibility when your limit bold edits to a handful at a time, especially within one content area such as Catholic-related articles. There are limited editors within this Wiki-project and we have limited time; chasing down and participating in several scattered discussions across several articles is not easy, and becomes frustrating when major changes happen with little input. As for this userbox in particular, it is not necessarily as clear as you believe to be. It does not, for instance, state that you do not personally identify with a particular sexual orientation, only that you believe the concept is a vague "Fact", presumably (but not clearly) stating you believe orientations are false. This is an inherently contentious position, and attracts negative attention to yourself.^{[note 1]}. In another userbox, you describe yourself as a "Wikignome" quietly making improvements without fanfare. If you slow down a bit to see how others react to your edits, supplemented by reading through policies and essays, you might get a better feel for the community norms, and better achieve this goal! (By the way, I am also an Eagle Scout!) --Zfish118^⋉talk 15:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, While doing updates I discovered Category:Documents of Pope Leo XIII (25 articles) and Category:Works by Pope Leo XIII (8 articles). Wondering if the last 8 ones can be moved into the first 25 and the Works by Pope Leo XIII category eliminated? This is my first time finding, so asking for expert help/advice please. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: I prefer [[Category:Works by Pope ABC 123]]. But I do not think it matters which category it is as long as the super-categories are included in the merged category. Open both Category:Documents of Pope Leo XIII and Category:Works by Pope Leo XIII in edit mode to see the super-categories listed in each of these category pages. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings,

At article Roman Curia today I did the Undo for this edit, and am asking for help to confirm this fact.

08:59, 15 May 2016‎ JoeHebda . . (58,477 bytes) (+552)‎ . . (Undid revision 720294309 by Dcheney (talk) leave here; need to add suppression info.

18:22, 14 May 2016‎ Dcheney . . (57,925 bytes) (-552)‎ . . (→‎The Pontifical Council for Social Communications: suppressed in March 2016

IMO this section should remain, with an additional sentence of details about the Council's suppression. After posting here, I will also post a notice on Talk Roman Curia pointing here. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article, Pontifical Council for Social Communications, with more details which can be updated with this recent history. — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dcheney and JoeHebda: several organizations will be combined into the Secretariat for Communications.(see Francis's 2015 letter "For the establishment of the Secretariat for Communications" article 1) But you need to cite that it has already happened. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

My primary source is non-public ('Variazioni All'Annuario Pontificio 2016 - N. 4' - which is a twice monthly update from the Vatican). It is dated 16 March 2016 and indicates 1) Abp Celli is now "former" President and 2) for the council itself it says "ha cessato la sua attività e le sue funzioni sono state assunte dalla Segreteria per la Comunicazione". --Dcheney (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

