Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CATHOLIC)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism / Canon law (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Emblem of Vatican City.svg
Catholicism
WikiProject
Última Cena - Juan de Juanes.jpg
General information
Main project page talk
Christianity WikiProject talk
Members talk
To-do list talk
Assessment talk
Canon law Task Force talk
Collaboration talk
Strategy talk
Terminology talk
Project category talk
Catholicism Portal talk
Project templates
Project banner talk
Footer navbox talk
Popes navbox talk
Catholic
Encyclopedia
talk
edit · changes

Request for input in discussion forum[edit]

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)



Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

2012 WikiGrail[edit]

USVA headstone emb-29.svg

Greetings! Ii gives me great pleasure to announce the inaugural 2012 WikiGrail. It is a friendly competition for Christianity-related project members that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards

afd[edit]

October 2014 disambiguation help needed.[edit]

Greetings! The following articles relating to this WikiProject are among the most-linked disambiguation pages this month. Please help to fix the incoming links to these pages if you can:

Cheers! bd2412 T 20:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Templates: Catholic Church in Australia, Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia[edit]

There seems to be a lot of overlap between {{Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia}} and {{Catholic Church in Australia}} - the latter of which was recently added to Roman Catholic Diocese of Darwin. Should the two templates be merged? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I created the latter as an umbrella navbox for the entirety of the Catholic Church in Australia. The one which presently exists only for the Dioceses, Ordinariates and Eparchies is lacking in content. I'd personally support a merge of the older into the newer template. That being said, I would have an inherent conflict of interest as the template creator. I will bow to consensus. James (TC) • 5:18 PM 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
While the second one is certainly thorough, it might also be slightly excessive. The Cathedral subsection is not well organized; for instance, it is not immediately clear which Cathedral belongs to which diocese. Presumably, one could navigate to the diocese's page to find a link to its cathedral. There are also presumably hundreds or thousands of churches in Australia, and it would be very ambitious to list them all, and the resulting master template would become quite cumbersome. Thinning the list might result in an arbitrary selection. What might be work out instead could be a navigation template for each diocese, containing its cathedral, parishes, and religious orders, that could plug in above the master template. One could navigate through information about a particular diocese, and then use the master template to navigate to the root page of another diocese. The master template itself might be a bit more generalized by including links to nationwide ministries, religious orders, and the bishop's conference. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The Cathedrals are listed in order of Diocese. With respect to orders, there are those which have a Superior General, but which report to the diocesan or local bishop. Then there are orders of Pontifical Right, Opus Dei (a personal prelature) and various smaller orders. I will attempt to cleanup the layout as you are correct in pointing out that as it is, it is very clunky and not immediately clear. James (TC) • 9:55 AM 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that not all religious institutes are orders. Most are congregations or societies of apostolic life. Orders are large and hundreds of years old: I believe the last one to be founded was the Society of Jesus in 1540. Many so-called reliable sources get these things wrong. The best way to find out is by checking the institute's own websites. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, within Australia we have the Immaculata Order. It's a small, cloistered order, but their constitution was approved by Archbishop Julian Porteous (when he was an Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney) and he presided over the solemn profession of vows of the Mother Superior and a number of other nuns within the order.
That being said, how would we possibly include the orders in the new navbox?James (TC) • 8:10 AM 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Synod on families[edit]

I was a little surprised to discover that there was no article on the synod on families currently underway, so I created 2014 Extraordinary General Synod of Bishops. It is very much a stub, so contributions are welcome. --Briancua (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Josaphat Kuntsevych Controversy[edit]

IP 188.129.90.247 has been aggressively editing the article on Josaphat Kuntsevych, a canonized Catholic saint. After making several obviously POV attempts to edit the article w/o sources he has added one. Unfortunately the source is a polemically anti-Catholic website which I doubt passes WP:RS. Further a good chunk of the most recent edit looks like a copy and paste. That said, some of the claims may be legitimate and there are original sources quoted. Kuntsevych is a VERY controversial figure among Eastern Orthodox Christians. See the talk page. Currently I am unable to revert any of his edits due to 3RR. A look from other editors would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article naming convention for Latin documents identified by incipits[edit]

Moved: was at User talk:BoBoMisiu

The following discussion took place on my talk page.

