This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus -- Aervanath (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe retitling the portal would allow for a clearer idea of its apparently intended scope, which seems to be the papacy and the broader area of the Vatican. I support such a move. John Carter (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It says "The Papacy Portal". What's wrong with Portal:Papacy? It seems to be about the institution, not the man. --nemonoman (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason some variation on Portal:Vatican comes to mind is because (1) someone just created Portal:Vatican City, which is almost a pure duplicate, (2) at least to my eyes, the use of "Papacy" or any variation thereon doesn't seem to rule out the Coptic Popes, who also use that name, and (3) "Vatican" (as opposed to Vatican City), at least to this practicng Roman Catholic, fits in with the popular usage similar to "story from the Vatican", which, in context, generally refers more to the top of the Catholic hierarchy than to the current city by that name. Thus, a portal by that name would, I think in the eyes of many/most Roman Catholics, who are after all most likely to look at it, reasonably include content on the popes, including the Avignon popes, as well as, potentially, the Roman Curia, the buildings and structures of the city, and so on. On that basis, it seems to me to have the best chances of having a broad enough scope while at the same time clearly limiting itself to the Roman Catholic Church. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Your logic is remarkably convoluted. Vatican would include the Avignon captivity(?) but Papacy would be confusing because of the (whoever heard of them) Coptic Popes? And you're suggesting Vatican because somebody just created Vatican City? Like that wouldn't in itself be confusing? Yikes. --nemonoman (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is actually rather straightforward. And my apologies if you seem to think that suggesting portals adhere to WP:NPOV is regretable. The fact that comparatively few people are adherents to the Coptic Orthodox Church today does not mean that individuals like Athanasius of Alexandria are somehow nonnotable. The intention is to basically merge the two portals, Vatican City and Pope, into one. The Vatican City is effectively itself only one aspect of the central power structure of the RCC, and only has been for a comparatively short time. Also, as stated, the popular press in the United States and I believe the UK seems to use the phrase "from the Vatican" and the like as the quick way to describe something which comes from the central power structure of the RCC. Also, as a bit of a student of history, the phrase "from the Vatican" and the like was used before the creation of the state of the Vatican City, so it is a bit preferable on that basis as well, as it makes inclusion of material related to the Papal States more possible. Granted, I may be assuming my information on the subject is a bit better than that of some others, but as someone who has been a member of the RCC and an active student of for about 30 years I think I have some basis for doing so. John Carter (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Vatican City is a nation, I hardly see it as a duplicate, since it has embassies and ambassadors, while the Vatican is an organ of the Roman Catholic Church, which is an alltogether different matter. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
While the Vatican City does have embassies and ambassadors, the embassies and ambassadors working for the Vatican City (as opposed to foreign ambassadors stationed there), are themselves part of the central power structure of the church. The only items which would have the chance of being excluded from the Vatican portal and included in the Vatican City portal would be the foreign offices and officers to the Vatican, and there aren't that many articles on such subjects, and they could just as easily be included in the portals of their native states.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)