A source does not need to be public or freely available; it just must be cited within an article so that the credibility of the information, based on where it came from, can be assessed. --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dumb question, how do I cite a source when removing a section? (the current circumstance) --Dcheney (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but you might edit it in, then remove it, so it's in the page history. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Works for me - 2 edits complete, the first notes the suppression, the second removes the entry. --Dcheney (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Under "Roman Curia#Secretariat for Communications", it mentions that "council for social communications" is being merge into it. This would seem to be a logical place to mention that council was suppressed. There could also be a subsection to list suppressed councils, etc. --Zfish118^⋉talk 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there is a section on the Secretariat for Communications in the article, remove the section on Pontifical Council for Social Communications, note the restructuring in edit summary, and add {{infobox organization}} to the affected articles where Annuario Pontificio update can be cited (the infobox has fields for predecessor, merged, and successor to show the structure). For example, I think Vatican Radio will not disappear off the air but will be reorganized or renamed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hoping to prevent edit-waring, I added at Pontifical Councils another sub-section for Suppressed Pontifical Councils and moved the Social Communications there. As an encyclopedia, it is important for the historical record to preserve this information. Even though this P.C. no longer exists, it did at one time and can be useful for interested WP readers. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If all the suppressed curial offices are going to be included, then this article needs major work as there are dozens upon dozens of them. I'll leave the article alone and let others deal with it. --Dcheney (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Dcheney – Wondering, if there are dozens, could they be first listed into the Suppressed Pontifical Councils section; and then later on, created into a separate article? The new article could be titled something like Roman Curia suppressed Pontifical Councils. I would be curious as to the date of the first suppression; was it hundreds of years ago? It's name and and which Pope created, and which Pope suppressed? I think all this history would make for interesting reading. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea, these are the congregations listed in the Annuario Pontificio 1837 (available on google books) starting on page 170: Inquisition; Ordinary Apostolic Visitations; Extraordinary Apostolic Visitations; Consistorial; Bishops and Regulars; Council; Residence of Bishops; Ecclesiastical Immunities; Propagation of the Faith; Index; Sacred Rites; Ceremonial; Discipline of Regulars; Indulgences and Relics; Examination of Bishops; Correction of Books of the Eastern Church; Fabric of St. Peter's; Sacra Consulta; Good Governance; Administration of Loreto; Waters; Economics; Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs; and Studies. Some of those remain in some form today, but most have been merged or suppressed. While I think an article on the history of the roman curia would be worthwhile, I also think an article describing it only as it now exists is also appropriate. --Dcheney (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking to develop a broader consensus here, besides the 2 people who have currently been in the debate. Please take a look if you have the chance. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also duplicate this on other denominations' WikiProjects that you might be part of as well, to help avoid biased canvassing. I've already duplicated at WT:WikiProject Christianity. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The JPII and Pope Leo I articles name them as "Pope Saint John Paul II" and "Pope Saint Leo I", respectively. The article on Pope Gregory I lists him as "Pope Gregory I" and edits to add "Saint" get reverted, supposedly "per MOS". Can we establish a convention on what to do in these cases, for consistency's sake? If there is one, it's not well-enough publicized or enforced. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, John XXIII is listed as "Pope Saint John XXIII". Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: there is a convention for article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) § Popes (WP:NCCL), for Catholic popes:

"Pope name ordinal" (if more than one), e.g. Pope John XXIII.

"Articles on popes who are also saints are titled according to the guidance in Popes above, with any necessary redirects from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms" (WP:NCCL § MOS:SAINTS).

Since WP:LEADSENTENCE states that "fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead", I think saint as an honorific is acceptable in the first paragraph and in harmony with the WP:LEADSENTENCE example: Sir James Paul McCartney. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Saint" is a postmortem honorific added by the Catholic Church. Wikipedia's convention is to omit most WP:honorifics. --Zfish118^⋉talk 00:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, There is a discussion here about the renaming of Argument parameter. Please add your contributions there. Help from experts with templates would be great. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places -

• Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church#Madonna

Is this source sufficient for the claim that Madonna was excommunicated? BoBoMisiu (talk · contribs) believes that a WP:SELFSOURCE is adequate and points out that the source supports Madonna saying she was excommunicated three times, while I believe that you cannot identify into excommunication, a quasi-legal action taken by someone else, the way you might be able to identify with a religious faith or lack thereof. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