I agree and support your recent page move to Ad sanctam beati Petri sedem based on the fact that Latin incipits do not capitalize all the words. However, it is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia; see Category:Documents of the Catholic Church. Should we endeavor to move all the pages in question to lowercase names? And if so, I suggest we open a thread first on WT:CATHOLIC to make sure there is WP:CONSENSUS for the change first. What do you think? Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that using the capitalization found in sources such as Denzinger, etc. is the way to go and I see that the Vatican website also uses lower case incipits. It seems to be the more correct way. Now that I looked at how many articles are not lower case incipit form, it is better to find WP:CONSENSUS. A thread on WT:CATHOLIC is the best way to go. I would help moving them. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) that all the articles about church documents identified by latin incipits should be moved to titles with lower case and that a naming convention for such articles be defined somewhere. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Admittedly, capitalization is often used in English, especially in journalism, through mistaking an incipit for a title. Thus, for instance, "Lumen Gentium" is quite common. But it is still incorrect. It does not concern only documents in Latin. Think of Mit brennender Sorge and Non abbiamo bisogno. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pope John XXIII#Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pope John XXIII#Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

I wanted to entertain a broader discussion here, as the talk page where this began is watched by fewer than 30 editors. In regards to Interwiki links, do people here feel that they should be used liberally within an article when the only alternatives would be no link at all, or a redlink? I feel personally that they are confusing and unnecessarily surprising. If an English-language reader sees a bluelink then he expects an English-language article on the other side. We should not presume to yank their attention to Italian here, and German there, and Spanish there, all within the context of the same article. But I will leave it up to WP:CONSENSUS here. Unfortunately the person who has added them is edit-warring to keep them in, has not responded to talk page requests or indeed ever participated in any discussion at all, and never uses edit summaries. So whatever the outcome, we could use some enforcement of it. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I use them. The {{ill}} is a red link with another interlanguage link in parenthesis. When a page is created in the English language Wikipedia, the foreign interlanguage link will not be shown. It provides more information than a bare red link. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I use English Wiktionary only. And not very often. I don't use foreign language internal links. They are confusing and not helpful IMO. They violate the rule of no imbedded external links and WP:USEENGLISH. The idea of a link is to provide the reader with more information. We assume the reader is English (may be second or third language. But we don't know what his/her first language is). Providing them with a foreign language article is unhelpful. It would seem deceptive to me. As an editor, I would rm it.
As a contributing editor, I would try to extract the footnote from the foreign language article and use it.Student7 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The start of the Western Schism-infoboxes at Pope Gregory XI-article[edit]

Before an edit-war will break out I will ask you here for advice. The Western Schism originated after the death of Pope Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected and took his residence in Rome. Dissatisfied cardinals chose Clement VII, who returned to Avignon. The popes got a somewhat equal support in the world.

