Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

No Saint: "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion"[edit]

It seems to me that the guideline on whether we include the honorific "Saint" should match the guideline at WP:HONORIFICS which says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." The text here that Saints are not named with Saint "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion" is being interpreted to mean that whenever the person is not recognized by people unfamiliar with a given person, then the "Saint" is included in the article title. But that seems to contradict WP:HONORIFICS, which is much more restrictive, and leads to article titles which are not commonly recognizable like Tutankhamun rather than King Tut and Benjamin Spock rather than Dr. Spock. --JFH (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better and clearer to state that, as a rule, "Saint" is omitted for those with name and surname ("Maria Goretti") or with name and locality ("Teresa of Avila"), but kept for those with only a single name ("Saint Agnes")? Esoglou (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think we should do that? By the way, it appears that each of the four Saint Agneses has a locality disambiguator. --JFH (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, because it seems simple. If the Saints Agnes have a locality disambiguator, as even Agnes of Rome has, take a better example: perhaps "Saint George", who I think is not associated with any particular locality. Esoglou (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Presumably, he'd be covered by "rarely found without it." What we're dealing with are biblical saints, such as Peter, who is often referred to outside of Christianity as Saint Peter, but is also often referred to just as Peter or the Apostle Peter in reliable sources. If one applies HONORIFICS, you get no Saint, but if the guideline here is interpreted as only recognizable by its inclusion (as in, by the man on the street), you get Saint Peter. --JFH (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Same result as in the proposed (too?) simple rule. "Peter" without "Saint" would be so ambiguous that the proposed honorifics rule as (mis?)understood by me would not work. I have written "proposed" simple rule, but I have not really made a proposal. I have only submitted a query. Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope as part of the name[edit]

Consensus is against changing the the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why do popes in English Wikipedia have the word Pope in the title? Saint Joan of Arc redirects to Joan of Arc. Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Timothy Cardinal Dolan both redirect to Timothy M. Dolan. President Bill Clinton redirects to Bill Clinton. Besides, many other Wikipedias don't use the word Pope. E.g. en:Pope Benedict XVI, fr:Benoît XVI, es:Benedicto XVI, de:Benedikt XVI., ru:Бенедикт XVI. Full list of interwikis in wikidata:Q2494#wb-item-q2494-sitelinks-counter. See also /Archive 1#Inclusion of titles in article names - suggest changing Pope Innocent IX to Innocent IX, etc. Fridek (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Popes are European monarchs. For European monarchs in general the following rule applies per WP:SOVEREIGN:
"These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. [...] Monarchies which use a completely different namestock, such as Lithuania and that of the Merovingians, need not follow this convention; there is no disambiguation to pre-empt. Kings of a people, rather than a country or a nation, (for example, the late antique Germanic tribes) usually have no disambiguator, but 'of the Goths' etc. should be added to the name if disambiguation is necessary. [...]
1. Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. [...]
3. Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'. [...] However, in some cases the title rather than the state is followed, including: [e.g.] Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor [...] William I, German Emperor [...] In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted, because it is unnecessary, against usage or possibly problematic: Elizabeth II (rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom") and Napoleon (rather than "Napoleon I of France"). It is also possible to combine a numeral with a cognomen or surname, as in John III Sobieski."
If we followed this more general naming convention, the following would happen in the example case of Benedict XVI:
  • "Pope Benedict XVI", the current title, is not acceptable as it contradicts 1.
  • "Benedict XVI of Rome", the default for European monarcs, is not acceptable as it is both problematic and against usage.
  • "Benedict XVI" would be the correct title in analogy to the "kings of a people" passage above.
This only works because Benedict XVI does not require disambiguation. For popes requiring disambiguation, such as Julius I, the argument continues as follows:
  • "Julius I" doesn't work as there was a Hungarian prince of the same name.
  • "Julius I of the Romans/Catholics/Roman Catholics" would be the correct disambiguation per the passage on "kings of a people". But it appears to me that this is against usage.
The logical solution would be to disambiguate as in "Julius I, Roman Pope" in analogy the practice for the titles Holy Roman Emperor and German Emperor.
The same problem as for popes exists for the various patriarchs (who are not monarchs but whose current naming convention also contradicts the more general principles). The solution is simpler in that case: Just strip off "Patriarch", as they are already preemptively disambiguated with "of {episcopal see}". Hans Adler 17:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with Julius I (pope)? It is the standard form of disambiguation. Besides, I am certain that more than 220 out of 265 articles would not need any form of disambiguation. Popes tend to have unique names. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with "Julius I (pope)". I simply went by WP:SOVEREIGN. I don't know why that guideline departs from more general usage. Maybe it shouldn't. Either way, getting rid of "Pope" before the name will settle the current discussion whether it should really be "Pope Emeritus". Hans Adler 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
On reflection, I guess some editors consider ", German Emperor" etc. to be natural disambiguations, which are preferred to parenthetical disambiguations where they exist. I don't find this convincing, and for "pope" it seems even less so. So I now correct myself: For popes it should be "{pope's name} {number}", or "{pope's name} {number} (pope)" if ambiguous. Hans Adler 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The naming convention applied to articles on Roman Pontiffs should be the one for clergy, as popes are much more notable as the top bishop of over a billion Catholics then they are as the sovereigns of a country with a population of 800 (and besides, not all of the 260+ popes have been heads of state). Hence, why the section on naming popes' articles is located on this policy page, not the monarch's page. With that understanding, we should look at the naming conventions for other, similar hierarchs. The best examples are the Coptic Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches. Both the pope of Alexandria and the pope of Rome are covered in the same section of this policy page, and have the same rules, except that in English "Pope", when used without a city name, is understood to imply "of Rome", so it's omitted for the leader of the Catholic Church (if this were the Coptic or Arabic Wikipedia, the rule would probably be different). The patriarchs have a consistent rule:

... use the format "Patriarch {episcopal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Do not use a patriarch's personal name; e.g., use Patriarch Nikon, not Nikita Minov.