An edit where "Roman Catholic" has been changed to simply "Catholic", and it looks like the user has done this on a few userboxes, like this one as well. I was under the impression there was an important distinction, but I'm not qualified to comment. It looks like the user is heavily editing related topics, so a contrib perusal might be in order. MSJapan (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add your opinion as to regarding the name of Template:Roman Catholicism; does Template:Roman Catholicism make more sense or Template:Catholic Church sidebar? See discussion at : Template talk:Catholic Church sidebar#Requested move 31 May 2016. --Zfish118^⋉talk 01:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the RM discussion here. Looking for relevant voices to round out the discussion. Please copy this to other WikiProjects that might be interested. I'm putting this up initially at WP:Christianity, WP:Catholicism, and WP:Anglicanism, since the page is part of those projects. Thank you. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an uninvolved editor to close the RM discussion at Talk:Theology (Catholic Church)#Requested move 1 June 2016. Looks to me like consensus has been reached, but not unanimously, so I can't close; the discussion seems to have come to an end as well. Please evaluate for yourself and close if appropriate. Thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The move request template triggers a post at the appropriate noticeboard. Someone with page move privileges will eventually get to it. There is no need to rush the process. --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Was not aware of that. Thank you for informing me. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 08:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions --Zfish118^⋉talk 00:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Template_talk:Christian_mysticism#Requested_move_24_June_2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Catholic prayers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Low-quality, far from complete duplicate of the much better (B-class) Prayer in the Catholic Church.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Should be proposed for AFd or merge. Not a duplicate at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated Pope Pius XII to have its FA status reviewed - the article was nominated and reviewed last in 2006, ten years ago, and has not been kept up to date, especially not concerning the more critical literature that has come out in the past decade. Please chip in at the review here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, At Template talk:Catholic saints#Not canonized: Blessed Martyrs of Drina? I posted details about whether the Blessed Martyrs of Drina article should be removed from the template. Or were the martyrs canonized? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked and cannot find any RSs claiming they have been canonized; it appears they have only been beatified so far. And recently, too, so that's not too surprising. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Today I removed the 'Blessed Martyrs of Drina' from template 'Catholic saints'; and removed template from article. I did place the 'Subject bar' template instead. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I just happened across Conservator (religion), which was copied from the 1913 Encyclopedia Britannica back in 2005 and has received maybe 20 edits with no major changes since. It's not presently tagged or rated by any WikiProject (its one-line talk page predates that). Maybe somebody should take it back into the fold. :) Wnt (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've put the Christianity/Catholicism and Middle Ages talk page banners on. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Wnt – Today, I added a 'History' section title so the article now has a lead. Also added a subject bar template. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To any interested and knowledgeable editors, help is needed at Christian perfection. As of now, the section on Catholic teaching is not very informative. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Ltwin – Today I did update top of the Catholic section with {{for|additional information|Catholic spirituality|Universal call to holiness}}. While the article is beyond my area of expertise, after a quick read I thought pointing readers to both of these articles I had previously found would be helpful. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Thanks! Ltwin (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an RM at Talk:Divine_Liturgy_of_St._John_Chrysostom for multiple related pages that has not seen a single vote despite having been relisted. Please pay a visit. Thanks. (CC: WP:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This article about the radical schism needs some serious neutralizing, if anyone is interested.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Monochrome Monitor – Today I added at the article's talk page, the Catholicism WP article assessment criteria. Uncertain if this will help draw additional editors to the article. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: could you start a discussion at Talk:Society of Saint Pius X which points out your concerns. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I really intended to be more of a messenger to those more knowledgeable about/ with more investment in this area. But I'll start one soon. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could an experienced editor review these edits by Hymnodist.2004? They've been adding that certain months traditionally represent a certain item (Jesus, etc) in the Catholic church. I would think that if these entries were truly notable, they would've been added by now. Also, some of this user's other edits are interesting. Thanks. Graham87 09:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The related Category:Pope stubs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Dawynn (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated St. Peter's Basilica for Featured article status. Its entry is listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Peter's Basilica/archive1, where you can leave your comments. All comments are appreciated and the more there are, the more quickly it can be promoted or the nomination closed. Ergo Sum 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The related Category:Catholic Church stubs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Dawynn (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