My idea was to make this visible in the succession-boxes, without taking a stance on the ‘correct’ pope (see here . However, User:GoodDay prefers the official line of popes, arguing “Schism not highlighted in succession boxes of 'schism' era popes articles.” See here. Well, I believe that he origin of the Schism should be visible in the succession-boxes. After all, when a country splits in two, Wikipedia makes that visible as well. The same should apply in papacies, I think. But what do other users think? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, if an anti-pope is going to be added as a successor of Gregory XI, then one would need to add anti-popes into the infoboxes & succession boxes of Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VI, Gregory XII and Martin V, as the Western Schism ended in 1418. PS: Remember folks, the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. That's why they're called anti-popes. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This would probably best be solved through an RfC. I can see, in some of the few cases where there were legitimate reasons for the "election" of the antipope and maybe less good reasons for the so-called "pope" that including both as successors in the succession-box of the previous pope might make sense. But those are probably rather rare instances and might best be addressed on a case by case basis. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tricky stuff. IMHO, the Western Schism template is all that's required on the 'Schism era' popes. Again, not sure why similar edits weren't made to the other pope infoboxes & succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
GoodDay, thanks for your input, but I disagree. With your logic, we should include each North Korean president in succession boxes of South Korean presidents, which makes no sense. I would rather take an example on the Roman Emperor Didius Julianus-article. After he was killed, the generals Pescennius Niger in Syria, Septimius Severus in Pannonia, and Clodius Albinus in Britain saw themselves as successor. All three are included in the succession box. I think that is how it should be there, and at the Pope Gregory XI-article as well.
I know that the Vatican excludes these anti-popes from the papal line. However, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia; the last time I checked WP was not owned by the Vatican, so their views are not to be followed blindly here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If you include the anti-popes (again, not sure why you added only to Gregory XI's infobox & succession box), then you'd be un-legitimizing Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII & Martin V. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote only Gregory XI's succession box because the split happened after his death. And it is not me who is/was un-legitimizing those popes. It were the Avignon popes who were doing that to the ones in Rome, and vice versa. Look, if we were talking about the Star Wars-universe, I would comply to anything George Lucas says about it. But we are discussing real history here. The Vatican has no complete authority to the truth on that.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm still bewildered as to why the anti-popes weren't added to the infoboxes & successon boxes of the other 'Western Schism' popes. PS: Again, the template below, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

.