So, we're being consistent with the article naming of the various patriarchal Christian church leaders. I see no compelling reason to change the currently established conventions. Gentgeen (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's circular logic. Why that format for patriarchs? Well, because that's how we handle popes.
You have completely ignored the fundamental issue: Popes and patriarchs are rare compared to kings, earls, dukes etc. The latter kind of people do not get an exemption from the general principle that we don't start a title with the job description. If Elizabeth doesn't get the "Queen", why should Benedict get the "Pope" and Bartholomew of Constantinople the "Patriarch"? That's the apparent problem. If there are good reasons for this apparent inconsistency, then everything is fine. But in that case someone needs to point them out. Hans Adler 22:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Your first sentence is just wrong. The question was never "Why the format for patriarchs", and Gentgeen never attempted to answer any such question. Gentgeen tried to answer the discrete question asked at the beginning of this discussion: "Why do popes in English Wikipedia have the word Pope in the title?" His answer is that popes are clergy, not just temporal rulers. As such, their naming is consistent with similar clergymen.
Also, the monarch rule you are talking about isn't as uniform as you seem to think. See, for example, Queen Victoria. More importantly, there is no compelling reason for this naming convention to conform to WP:NCROY. As Gentgeen said, Benedict is clergy and was not merely a secular ruler. The other popes and patriarchs are typically only clergymen and not secular rulers at all. The rationale for linking popes and kings is therefore not even remotely apparent.
In the end, the resulting name for papal articles is in the form Pope John Paul II, which also happens to be the most common usage in English. What possible reason can there be for taking a stable naming convention that results in the most common version of the name and replacing it with the edicts of a naming convention, WP:NCROY, that is controversial and has little to do with popes? And since when does existing consensus have to be justified when there is no concrete proposal to change it? -Rrius (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, there is a concrete proposal to change the naming convention, and I would appreciate it if people could discuss it on its merits rather than claim that it doesn't exist. Originally it was only formulated for popes, because it arose at Pope Benedict XVI, where people keep proposing to move the article to various other names, including "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI". But there is no reason why it shouldn't affect patriarchs as well.
Not including titles, honorifics etc. is a rather strong principle on Wikipedia, with rare exceptions. One could expect that kings and earls are an exception, but overwhelmingly they are not. Queen Elizabeth II is under Elizabeth II, her father under George VI, his brother under Edward VIII, their father under George V, his father under Edward VII, his mother under Queen Victoria (the anomaly you picked out), her uncle under William IV of the United Kingdom (for disambiguation), their brother under George IV of the United Kingdom, their father under George III of the United Kingdom, his grandfather under George II of Great Britain, his father under George I of Great Britain, his predecessor under Anne, Queen of Great Britain (another anomaly), her predecessor under William III of England, his predecessor under James II of England, his predecessor under Charles II of England, and now I am getting too bored.
This is why WP:NCROY is relevant here. The highest clergy is getting an exception from the general principle that the highest royalty is not getting, so it's perfectly natural to ask what is so special about popes and patriarchs. Saying that popes are like patriarchs is not helpful in this context
The situation is similar, not only for lower nobility, but also for lower clergy. Popes and patriarchs are the only major exception. Looking at other Wikipedias can also give some hints. Of the ten biggest Wikipedias, 3 have him with "Pope" (English, Italian, Dutch), 6 without (German, French, Russian, Spanish, Polish, Swedish) and 1 with "(pope)" appended (Japanese).