hi, a number of Catholic bishop articles are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, thought you might like a heads up. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is in pretty bad need of cleanup. Right much is poorly written and entire sections look to be copy paste from the 1983 CIC. I'm working on it piecemeal, but any help would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I landed there while doing some research and just wanted to drop a quick FYI. The article, which deals with a subject I'd think was of at least moderate importance to this project, has some problems. I've tagged the article and left a short note on the talk page if anyone is interested. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Ave Regina Caelorum article has two templates: (Roman Catholic Mariology) and (Marian prayers), but I don't see a difference. The second could focus on prayer by eliminating the other sections; (Prayers and devotions could also be eliminated from the first.) Why two identical templates? Mannanan51 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. {{Roman Catholic Mariology}} and {{Marian prayers}} are both redirects to the same template, {{Catholic mariology sidebar}}. Cambalachero (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I take it then that you were not interested in a separate template just for prayers. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The (in)famous anti-Catholic bigot and purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories has passed over. His article is dreadfully unbalanced and supported almost exclusively by Chick affiliated sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that the Cardinal-Designates named this morning do not become Cardinals until 19 November. While it is appropriate to mention the upcoming event in their bios, they should not be called Cardinals yet.--Dcheney (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a follow up, there are still 4 of the new Cardinal-Designates without English Wiki articles. There are articles on all 4 in other languages: fr:Maurice Piat, es:Carlos Aguiar Retes, it:John Ribat, and it:Sebastian Koto Khoarai.--Dcheney (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added a significant amount from es:Carlos Aguiar Retes to his English article. It appears that the Spanish article is almost a direct copy of the page at the Archdiocese. Since my translation is somewhat edited from the Spanish article, I think we don't have the same copyright concerns that the Spanish article would have. Argyriou (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette in Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good day to you, my brothers and sisters. I am currently tracking the addition of material to a large range of United States Catholic (arch)diocese articles. The material consists of "Priests of this diocese who became bishops". I began to remove it as unsourced, as the editor(s) are introducing it bare, without any footnote, citation, source or reference. The editor (currently @174.200.16.64:) claims that the source is Catholic-Hierarchy.org. There is substantial agreement on Wikipedia that this is a self-published source and not suitable as a reliable secondary source such as would be needed for biographical information. I have reverted a few articles, and engaged in discussion with the editor, but I came here chiefly because there needs to be a centralized discussion rather than several underwatched article talk pages and user talk pages for IP addresses that are not stable. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Elizium23 – Throwing in my two cents here. Instead of listing "Priests of diocese who became bishops" within the article itself, I've seen them listed (plain) within the diocese Navbox template, for example Template:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Rather than a complete removal (for which I see your point) it might be helpful for readers to find them listed in the diocese navbox instead. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't address my main issue of adequate sourcing. Are you trying to say that you accept Catholic-Hierarchy as a source for this material? Elizium23 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been "on again - off again" discussions of this topic with no ultimate resolution. See recent, and here. Whenever I see Catholic Hierarchy in article references, I tag with {{Self-published source}} template. If additional editors have ideas & opinions on this topic please contribute them here. Thanks. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll add my usual note: I am the creator of the website in question and would be happy to answer any questions regarding it. I take no view about its suitability as a source for Wiki.--Dcheney (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 203#catholic-hierarchy.org was pretty clearly running in favor of considering Catholic-Hierarchy as a reliable source for 19th Century through present day data, though I wouldn't call it a consensus. Argyriou (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to tag it as an SPS, but it is good to wikilink it to make it clear that it is an unofficial website. @Dcheney: I'm not sure if I did the right thing in mentioning CH in the Bonifatius Haushiku article, but you may want to check what seems to be a mistake. StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added a bit more research on the talk page for that article. In my own databases I've added a flag indicating the year is in doubt. You are also welcome to leave comments on potential errors on my talk page.--Dcheney (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone able to find a picture of René Chamussy they could add to the infobox please?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Chamussy is on the main page, in the "recent deaths" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Due to emerging consensus at Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia#Requested move 2 October 2016 we have effected a move from the incorrectly-named "Roman Catholicism in <country>" to "Catholic Church in <country>". However, there is some objection to the wholesale move of dozens of such articles based on a short and limited discussion. Also, we have our work cut out for us, because, let's admit it, the article titles and category names are a random MESS of "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" in an unholy mixture that is a nightmare for maintainability and readability and navigability. Perhaps we should once and for all decide which side of the fence we are on. Personally, the only places I will accept "Roman Catholic Church" is where we mean the Latin Church to the exclusion of Eastern Catholic Churches. For example, Roman Catholicism in Scotland should be talking about the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of the Holy Family of London, being part of the country, at which point it's no longer exclusively about "Roman" Catholicism but about the Catholic Church. It seems to me that if we can achieve stable consensus about the flagship article of the Catholic Church, we should be able to attain similar consensus about all related articles, and make them finally consistent, and frankly I am tired of trying to figure out which is which. Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Good points. However, the idea that Roman Catholic Church should refer to the Latin Church seems foreign to many users, including me. Furthermore, to add to your post, there is also the equivalent issue of the relevant category tree. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 19:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It may seem foreign, but if you try to tell the average Eastern Catholic that he is Roman Catholic, he will be greatly offended and reply that he is Ukrainian/Chaldean/Melkite/Maronite Catholic, not Roman. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The categories are now up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_29#Category:Roman_Catholic_Church Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to consider Category:Roman Catholic dioceses as well? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC concerning the proper way to refer to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Interested editors can find the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that List of Catholic dioceses in North America was moved to Category:Catholicism in Africa, by Cydebot on 8 Nov 2016. I then undid the move and changed the article to Category:Catholicism in North America. As I then went about creating it as a new category, I came to Category:Catholic Church in Africa and saw that it contains subcats and articles that are about Oceania and the Americas ...! Can someone look into this and undo what Cydebot has done? Also, could someone investigate to see how this happened, so that it doesn't happen again? Thank you for your "devotion" (please excuse the pun) to Wikipedia and its articles on Catholicism. God bless you. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed I inadvertently put this talk page into 3 article cats. I hope I have reversed this by adding a colon. Sorry. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In 2005, I attended the episcopal ordination of José Miguel Gómez Rodríguez, and was able to take pictures from a privileged vantage point. I was using an inexpensive camera and the lighting wasn't very good, but some of the pictures may be useful for illustrating other articles. I have the photos (along with some family snaps from the event) posted here. If any of you want me to upload some for use in other articles, let me know, either here or on my Talk page. Argyriou (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If anybody likes writing articles about Catholic schools in the U.S., it may be good to consider starting Spanish language articles on ESwiki, especially if the schools are in Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, and other cities with large numbers of Spanish speakers.