(e-c)Part of the "real history" Jeff5102 mentions of who is and is not a "successor" to a position which is, officially, the leader of a clearly defined group is who that group counts as being in the official line. I don't see Lambert Simnel listed as a possible successor to Richard III of England, although as a pretender to the throne of England he would meet the same basic criteria that the anti-popes would. If we don't have dubious claimants listed in other official regnal succession boxes, there is a reasonable question whether they should be listed here. Probably the best way to get a good answer to this, like I said, would be to file an RfC and provide as much information or at least links to it regarding the matter as individuals who don't have a really good grasp of Catholic history will be able to examine all the relevant concerns and come to a reasonable conclusion. I might include such an RfC in the "Religion and philosophy", "Politics, government, and law," and "Biographies" categories myself, to try to get responses from the broadest number of people informed in those various topics. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In agreement. Your Lambert Simnel example is spot on. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference between Simnel and the Avignon antipopes is that the antipopes were recognized by countries like France and Scotland as the official pope for many years. Simnel was just a pretender for a few months, without ever having worn an official crown. I do believe that Didius Julianus and/or Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia (whose succession is disputed as well) are better examples. That said, an RfC would be a good idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A Gallican pope is not the same thing as a pope. If, say for instance, China set up there own "Catholic" pope, he would still not be a pope but an antipope.
Well, would an anti-pope actually have to do anything? Like produce an encyclical which is still in effect (dogma)? Or are we just trying to judge claimants here, heedless of their impact on the church they are each claiming?
Americans once fought a war in which they elected governors when a royal governor was quite legally in residence. After the war, the royal governors were deposed and their acts denounced or ignored. Since the Americans won, their version of the war takes precedence. Alternately, we can ignore the Treaty of Paris (1783) as US-Centric and come up with our own succession chart.
If you don't like this analogy there are probably others where "pretenders" have had to yield to reality. There were not "two" (or more) lines. Student7 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that I state the obvious when I say that I see THREE lines in the chart presented by GoodDay. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Usage of the chart (only) in the bios of popes Urban VI to Martin V, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it might well make sense to raise this question at Template talk:Succession box, perhaps as an RfC, after the existing RfC taking place there ends. It generally is not particularly helpful to have multiple RfCs on the same page at the same time. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Sometimes two or more claimants can be included in a succession box, (like what happens in the William II of Holland-article), sometimes not. The question is if the Avignon Popes are important enough to be included in the succession box.
And another thing: GoodDay, why did you edit the info-boxes of (anti)-popes-articles so that they comply to your own opinion (like this one, this one and this one) before this discussion has ended? Those are exactly the edits as opposed to what I meant by "Wikipedia is not owned by the Vatican." At least you could have done was to wait for some consensus. It is not very constructive for this discussion, I must say.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I fixed up the anti-pope bios, as again they appeared to question the legitimacy of the popes-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I added Innocent VII, Gregory XII & Martin V to the anti-pope Benedeict XIII's infobox, because his claimed reign was 1394 to 1423. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, have you noticed the name of the articles-in-question? They're (for examples) Pope Gregory XII & Antipope Benedict XIII - not Pope Gregory XII (Roman claiment) & Pope Benedict XIII (Avignon claiment). GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"Again appeared to question the legitimacy of the popes in question"? What do you mean? All I know is that you edited something, that was undisputed for four to six years. Just see the 2008 versions of Alexander V and Antipope John XXIII and the 2010 version of Antipope Benedict XIII. And now we are discussing the topic, you all of a sudden think it is time to change it? Why didn't you wait until the RfC was over? I started this discussion to avoid an edit-war. Please, don't let my efforts be in vain.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you can get a consensus for what your want, then those articles will be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I see. So your changes will stand until I can reach consensus for the previous status quo. Quite an interesting method, I must say.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The title of "Pope" [in regard to the leader of the Catholic Church] has no meaning absent its recognition from the body that bestows that title. The group that elected the next undisputed Pope following these controversies also choose which of the past claimants recognize. Thus presenting the popes on the Catholic Church's list as the "official" Popes is the only neutral point of view; ONLY the Catholic Church can produce such a list. The external recognition of France or other of alternative Popes is immaterial. Information about the legitimacy of any "anti-Pope's" claims are of course welcome and necessary, as many have strong arguments for why they believed they were Pope. They may even have exercised some recognizable authority over the alleged temporal assets of the Papacy. One, however, cannot rightly say they succeeded as the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church if they are not on the list. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, I have to agree with the above. I note that the Coptic Church also uses the term "Pope" for its head, so it cannot be said that the term is specific to the Catholic Church. The question is whether the Catholic Church is the only body which arose from the schism. At least in the short term, it wasn't. And theoretically the "real" Catholic Church could have died with the last of the anti-popes, with the remaining church effectively usurping the name. Theoretically anyway, and although I don't think that argument is necessarily made in this particular case I know it is at other points in Catholic history. I still think that the thing to do is wait until the current RfC at succession boxes is concluded, and then start a new one there, and, basically, put a solution and resolution of the question on hold until such time. In the meantime, of course, like I said, I would welcome anyone looking over the various encyclopedic reference sources relating to the papacy and seeing what specific titles they give their articles on the popes and anti-popes. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to "Pope" in a slightly hyperbolic manner; I could have said "Bishop of Rome" (but alas, the new Mormon Temple in has one of those as well! ;-) --Zfish118 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The end of the Western Schism-infoboxes at Pope Gregory XI-article & other articles[edit]

I've changed my stance & have agreed with Jeff's observations :) GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) nomination for Today's Featured Article[edit]

I've nominated the article Geoffrey (archbishop of York) to be considered for Today's Featured Article, nomination discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Geoffrey (archbishop of York). — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Style of address for non-English archbishops[edit]