As far as I can tell, actual usage is mostly "Pope Benedict" or "Benedict XVI", but only rarely "Pope Benedict XVI". For his predecessor we already have data in the Google corpus. For him, "John Paul II" is twice as common as "Pope John Paul II". [1] As there is no ambiguity, this indicates that leaving out "pope" before "John Paul II" is acceptable, even though the names are relatively common. (Results for John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII and Pius XII are similar.) Picking a medieval pope at random, Pope Boniface VIII, I get factor 4 for recent literature and an even higher factor for pre-1940 literature. [2]
The present naming convention for popes and patriarchs came up at a time (pre-2005) when the naming conventions also said that cardinals include "Cardinal" [3] The old discussion for patriarchs, from mid-2003, is at WT:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 10#Patriarchs. I think 8 years is not too short before revisiting this question to check if the answer is still correct. Also, the arguments at the time included the following: "Given that we use pope for the head of the Roman Catholic Church, I think we show a similar tendency to use the equally appropriate title for Orthodox leaders. So I think Patriarch should be used." It is perfectly reasonable for the naming conventions for popes and patriarchs to be consistent with each other, but we need other arguments as well. If you can't think of any, I suggest looking at that old discussion for inspiration. The discussions where the current pope naming scheme came up must also be in the archives of WT:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), but I haven't identified them yet. Hans Adler 07:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely the English practice is, in the first mention, to say "Pope Benedict XVI", but later in the article (and thus more frequently) to say "Pope Benedict" or "Benedict XVI" ... Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
True, but this is not substantially different from the usage for kings and queens. Hans Adler 08:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I won't respond to most of that because it is not terribly responsive. I will respond to your claim that there is a concrete proposal for change. There isn't. This discussion is based on a question asked by one editor. No one has started a clear discussion saying "I think we should change this" and advertising it in the appropriate places. Also, you say "This is why WP:NCROY is relevant here," but that is non sequitur. Nothing you said supports that conclusion. And you still fail to realize that popes are not exactly royalty. They are, among other things, temporal monarchs of the Vatican, but they are not just temporal monarchs. They are also clergymen. Finally, I will also respond to your comment about the 2003 discussion. That is a decade of stable consensus; the onus is clearly on anyone seeking to change it to make a clear and convincing case to do so, and any change should not be made lightly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -Rrius (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It is true that the proposal has not been widely advertised. This is your chance to explain why we shouldn't take it to the next level. You are not making particularly convincing use of it, as you continue arguing about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with whether the general practice of not using honorifics or professional titles should apply to popes and patriarchs, or whether there is sufficient grounds for treating them as special cases. It seems to me that you are either mistaking this for a rhetoric contest or you simply can't find any valid arguments.
There might be sufficient valid arguments. But then it's a waste of community time not to bring them up before this discussion is very widely advertised. Hans Adler 12:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The 265 bio articles-in-question are titled fine the way they are. All 265 individuals are former popes, which means their highest position was Pope. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you consider this relevant? The same is true for kings. Hans Adler 15:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition, this perspective introduces a BLP issue, as it leaves Benedict XVI with a title that he does not currently hold. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that we should have an exception for popes and patriarchs, when we don't title archbishops or bishops or anything else with a title. But we need to look at the sources - how do other encyclopedias name their pope articles? I know that most specialized medieval encyclopedias don't call their entries for popes "Pope X" but rather use the papal name alone without a title. Nor does my "Famous Name Finder" a concise biography of people use the title either. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Similarly for Britannica. Hans Adler 16:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • "Pope" should not be part of the article's title any more than "King" or "Queen" unless the overwhelming usage is with the honorific (whether spiritual or temporal), where we'd use the common English name: that's probably why Queen Victoria is so titled and why Saint Peter is there not at "Pope Peter". The vast scholarly usage is not to have Pope as part of the pontiff's name in historical books - so our convention should follow this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Pope should not be part of the article title. Britannica does not do it that way, and the "Pope Benedict XVI" article is now titled incorrectly. If any disambiguous tag is needed, so be it. "Julius I (Pope)". I move the rule be changed and all the articles renamed which have positions in their titles. I would be willing to compromise that the current Pope can have Pope in his title, but previous Popes are no longer Popes in death. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose changes. With the exception of Peter (who alone is better known for something other than his papacy), all of these biographies are about men who are universally referred to in English as "Pope ___". Our current naming convention is consistent: anyone looking up Pope Damasus II knows that the article will be at Pope Damasus II; no need to wonder if it would be Damasus II, Damasus II (pope), or somewhere else. Your proposal would replace consistency with inconsistency, and in an electronic encyclopedia where we can't simply look things up alphabetically, we absolutely need to have consistent naming. A horrible idea, despite the fact that it's obviously being proposed in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
And you don't think that "President Obama" is drastically more common than "Barak Obama"? Beyond that, no one is saying no redirects, which would eliminate the problem that you identify about what people will look up. ReformedArsenal (talk)
  • Remove Pope, move to Name (pope) or just Name I don't see any reason why Popes should get special treatment in this regard. The way this is currently done violates every other naming convention we have in this regard. Having Pope used first in the first sentence is perfectly fine and in line with how other articles are done, but not in the title. Just use a redirect. SilverserenC 14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Article convention should match other similar conventions of monarchs, heads of state, and other clerical positions. Thus the title of the article should be *Regnal Name* as the main article with *Pope Regnal Name*, *Given Name* as redirects and *Regnal Name (pope)* or *Given Name (pope)* as needed if ambiguity exists. This naming convention should also be adopted for Patriarchs in the East for consistency. With the case of Benedict XVI we should also have Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as a redirect to Benedict XVI. This should be applied to all popes and patriarchs. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that we have consensus that the name should match Regnal names and other Clerical titles... other than Nyttend, are there other comments? ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Break 0[edit]