http://www.ololourdes.org/Church/atimo_s/bulletins/2014/20140105.pdf is from the Our Lady of Lourdes School (14000 S.W. 112 Street, Miami, FL 33186) in Miami-Dade County. Since it's K-8 it doesn't normally qualify for its own school article, but notice how it has a newsletter in Spanish as well as English.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a proposed change to Template:Infobox church to add an important feature: a parameter to enter the order of a church. This is especially useful for Catholic churches, many of which are associated with particular religious orders. If you support, oppose, or would like to comment, please see Template talk:Infobox church#Add parameter. Ergo Sum 01:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note St. Joachim and St. John the Evangelist's Church (Beacon, New York) is actually one Parish with two Churches, not one church. Each building retains its individual dedication. However, I'm not at all sure what the correct title should be... "Parish of..."?/"St. Joachim and St. John the Evangelist's Parish"? (The parish website St. Joachim/St.John the Evangelist homepage is of no use, apparently because they view the "church" as the community rather than each building, ['tho I doubt an architect would agree]). (Compare the website for OLPH-St. Catherine in Pelham .) I ask because the parishes of St. Vito's Church (Mamaroneck, New York) and Most Holy Trinity Church, Mamaroneck were also merged but at present have individual articles. I'm not certain what the value is in retaining separate articles, (at least since neither appears to have an historic designation), but hesitate to tag it for a merge. (I'm sure there are others.) Thoughts? Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: to be honest, the article is a bit confusing now. If it's intended to be about the buildings, split it. If about the parish, keep together. I'm not entirely sure the parish as currently erected by the Archdiocese is notable so I would go with the split. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I trust my question was sufficiently abstruse. I have no problem with St. Joachim's and St. John's in one article as I think it summarizes rather succinctly two places that have a joint administration, while retaining any historical information that might otherwise be deleted as an individual article. I think the term "church" has been used broadly to include all kinds of information re a particular edifice, (i.e., local history, 19th century industrial/economic development, schools, etc. New York alone has about fifty churches/parishes that have merged. I think the articles should also be merged in order to more accurately describe the new situation. However, that results in the term "church" being used to describe both the new corporate entity and its separate and generally distinct physical structures that it operates out of. OTOH I'm not aware of any instance where "parish" has been used as part of a title, although perhaps it should be. I'm just looking for some second/third opinions/suggestions. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A yes, thank you for clarifying. WP:COMMONNAME leads me to think the current name would be what you're looking for. Canonically they are distinct religious edifices with one parish, but if since the merger they appear to use church as a synonym for parish, I'd go with fhat. Hopefully that is more helpful than my first response. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. I think I'll just go with whatever they call themselves. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Until now I have only been an occassional contributor to Wikipedia.