2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 contends that all archbishops use the style "Your Grace". However, research proves that only bishops in the UK and Commonwealth countries such as Canada use this address; in the United States, for example, all bishops and archbishops alike use "Your Excellency". He is changing a lot of articles and providing sources which purport to support his position, however, many of those sources are British or Canadian so of course they would say archbishops are "Your Grace". I would appreciate wider discussion and resolution of this issue. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Elizium23 contends that only UK Roman Catholic archbishops use the style "Your Grace." I disagree, and have also provided multiple sources, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, which confirm my view. I have also tried to explain that while "Your Excellency" is widely used in the U.S., and since archbishops are still bishops, it is technically correct; it is also internationally acknowledged that Roman Catholic archbishops are properly styled "Your Grace." The fact that most in the U.S. are not versed in honorifics, doesn't make the error, no matter how widespread, the correct style. "Ain't" and "y'all" and "I seen," are also widely used. But they are still grammatically incorrect. I would simply ask, if any historical/factual information or basis exists to explain the curious claim that only American prelates - and specifically, only American Roman Catholic archbishops - are styled any differently than all their colleagues of the same rank around the world? And why just archbishops? When cardinals use "Eminence" everywhere, non (arch) bishops all use "Excellency" and the Pope is universally acknowledged as "His Holiness." There is consistency everywhere - but not here - and that is correct? As I said, I provided several reliable sources which support my position. But I'll welcome definitive counter sources. However, so far, Elizium23 has failed to provide any sources at all. The editor just wants to arbitrarily dismiss mine. Surely, that is not how this project proceeds? Thank you. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
While I hesitate to agree with Elizium23, I would suggest as possible sources: Ecclesiastical address, Excellency, and Style (manner of address). In all my years of working with Catholic Archbishops (the vast majority being American), I have never had one suggest the use of "Your Grace".--Dcheney (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
For starters, a cogent explanation though not in a WP:RS is here: Catholic Answers Forums. Now for the RS. [1]. Now to address the "sources" being added in support of the IPv6 editor's position. The first, Catholic Encyclopedia, cites a 1906 London source. I would suggest that this is both out-of-date and out-of-country and not accurate for the United States, 2014. Second "source" is WikiHow - not a WP:RS by any stretch; although it is bizarre that the IPv6 editor should use it as his "source" because it precisely says what he denies and supports my position. Third is a Maltese article calling a Maltese bishop "His Grace" - not valid support of calling American archbishops that. Fourth is a Canadian TV site regarding the installation of a Canadian Archbishop. Not a valid source for calling American archbishops that. In short, all of these sources are lacking, and not suitable for supporting the IPv6 editor's assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska, which reads "His Excellency" for Archbishop Lucas. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is the Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama, which reads "His Excellency" for Archbishop Rodi. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09:, I hereby challenge you to produce one USA Archdiocesan website with a biography of an archbishop wherein he is styled "His Grace". @Dcheney:, might I inquire why you are reluctant to agree with me? Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your contributions, Dcheney. As I did in the articles, may I refer you to the following links where archbishops are referenced with the style "Grace": Catholic Encyclopedia, WikiHow, His Grace Archbishop Paul Cremona Visits U.S. Embassy. U.S. Department of State, Installation Mass of His Grace Richard Joseph Gagnon, Archbishop of Winnipeg. These are just some examples and they are valid, try as Elizium23 has, to attack them. I believe the U.S. State Department and Catholic Encyclopedia sources are pretty unassailable. The fact that the Encyclopedia dates to a 1906 source, only bolsters the argument that this style has a sound historical basis in fact. Regarding the claim that the Encyclopedia is "out of country," had Elizium23 bothered to actually read it before trying to attack it, the line: ""The Catholic Directory" (London, 1906) gives the following brief directions for forms of address, which, with the slight exceptions noted, may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general" would have been readily apparent. It wasn't hard to spot. It was in the first paragraph under "English-speaking countries."
And the date of the U.S. State Dept. link is 2014. So unless Elizium23 can produce some other Encyclopedic entry, or other official ecumenical style guide or pronouncement, that post-dates mine, I know grasping at straws when I see it.
To specifically refute Elizium23's claim that the style is only used in the UK, please see here,here, here, here and here. Again, there are likely many more.