  • Oppose making any changes. Titles such as "John Paul II (pope)" would be incredibly clumsy and less user friendly. Titles of pope articles have been stable for Wikipedia's entire existence and there is no need to change from established, functional and WP:COMMONNAME titles to clumsy and less user friendly titles. Also, as pointed out above by Nyttend, popes are universally referred to in English eg. "Pope Benedict XVI", not as "Benedict XVI (pope)". Mocctur (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons Mocctur states above. The current system works fine as it is, and is easy for newcomers to understand. If it ain't broke, why fix it? -- Marek.69 talk 06:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Nyttend above. The current format ("Pope ___") is simpler and its consistency allows for easy prediction of other popes in a series. LEKI (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Nyttend above. People with time on their hands need to find "problems" worth fixing. There's plenty around the 'pedia - leave this alone. DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree per Silverseren and others. Like kings and other titled people, the title of the person should generally not be part of the title of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • support- it's about damned time we brought these conventions in line with the rest. it also will eliminate current and potential BLP issues. I see no reason why popes should be treated any differently than other articles. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers. "it also will eliminate current and potential BLP issues" - oh purleease! Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. It would make the title of papal articles clumsy and counter-intuitive for casual readers of the English Wikipedia. Whatever is done with more strictly secular monarchs, popes are a unique case. There are 266 of them: there's no reason they can't have their own aptly customized article-naming convention, instead of being clumsily assimilated to the convention for a broader category. Wikipedia should aim for clarity and ease of use as an *encyclopedia* for those seeking information, not at being an outlet for a "blessed rage for order" among us frequent editors. How many encyclopedia readers instinctively type "Francis (pope)" for information on this guy? I imagine very few. The proposed change is obfuscatory. In answer to the entirely fair question, "Why should Popes get special treatment in this regard?" I think the best answer is that it is not the Popes getting special treatment, it is readers who come here seeking information getting appropriate treatment by having articles intuitively titled for their ease of use. Redirects would solve much of this problem, but to me anyway, they're an inelegant kludge. Why not just keep the intuitive titles? They harm no one, and they contribute to the user-friendliness of Wikipedia. Also, the popes are not the only clerical monarchs with a unique naming convention. It's 14th Dalai Lama, not Tenzin Gyatso (Dalai Lama). Or are we proposing to move the Dalai Lama articles, too? Wikipedia should match the English language; not the other way round. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. If it is not broken. do nof "fix it". Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose making any changes to the current convention. Bede735 (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to add one important point I forgot in my comment above. If we changed Pope John Paul II to John Paul II (pope) (as if there were any other notable person known as John Paul II), we would have to write [[John Paul II (pope)|John Paul II]] instead of just [[Pope John Paul II]] every single time we mentioned him in an article and wanted to link to the article. Policy also favours natural disambiguation (Pope John Paul II) over parentheses (John Paul II (pope)) per WP:NATURAL. Mocctur (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
the vast majority of the names use numerals, and are HIGHLY unlikely to be confused with any other article. it would only be John Paul II, no parenthesis. pretty much the only one I can think of that would need parenthesis is the article on Francis. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Policy, both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL, favours Pope Francis over Francis (pope). Mocctur (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, actually. I think you've misinterpreted the guideline.
  1. According to WP:SOVEREIGN, "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire ..., because they share much the same stock of names.". Since the popes do use a stock of names that overlap with other monarchies, their titles must be disambiguated the same as other monarchs. Names like John Paul II may be unique enough, but Francis I, Gregory I, John I, Leo I, etcetera are not. See Papal name.
  2. Popes are not "kings of a people, rather than a country". They lead a worldwide church, but are only sovereigns of Vatican City. The "kings of a people" provision does not apply.
  3. "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" does work. Remember Rome is not the country/state, Vatican City is. It would be "Benedict XVI of Vatican City", not "Benedict XVI of Rome".
  4. "...in some cases the title rather than the state is followed, including: [e.g.] Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor ..." This would result in "Benedict XVI, Pope".
  5. 'Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King" ... In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted ... Elizabeth II (rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom") and Napoleon (rather than "Napoleon I of France").' "Not normally" does not mean not allowed. Per WP:NOTLAW, consensus can override the default in unusual circumstances.
 —Sowlos  20:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice points. Isn't this heading for a WP:SNOW close DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's already melted.
    However, if someone wanted to make a similar proposal for 3 or even 4, I would be interested. Although, that probably has "a snowball's chance in hell" as well.  —Sowlos  12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose changes, based on WP:SOVEREIGN. Many of the names taken by popes, like all the "Pope John"s, are names taken by others, so disambiguation seems warranted. The one question I have here is regarding the use of the word "Pope" for non-Catholic churches, such as the Coptic Orthodox Church, where at least potentially we might have at least a few needs for disambiguation between a potential "Pope John I of Rome" and "Pope John I of Alexandria." If there are any other churches which use "pope" as a term for their leader, they might come into this as well. By saying that, I am in no way saying I am sure how to handle it, but just raising the issue. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The one question I have here is regarding the use of the word "Pope" for non-Catholic churches
    This has been on my mind too. Pope (disambiguation)#Religious offices provides enough examples for this problem.