However, I have become quite enthusiastic recently and intend contributing as much as possible to articles about the religious shrines of Poland and other subjects of interest to me. There are lots of information still missing on the topic of Polish shrines.--Mgr. James McConnaughey (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My watchlist is showing some Australian articles being renamed (e.g. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane has been renamed Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane) with the edit summary "(Per WP:Consistency according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism)". However, having come to this talk page, I see no discussion that appears to have taken such a decision. The renaming seem to involve dioceses and archdioceses that are part of the Roman Catholic church (as in under the authority of Pope Francis and the Vatican) and are NOT about any wider use of the term Catholic. Could someone please explain why these edits are occurring and what kind of broad consensus has been established to support this? The term "Roman Catholic" is a commonly used term in Australia and these articles have had that title uncontested for many years. Thanks Kerry (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There are several non-Roman, but still Catholic, dioceses in Australia; Catholic-Hierarchy tells me there are: Saint Maron of Sydney (Maronite), Saint Michael’s of Sydney (Melkite Greek), Saint Thomas the Apostle of Melbourne (Syro-Malabar), and Saint Thomas the Apostle of Sydney (Chaldean). Other than those, articles about dioceses in Australia should be called "Roman Catholic". Argyriou (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please consider consulting Roman_Catholic_(term)#.22Roman_Catholic.22_and_.22Western_or_Latin_Catholic.22 for a perspective on that minor, unrecognised view that you just expressed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be pretentions of an arrived consensus contrary to the above concerning templates, judging from this edit. Any comments, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, woah, you do NOT have consensus to move diocese articles to a new name. There are thousands of them. They are all consistent right now: Latin Church articles are named "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo" and Eastern Church articles are named "Syro-Malabar Catholic Diocese/Eparchy of Bar". That is a perfectly normal situation for me. Frankly, if I had known that the categories had Eastern Catholic counterpart categories I never would've supported the rename away from "Roman Catholic..." Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If you check User:Chicbyaccident's recent contributions over the past day or so, there are many in which the word Roman is be removed in various ways (article titles, categories, etc), many of them using a similar edit summary to what I saw that seems to suggest the implementation of some agreed position at this project talk page, which does not seem to be the case. User:Chicbyaccident, please desist with these edits until a consensus is reached. Kerry (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. The situation seems unclear now that you seem to object, so I guess a little more discussion would do. As for instance categories, what would be the reason to go for "Roman Catholic" for these, while the churches they belong to go under "Catholic", please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Therein lies the issue. Roman Catholic has been the established term in thousands of articles and categories. Perhaps the question should be, the usage has seen items specifically established here on wikipedia - how is it that an editor seeds fit to start changing at this point ? I have seen nothing above that justifies or clarifies the case for changing. Elizium23's answer suggests there is no case anyway JarrahTree 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I propose (what I think was the status quo). If an article is about a Roman Catholic church/diocese/whatever, the title uses the words Roman Catholic. If the article is about a non-Roman Catholic whatever, then it is called Catholic (or whatever flavour of Catholic applies, Maronite etc). If a category/template is entirely populated with Roman Catholic articles and subcats, then it has Roman Catholic in its name. If the category/template has Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic content, then just use Catholic in its name. Kerry (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Any renaming must be done with care and consistency across all related articles. This should not be done arbitrarily, as it creates a lot of work for both the proposer, and others who might need to clean up or revert an incomplete effort. Please see WP:Catholic or Roman Catholic? for a more complete argument, as well as links to previous related discussions.

