This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars 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 after being open for over a month. The RfC proposal seems to have been rejected. No prejudice to renominations, individual or otherwise. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople → Ignatius of Constantinople — As noted in WP:NCP additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.") should not be used, except for neutral disambiguation. The listed names do not require the titular prefix for disambiguation, disambiguation by city appears to be sufficient to distinguish them from those with similar names. Relisted. Jafeluv (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this wait after the relevant RfC is finished? So far consensus seems to be against it. Constantine✍ 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case I don't believe so. This is largely a result of the recently closed requested move relating to standardization in that topic area. Therefore, only religious officials in that topic area are involved. No individuals with names that may require disambiguation by title have been included (ex: Patriarch John VIII of Constantinople) as a result of the RfC discussions.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am nor sure I get your point. As far as I can understand, the clergy guidelines call for a uniform application of title-name-ordinal-see format except where there is a commonly used name. The above are not "commonly used" forms (as with Michael Cerularius, where we both agreed) in any way more than the present forms. They may be equally, less or more ambiguous than the current titles, but I see no compelling reason to move them, if tens of other articles continue to remain in the "Patriarch XXX of Constantinople" format. In this case, I am in favour of uniformity in naming. Retention of the status quo is also the impression I get from the RfC, at least so far. Constantine✍ 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:NCP, the overarching policy for all people clearly notes states that unnecessary qualifiers should not be used. That has been the case for all royal figure, persons in political offices and Arabic, Jewish and Western Christian religious officials. The only execption appears to be eastern officials, this is just to bring them into the fold. None of the listed individuals share the name with other "of Constantinople" religious officials, so the 'Patriarch' qualifiers are not necessary.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see why removing their title matters that much. Personally, I prefer its retention since it identifies them for who they were. These people are relatively unknown, and it is useful (at least to me) to see "patriarch" in front of their names. Furthermore, since the policy for eastern clergy is what it is, and it won't be changed as matters appear in the RfC, IMO uniformity is desirable. Constantine✍ 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
The fact that Ignatius of Constantinople was a eunuch, particularly by force, had no canonical implications to his Patriarchal throne, as suggested in this entry. Canons from both the 1st canon of the First Council of Nicaea, and the 21st canon of the 85 Apostolic Canons state very clearly that eunuchs, if either born as such, or forcibly castrated, may obtain and/or retain their seat as bishop.Meestro (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Those sources check out. I'm removing the unsourced sentence in the article which claims that Ignatius' consecration as patriarch was against canon law.Enon (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)