    The only solution I can think of is to apply the standard WP:SOVEREIGN naming convention, "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" (e.g. "Francis of Vatican[ City]").  —Sowlos  21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not a bad proposal. It would probably allow "Pope John Paul II" to be under that title, their being no other popes by that name. But, as one possible complication, how would one deal with the Avignon papacy, where in at least some cases the Roman Catholic pope may never actually have been in Rome? I dunno how to handle that, by the way, I'm just raising the issue. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, the other "popes" (eg the coptic Pope), not being sovereign, wouldn't have WP:SOVEREIGN applied to them. There's no need for a territorial designation for the Roman Pontiff because there's no other "sovereign" pope to disambiguate from. In any case, I don't think WP:SOVEREIGN is the most appropriate policy. The role of pope has many aspects, the least significant of which is sovereign of the Vatican. Between the Risorgimento and the Lateran treaty they weren't territorial rulers. And that's also true of the papacy in the early church, prior to the establishment of the Papal states. So, popes in those periods are definitely outside the scope of WP:SOVEREIGN. Secondly, per WP:COMMONNAME Pope X means, in the English language the Roman Pope. The coptic Pope is, in fact, most usually referred to as a Patriarch in English, not Pope, so I'm not convinced that that title of, eg Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, is within policy. Leaving that aside, even if it is correct to include "Pope" in that article title, per WP:COMMONNAME, it should be qualified by a territorial designation whereas the Roman Pope should not as, in English, it is not usually linked to "of Rome" etc. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. If "Pope" is term for several lineages, than it is ambiguous. If it is not a term that indicates if one is a sovereign, then non of the titles for the Roman Catholic Popes are technically in compliance with WP:SOVEREIGN.
Indeed, WP:COMMONNAME is the only justification for keeping things the way they are now. Unfortunately, it does seem a little preferential.  —Sowlos  11:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand still. The Roman Pope should be "Pope X" because of WP:COMMONNAME because that Pope is, in English, not usually qualified by "of X" and "Pope X" has a clear meaning of the Roman Pope. (Disambiguation is not necessary) But equally the Coptic Pope should be qualified by "of Alexandria" because (a)disambiguation is necessary and (b) WP:COMMONNAME: the Coptic Pope, in English, is not usually just referred to as Pope X, but normally is "of Alexandia" (to the extent that the Pope title is used at all). Am I disagreeing with you? I can't tell anymore! DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Though it might be frustrating for some? In the English language, pope is mostly associated with the Vatican head of state/leader of the Roman Catholic Church. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Break 1[edit]

  • Oppose changes as unnecessarily complicated. And if we were disambiguating, wouldn't it be (at least for popes since 1929) xxxxx of Vatican City, not Rome? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Very Very Strongly Support Fridek and also agreed with Xkcdreader. According to wikipedia's five criteria, RNPCC(Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency), I think, it is very very obvious that article titles such as "Pope Benedict XVI" should be moved to non-Pope titles, because Pope-attached titles are only temporally recognaizable and consistent with other then media articles, and they have never been recognizable, nor natural, nor precise, nor concise, nor consistent with other media articles for all the rest of time while each of them individually has not been a Pope. Besides, I and my family belong to Catholic Church, and naturally admitted that "Pope" is apparently just one of managerial posts of Catholic church, and given to only one current Catholic cardinal, therefore, I cannot think that all of "Pope"s should have been "Pope"s even in wikipedia's article titles. How many "Pope"s do you think Catholic people want to have at the same time? How many US Presidents do you think American people want to have at the same time? How many British Kings and Queens do you think British people want to have at the same time? So it is very very clear that an ex-Pope is just an ex-Pope, not a Pope. In Heaven, as far as there exists Saint Peter( Saint James the Greater, Saint John the Beloved, and so on ), they cannot be "Pope"s. Therefore, please treat ex-"Pope"s as ex-"Pope"s honestly. And it is also clear that only such a honesty can fulfill wikipedia's five criteria, RNPCC(Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency) forever. Thank you. (It seems that guys opposing to rename to non-Pope titles are feeling guilty unconsciously about betraying Catholic Church and ignoring even Wikipedia's basic criteria. ) -- Rocky7 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Queen Victoria is no longer the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, yet her article title seems not to have caused any problems. Where there is possible ambiguity (e.g., Pope Francis as opposed to Francis I of France, having the word Pope in the title is helpful. Where there is no possibility of ambiguity, as with "Benedict XVI," we might as well allow the superfluous style Pope Benedict XVI to maintain consistency between papal articles where the disambiguation is necessary and those where it is not. Also, Rocky7, I don't think there's any need to indulge in armchair psychopathologization about this: neither "Catholic guilt" nor "desire to bring the Papacy down a peg" are anything more than ad hominem attacks. The reasons I've presented are all internal to Wikipedia's mission, despite my happening to be a Roman Catholic myself. The reasons my opponents in this conversation have presented, despite my disagreement with their position, seem similarly cogent. Let's play the ball, not the man. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it is always necessary to use the word "Pope" in the articles. So I said only about the article *title* of each Pope's page that the magic-word "Pope" should not be added to it, because I just want to avoid the situation that all "Pope"s such as Pope ABC III, Pope DEF V, Pope GHI VII, Pope JKL XI, Pope MNO XV, and so on, are quarreling with each other on the English Wikipedia, as if saying "I am the Pope of Roman catholic church", "I am the authentic Pope of Roman catholic church", "I am the true Pope of Roman catholic church", "Don't forget I am the Pope", "I am the Pope forever", etc. I like such a comedy, but is it preferable in Wikipedia? I have to think, only the english wikipedia may be established to make all "Pope"s tragic comedians. -- Rocky7 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we grant that Popes/Patriarchs are somehow encyclopedically similar to monarchs, we could just as easily discuss changing the convention for monarchs as an alternative. Is that discussion underway? For that matter, we could have a similar discussion for republican rulers rather than only monarchs. (Make that change, and Bill Clinton for example would move to President William Clinton.) I'm pretty sure we're not having that discussion, but it would make as much sense as this one. Alternatively, we can maintain that Popes/Patriarchs, monarchs, and republican heads of state (such as the President of the USA, but there are other examples) should remain 3 separate categories in terms of Wikipedia naming conventions. The only similarity between all 3 is that they are all heads of organizations (be that organization a country or a church). As long as we're talking about heads of organizations, we may as well lump the chairmen of for-profit or not-for-profit private companies in there as well. A church is a different type of organization from a country, just as a business is a different type of organization from both. If anything, kings are more similar to presidents than they are to Popes, on the grounds that both are heads of countries while Popes (both in Rome and in Alexandria, and the whole fruit salad of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs) are heads of churches. Yes, monarchs are mostly hereditary and presidents are either elected or, in some dictatorships, installed by military coups, but the point is not means of succession, but rather the type of organization they head. (If you go by means of succession, Popes and Patriarchs of different denominations would be wildly different in that regard.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If we grant that Popes/Patriarchs are somehow encyclopedically similar to monarchs...

Reading more of the above or related articles would be a good idea. The Roman Popes are monarchs of Vatican City.  —Sowlos  19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Move due to updated convention[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

– New naming convention for Popes has been agreed upon by consensus above. Starting out with just a few to see how everyone reacts to it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been agreed upon! Can you read? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I say keep the convention article as-is. also, add francis to the list. otherwise, it looks good to me. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I did Francis and Benedict XVI on their own page.

No, there is no new consensus. Proposals to move articles of popes anywhere were explicitly rejected by consensus, eg. on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, in multiple recent discussions. On this talk page, I also see no consensus, just a very limited number of users proposing a change and multiple others rejecting their proposals. Titles of pope articles have been stable for Wikipedia's entire existence and there is no consensus to change from established, functional and WP:COMMONNAME titles to clumsy and less user friendly titles. Mocctur (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I oppose renaming and I don't see a consensus forming either. Harej (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, no one gets involved until someone actually does something. I posted on the 18th, asking if there were any objections (Nytend didn't respond to either of the two following comments, so I assumed that he had been persuaded, especially when he didn't respond to the last one) and no one said a word. Do you guys have any arguments other than "that's how we've always done it before"? As far as how people are referred to universally in English... you aren't even doing Google right... I have NEVER seen another encyclopedia that uses "Pope {NAME}." THEY universally refer to them by their regnal name. In addition, President Barak Obama is MUCH more commonly referred to as "President Obama" than he is as "Barak Obama" in modern literature, why is no one using that. Also, WP:Commonname doesn't apply here, because the common name presents (at least in the case of Benedict) an inaccurate title, which presents a BLP issue. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
yeah, it seems odd to me, and some people apparently think lack of consensus is a reason to oppose an RfC, which are used to find consensus. it's like saying "I don't want an election, because there's nobody in office now." -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The "lack of consensus" comments relates to the claimed ground for making the change proposed by this RfC: "New naming convention for Popes has been agreed upon by consensus above." That was just untrue - there was no consensus. So, it is perfectly legitimate to reject this RfC because the reason for the proposal is without foundation i.e. there is no consensus for a new naming convention. DeCausa (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is "no new consensus". In fact, the consensus is more for the status quo. Pointless move that achieves nothing as there is nothing wrong with the current position. DeCausa (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose There appears to be "no new consensus" possible that the consensus is more for the status quo. And going to muck up with kings called John etc. Leave it be. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Just because something is complex does not mean that we should have inaccurate titles. There is a clear precedent for how to handle ambiguous titles like "John", and the naming convention that was proposed (and not opposed for three days until the change actually took place) solved for this. "Pointless move that achieves nothing as there is nothing wrong with the current position." - Yeah... except the BLP violation with Benedict XVI who is NOT the pope anymore, but his article still is titled as though he was. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"BLP violation". That's pretty ridiculous. If that article title bothers you so much, go move it to Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, but don't mess up a 100+ article titles for no reason. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, scrap that: according to a Google search I just made he seems to be more often than not still being called "Pope Benedict XVI" so per WP:COMMONNAME... DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand how naming conventions work. We don't want to have one offs, and there is no reason to. There is NO reason why popes should have their own unique naming convention. They are both Clergy and European Monarchs, why in the world would we have them be different than BOTH of those naming conventions? I just did a Google search and President Obama is more often refered to as "President Obama" than as "Barak Obama." Guess you should probably head over there and change that article... since Google searches are king. FALSE. We are to emulate the naming conventions of academic resources, specifically encyclopedias. If you can find an Encyclopedia that refers to the Popes as "Pope X" then you might have something, until then you're just standing on tradition. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we want to have one-offs? Why fit everything into the world into a Procrustean bed? What's next? Are we going to start insisting on calling U.S. states "provinces" so we can have "consistency"? The world has multifarious institutions. Our categories should seek to fit them, rather than forcing the world, and common English usage, to fit our categories. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"There is NO reason why popes should have their own unique naming convention." Why not? It works fine. There is no issue and no problem. End of. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Obviously it doesn't, since it has created a situation where at least one living person is titled in a way that is inaccurate of their current status. Furthermore, our naming convention does not reflect the standard naming conventions of other Encyclopediae. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no "obviously" about it. The whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is that "accuracy" isn't the over-riding requirement of article titles. And where is the policy requirement that we have to "reflect the standard naming conventions of other Encyclopediae"? As can be seen from the responses, it's clear what the overwhelming view is. WP:DEADHORSE. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)," per WP:EN. Kauffner (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think that's relevant? It's fairly easy to see that generally sources refer to Pope Francis, rather than Francis. The policy doesn't say that we slavishly follow only one of those mentioned sources (encyclopedias) and then only when they use the term in one context (their article titles), and ignore all the other sources. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as no consensus was reached in the previous section. The articles are quite fine the way they are. Indeed Saint Peter should be moved to Pope Peter. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose There is no reason to change the style of naming. The Pope X style is used widely in current medias, in historybook and in common days conversations. Nothing good will come out of changing it to X (pope), except utter confusion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
And you have some kind of source that shows that this is the case? Also, how would it cause ANY confusion to change it to X (pope) if Pope X redirects to X (pope)? ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There is 266 different popes, mostly very unknown to the wider public, some critics even say that some pretty much is made up. The spand a long time and many different styles of goverment. I am sure you dont see Clements 1 as royal in anyway? Some was elected as monarch, other was choicen by kings, others again was no more than overseers for a small group of what the society saw as radical extremists (and many noncatholic would say that those popes was only overseeing a very very small group of people living in hiding in the city of Rome itself), and so on and so on. The are normally refered to as Pope X, and for most of the little more is known. So to try to slam this very diverse and then also distingt group into a Royal way of naming articles would simply be wrong. The idea and concept of the Roman Pope is unic in history, for some selected by God himself for others a result of a historical powerstrugle. That doesnt matter, the title Pope used together and in front of a name only suggest one person, the bishop of Rome. There is many other Popes in the world, but none of them are name in the special way in the wikiarticles.Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus. There is also no need to rush one. Proponents of this change seem to be trying to rush a "consensus" through before opponents have adequate opportunity to even know there's a change being proposed. The current convention has been around for a while. Slow down. If your proposal prevails, fine. But it can wait a week or two. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per De Causa etc, & the section above. Consensus is clearly against this change from the current guideline, & ReformedArsenal shoulsd just accept that. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
the RfC isn't over yet. don't count your chickens before they are hatched. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe that renaming these articles would cause more problems than it solves, and will be more confusing to newcomers and users (readers) of Wikipedia. I also agree with DeCausa's and others oppose reasoning above. -- Marek.69 talk 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
And what kind of problems might those be? ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The problems which Hans Adler mentioned above, the new names would clash with existing articles of kings, meaning we would end up using Julius I (pope), Francis (pope), etc. which I think is less intuitive, and a step in the wrong direction. -- Marek.69 talk 11:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. There is no "new naming convention". Bede735 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose moving the pope articles anywhere. The current titles are stable and have been used for over 10 years, and there is no reason to change them. The current titles are the WP:COMMONNAMEs, the logical and user friendly names, and the name used by the vast majority of sources. Mocctur (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
so, just because stuff has been done some way for a long time means it's bad to change? you must really hate modern society then, because stuff is always changing. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (and support) - I don't think tradition, dogma, "too much work", or "it's unnecessary" are valid arguments. Just because it has been that way for ten years doesn't mean it was ever the most optimal conclusion. I can understand keeping Pope Francis, but all prior popes should have the word Pope removed. We don't say President Obama, and unless we have an exception like Queen Victoria, the Pope should be treated as any other European Monarch. Remember, consensus is the most valid argument, not the most popular. "There is no reason to" doesn't fly in my eyes. If you want the convention to stay the way it is, you should be arguing why 'Pope' should be included without appealing to tradition. I would like to reiterate: other notable encyclopedia's do NOT put pope before their name. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/676944/Benedict-XVI If no one can explain WHY we do it this way, the practice should be changed to be more consistent with Clergy and European Monarch rules. When I search Britannica for "Pope Francis" the top result is Francis I (pope). Clearly they have not updated since the 'I' was removed, but I am only calling attention to their manual of style, not editorial mistakes. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Except that noone in the entire world refers to popes as eg. "John Paul II (pope)". Except that Queen Victoria's article is, incidentally, named Queen Victoria (yes, it includes "Queen"). The popes are not like other European monarchs, they are not referred to as "NN of Vatican City State" either, inventing new terms for them based on how articles on various secular monarchs are titled is original research by a tiny number of Wikipedia editors. Mocctur (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