[Edit to Add] The status quo is a mix of styles (Catholic Diocese of X, Roman Catholic Diocese of Y, Diocese of Z, etc). I would argue that as long at there is no ambiguity, renaming should be avoided, as it is a more complex task than it might seem.--Zfish118^⋉talk 09:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - it must be noted it is an essay, and not policy - the point about a good resolution from discussion and consensus is the editors who choose to discuss - have a useful essay to consider JarrahTree 09:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, @Zfish118:, but I don't see a single Diocese article that is not of the format "Roman Catholic (Arch)Diocese of Foo". Every diocese in the US follows this format, and every page I checked under the Asia and Europe category trees do as well. So you're going to have to enlighten us with some links that show these outliers so that we can correct them for consistency with the naming scheme long established by consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not excused. To be clear, I do not have to "enlighten" you about anything. Rename any article you wish, but make sure you do it correctly and completely.17:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about the reason for your sudden hostility, unless you are lying outright about the existence of the page names you mentioned before; the status quo you described simply does not seem to exist, so please come clean. Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

{ping|Elizium} You yourself have described the naming situation of Catholic articles to be an "unholy" mess. I am simply describing the same situation you are. I have stumbled across all sorts of inconsistent naming and categorizations. I have made no list of these inconsistencies because I have no strong opinion of the need for consistency or which naming convention method is best. I do not feel the effort involved is worth the potential benefits. I am especially concerned, because numerous pages have been carelessly renamed when no one took the care to update all related content. My hostility is in reaction to your interjection that my observation is wrong and I must produce immediate proof. I am choosing to react in a more measured way despite to your inference that I might be "lying" and your demand that "come clean". Your responses are both accusatory in tone. --Zfish118^⋉talk 20:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RE this disussion - it appears that further potentially confusing actions have continued at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Armenia regardsing this discussion. JarrahTree 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have stricken my very rude and combative comments above, and I hereby apologize to Zfish118 and anyone else I offended with my attitude. Please accept my sincere apologies. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing that below the 'Mariology' section on the {{Catholic Church footer}} template add a section named Josephology with Saint Joseph's Day as an entry. As the legal father of Jesus, no matter the source of the birth, Joseph raised an intelligent and principled son for at least 12 years (when Joseph is lost to biblical history). I didn't think this was controversial, so had added it and then was asked to bring it here. Joseph, a key member of the Holy Family and not just a guy banging on the window when the wind gets too heavy, had dreams and took actions which were instrumental in saving and guiding the lives of his family. Randy Kryn 12:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's already heavy loaded. Perhaps even too heavy loaded. I rather wonder what content could be minimilised if possible? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Doesn't sound like a valid reason to oppose the addition. Templates are maps to a subject's pages on Wikipedia, and if Mariology is included on the template then a small Josephology section probably deserves a spot on the map as well, and maybe it will lead to other editors creating related pages. I guess it is controversial, I proposed it because a family member gave me a life-size statue of Joseph as a Christmas gift for some reason so I've made a couple of edit runs on the topic's pages. Randy Kryn 13:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. My concern is that with all of the saints, other editors might begin adding even more sections to this template. Alternate update would be to:

1. At template bottom, after Liturgical rites section, add a new section "Additional".
2. Add Josephology wikilink here
3. From above, delete Mariology section, and add just Mariology wikilink here

If this makes sense, it would help make the template somewhat smaller and provide a location for any future updates that do not fit into prior sections. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't erase the Mariology section, that's an important part of the Catholic Church. Adding a Joseph and a Josephology linked section wouldn't expand the template much (it isn't near to being overly large) and would add this important topic, or maybe a link in the first section (began it with: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles,...) would allow Joseph to be linked on the template without adding an entire section. I would hope all of us can agree that 'Joseph' is an important enough topic to be included somewhere on the template. Not because he's been labeled a 'Saint', but because of the legal father/son relationship he had along with Mary's role in what an article here refers to as the Holy Family. Randy Kryn 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)