As to Elizium23's own links, they just show that the style "Excellency" is in use. But we know that. The question is: is it in correct usage? So rather than trying to play games, why isn't Elizium23 focusing on getting the correct answer - not just the one in general use? How about finding something that explains, justifies and/or authorizes this singularly different style usage in the U.S. alone - and for this particular prelate rank alone - but not in any other country, or for any other ecclesiastical rank? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, while it is by no means official, it is of real interest that I found this edit from two years ago. John J. Myers is an American archbishop. But I find it especially interesting that the IPs post remained there, unchallenged, yet unsourced for 2 years, until I finally edited it yesterday. Again, who knows if it's true. But it would certainly be interesting to inquire of the archbishop's office regarding the veracity of the claim. And if it is true, what is the archbishop's basis for the preference. But that would violate WP:NOR. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD. Until reliable sources are presented that indicate that "Your Grace" is current United States usage, the claim that it is cannot be put in Wikipedia. Websites of present-day United States show use of "His Excellency". None shows use of "His Grace". What a Wikipedia, whether anonymous or not, asserts does not count. What counts is a pertinent reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Of the sources you cite, most are UK or other commonwealth countries (like Canada). Even the WikiHow article mentions explicitly "in some parts of Canada". I have found a couple of other references to Abp Myers preferring "Your Grace". As for the Malta event, I would note Malta was (is?) part of the commonwealth. It is also clear that the Anglican church uses "Your Grace" extensively worldwide. It seems to me that for US Archbishops (excluding Myers) that the term should not be used. --Dcheney (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The question I asked was, where is the ecumenical ruling that designates special style rules for the U.S.? It's a reasonable question and no one appears to have any interest in answering it. The Catholic Encyclopedia, the U.S. State Department and several official websites of prelates who use the "Grace" style were provided. FYI, Malta, Singapore and Myanmar are all independent. You also noted that you've seen elsewhere that Myers prefers the style. But here's what we know for sure: we know some American prelates use "Excellency", we know other prelates use "Grace" and we don't know definitively which is correct. Perhaps both are. But in any event, it was out of bounds for Esoglou - while we were discussing this - to arbitrarily and unilaterally revert multiple sourced edits, replacing them with no sources at all.
At that point, it's pretty clear there is little interest in finding the right answer: just in getting the predetermined conclusion that you wanted. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You, were, saying?
Or did you honestly need more?
Now I wonder if Esoglou will at least have the integrity to self revert this edit. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have done so gladly. Rather, I didn't revert to the invalid sources, but inserted in their place the good sources that you provided for Myers. I will do the same for any other United States archbishop or archdiocese for which you provide good sources. Esoglou (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
On a lighter note, what a pity people no longer write as in this letter! Although it isn't what I was looking for, I like it. Esoglou (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yet in the absence of any sources that you yourself provided, you removed multiple sources which I did. That's not "bold" editing. It's tendentious editing. Now that you have abundant reliable evidence that at least one current U.S. archbishop uses that style, you've lost any credible basis for questioning the facts presented in my other sources. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that as well.
And if period letters entertain you, these should do the trick. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You know that practice (it's really isn't a "rule") varies from country to country (think of "Right Reverend Bishop" in, say, South Africa, and "Most Reverend Bishop" in, say, the United States). Please excuse me for thinking that sources such as those cited in the following edits (many more could be added) are indicative of a general practice in 21st-century United States, even if one archbishop there personally prefers a different practice: Salvatore J. Cordileone; b) Timothy Broglio; c) George Joseph Lucas; d) Gregory Michael Aymond; e) Jerome Edward Listecki; f) Allen Henry Vigneron; g) William E. Lori. (The letters of Anne Boleyn to His Grace Henry lack the amusingly thick overlay of titles found in the 1847 letter published in the reputedly anti-Irish Tablet.) Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, using your "logic", I suppose we shouldn't be using the Bible as a source either. Since, using your standard, it's "centuries out of date." Apparently in your world, all things must have an expiration date - even when they necessarily don't. Now if you had said that you found something later, which required a style change, that would have been one thing. But you found nothing. And you replaced it with nothing. So in the absence of that, your argument is just as capricious, arbitrary and ill-advised as... your actions. To say nothing of the other sources you removed, which - by your own rubric - were current. As to the question of Right or Most Reverend, this seems pretty clear: Most Reverend. As to the issue of the U.S. - again, using your "logic", all future sources on this project would have to be vetted as "country specific." Obvious nonsense. The purpose of the sources was to prove that the style was, again, in current use. Period. If you felt they needed to achieve more, then it was your responsibility to replace them with better sources that you felt did. It was not your place to remove reliable sources - which you never denied they were - only to replace them with nothing. That is also arbitrary and ill-advised. It also violates WP:UNSOURCED. But unfortunately, it is clearly consistent with your editing pattern. To wit: mass reverting those sources and replacing them with nothing - in the middle of our discussion about them - and violating WP:CCC - in the process. Was there some kind of fire in your world that compelled such precipitant action during the discussion? None that you ever bothered to identify. Because you didn't even have the courtesy to say you were going to make those reverts. Even when you knew we all were discussing them. That's not WP:BRD. Frankly, that's cowardice. Because you knew that at that moment your actions would very likely not have gone over very well. Even from editors who may have, by the end, agreed with you.

Finally, and I do mean finally, because this is clearly unavailing: both you and Elizium23 would be very well-advised to review WP:PROJ, as you both appear to have taken an undue and proprietary interest in these articles. Elizium23's topic concern below is a perfect example. "He's back" seems to be a favorite Elizium23 refrain, as though shock should be expressed when someone else has the temerity to contribute opposing points of view that fall outside of Elizium23's narrow and exclusionary canon. Much like the early screed I encountered about "a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church." As I said at the time, it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. As I also said, Wikipedia is a secular project, so source exclusions based on concerns about "a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church" have no place here.

Per WIKIPROJECT, you both need to be extremely mindful, and proceed as though you are well aware, that: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Just as you two would also be well-advised to review WP:TAGTEAM. Neither of you owns articles and your project does not imbue you with any extraordinary dispensation to act as though you do. Either alone, or in tandem, neither of you are the WIKIPOLICE.

Also, once again and not unpredictably, you moved the goalposts. You never specified what you found so amusing in your letter. Yet the moment I tried to contribute - suddenly, and after the fact - you defined the parameters to exclude my contribution. Gee, where have we seen that show before?! Regrettably, you demonstrate time and again that you are nothing if not consistent. But perhaps, moving forward, some small nugget from this colloquy and disquisition will sink in and some adjustments in behavior, however slight, may result. I don't find you to be a bad or unreasonable editor, Esoglou. In fact, I credit your dedication to this project. But I do find that you have gotten into a pattern of editing that runs afoul of some of this project's own policies. Comfort breeds imprudence. I also find that both you and Elizium23, your partner in crime, could go a long way toward being more inclusive of contributors, IP and otherwise, who do not belong to your little cabal. Perhaps, that's part of the reason why Dcheney expressed reluctance to agree with Elizium23 on the project page. Also perhaps, if you just remind yourself daily that this project is not your own little fiefdom, and working on it is a privilege: then in future, your judgment - and your actions - will be tempered accordingly.

Esoglou, while I have posted this at your Talk page, where you certainly have the right to remove it - I have also posted it here. So that the thoughts expressed will have more permanence; and may be referenced by yourself and other editors moving forward. Hopefully, that is useful. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor)
The search Excellency site:usccb.org shows "Your Excellency" is used. For example 2014 letter from Congregation of Clergy to Archbishop of Louisville. The search "Your Grace" site:usccb.org does not show that it is used. The search "Your Grace" archbishop site:vatican.va is used in some cases. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there may be a question here not about the usage in non-English speaking cases, but perhaps a matter of the term "Your Grace" (specifically the "grace" part) having certain possible implications in the English-speaking world that as a matter of practice, although perhaps not policy. Alternatively, "your excellency," for whatever reasons, might simply be a matter of expedient usage in the English speaking world for some reason. That being the case, I might personally favor using the latter term in the English wikipedia as more or less a matter of course, but simply as a matter of expediency and to an extent for the apparently somewhat more common usage in English rather than of anything else. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Consistory to Create Cardinals - Feb 2015[edit]

Today the Holy See announced the intention of Pope Francis to hold a Consistory to create new Cardinals on 14 February 2015. No names or even numbers have been suggested. Typically that information is revealed about a month before the event.--Dcheney (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops of Csanád and Timişoara[edit]

All comments on the proposed renaming of the "Category:Bishops of Csanád and Timişoara" to "Category:Bishops of Csanád" would be appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Catholic/Catholicism naming conventions[edit]

There are several articles that are confusingly named within "WP:Catholicism" and "WP:Christianity".

For instance, "WP:Portal:Catholicism" refers to only the "(Roman) Catholic Church", but the article "Catholicism" is about all the churches that practice similar beliefs. "History of the term Catholic" is further very similar to "Catholicism", although cover slightly different territory. While I do not wish to open up the Roman Catholic can of worms, I do wonder how these terms might be more consistently used within Wikipedia. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First, the question of the WikiProject's name is entirely the concern of the wikiproject alone. Having said that, I wouldn't mind maybe seeing the project's scope to expand to include the Old Catholic and other churches not already covered by more focused groups, maybe as task forces or work groups. Regarding the article on the term itself, I am assuming it was spunout of the Catholicism article because it is separately notable in itself and maybe because it took up too much space in the Catholicism article. Believe me when I say that if we ever do develop our content on the Bible to a level consistent with that of the leading print reference sources, you are going to find a really incredible number of articles with very closely similar topics. In all honesty, I don't think that there is any real cause for consideration of any specific naming conventions here, as the articles do seem to be named, more or less, in accord with WP:COMMONNAME. The name of the wikiproject is beyond the scope of any naming conventions, although, like I said, I wouldn't mind seeing it expanded a little, and would be willing to assist in that if asked by the members of the project. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely not. Surely all projects need to have neutral names. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No, actually, there aren't any real policies or guidelines about WikiProjects, which are officially strictly unofficial. That status as being unofficial gives them a bit of leeway. It obviously makes sense for the names to be informative, of course, and easily to understand, but not necessarily neutral. But, like I said, I wouldn't have any objections to expanding the group to include the Old Catholic churches and others, or, for that matter, for including all articles in wikipedia which have substantial articles in a print encyclopedia of Catholicism. Unfortunately, that actually is one of the few religious groups I haven't gotten together a list of encyclopedic articles for yet. John Carter (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
What would you suggest renaming this WikiProject to be? It could not be WikiProject Roman Catholicism, because that would appear to exclude the Eastern Catholic Churches. What about WikiProject Catholic Church, per the article of the same name? Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Elizium23: and @John Carter:: You are correct about the title of the Wikiproject, which I had intended only to mention as an interested party. I had mistakenly referred "WP:Catholicism" instead of "Portal:Catholicism", which is part of the "public facing" content. I have no issue with the group's title, which is outside of the content space of the encyclopedia. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Portal:Catholic Church might be a good name for the content portal; this would also match the "Series" template placed in the Catholic Church article and elsewhere; if this change were adopted, the Wikiproject may wish to change its names as well to match. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
(e-c) It would certainly be possible to propose changes to the content of the portal there, including perhaps a renaming of the portal or addition of some material in the rotation to that portal. But the talk page of the portal itself would probably be the best place to have such a discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)