by that logic, all policy on wikipedia is OR. actually, your correct. it is OR, but that is irrelevant. OR only applies to article content, not consensus. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I also don't think you can claim the MOS is OR. Clearly the MOS is invented by wikipedia, it's not even research. Xkcdreader (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't really call it incidental. I mentioned Queen Victoria because she is the exception to the rule. The rule is NOT written to include titles. The pope rule is. We don't call it Seven_(film), we call it seven. The part in parenthesis is just to clarify ambiguity. People do refer to him as John Paul II. This is turning into Idiocracy. "It's what plants crave." Nobody knows why the rule is the way it is, but we must follow it because it's the way it's always been done. Furthermore, it appears to me you commented without reading my points, because I fairly plainly pointed out other places DO refer to them as X (pope). See http://google.com/?q=Pope+John+Paul+II+britannicaXkcdreader (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a whole series of reasons. The main one is that, although the majority of Pope names seem to be unique to Popes, there are a significant number which are shared with other monarchs e.g. Alexander, Stephen, Paul. It would be drastic to claim that the Pope is the primary meaning of e.g. Alexander I. PatGallacher (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hence why (disambiguation) exists. "It does not look as pretty" is not a valid reason to oppose this change. Someone needs to come up with a reason why Pope X is more desired than X (pope). Do other encyclopdias format Pope's names that way? Xkcdreader (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you xkcdreader... finally someone who is making some sense. Can anyone explain WHY Popes and Patriarchs have a different naming convention than other Clergy? ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that the consensus is that the titles of the Pope articles stay the way they have been for the last 12 years. Mocctur (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

it's not clear. the discussion is not over yet, although I think we should close this RM on procedural grounds in favor of the RfC above. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. WP:SNOW close both. DeCausa (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I would say close the two RMs, but the RfC is not decided yet. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. other than "Because twelve years" we have yet to hear why Pope articles start with the word pope. Where did the rule come from? This is textbook Communal reinforcement (and Argumentum ad populum & argumentum ad antiquitatem for that matter) Xkcdreader (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
yeah. same thing happened at basilica of saint mary major. the rm was closed as no cons, but the opposing side offered specific evidence, whereas the other side offered ghits and "most sources use it". no specific examples were given by them. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Very Very Strongly Support ReformedArsenal and also agreed with Xkcdreader. Catholic "Pope" is apparently religious and worldly Monarch as well as US President and British Queen(or King). I have to repeat. According to wikipedia's five criteria, RNPCC(Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency), I think, it is very very obvious that article titles such as "Pope Benedict XV" should be moved to non-Pope titles, because Pope-attached titles are only temporally recognaizable and consistent with other then media articles, and they have never been recognizable, nor natural, nor precise, nor concise, nor consistent with other media articles for all the rest of time while each of them individually has not been a Pope. Besides, I and my family belong to Catholic Church, and naturally admitted that "Pope" is apparently just one of managerial posts of Catholic church, and given to only one current Catholic cardinal, therefore, I cannot think that all of "Pope"s should have been "Pope"s even in wikipedia's article titles. How many "Pope"s do you think Catholic people want to have at the same time? How many US Presidents do you think American people want to have at the same time? How many British Kings and Queens do you think British people want to have at the same time? So it is very very clear that an ex-Pope is just an ex-Pope, not a Pope. In Heaven, as far as there exists Saint Peter( Saint James the Greater, Saint John the Beloved, and so on ), they cannot be "Pope"s. Therefore, please treat ex-"Pope"s as ex-"Pope"s honestly. And it is also clear that only such a honesty can fulfill wikipedia's five criteria, RNPCC(Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency) forever. Thank you. (It seems that guys opposing to rename to non-Pope titles are feeling guilty unconsciously about betraying Catholic Church and ignoring even Wikipedia's basic criteria. ) -- Rocky7 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)WP:Naming conventions (Christian clergy) – This NC is not about clergy, the intro paragraph clearly restricts this to Christianity only, while the name of the NC does not. This clearly biases the meaning of the guideline, indicating that non-Christians are not clergy. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • oppose: this is supposed to be for all clergy, although editors and wikiprojects haven't come up with any for other religions. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- While most of the content relates to Chritian clergy, the principles annunciated can be applied to other religions. The content in fact ends with links to equivalent articles on LDS and other religions. It would be necessary for this contnet to be removed, which would not be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • LDS is part of Christianity. The LDS Church self-identifies as Christian per its article. If this page is moved, that would free up the title "Naming conventions (clergy)" which can contain that "Other religions" section. Or alternately, it can be renamed to "See also" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aunva6 & Peterkingiron. Not necessarily exclusive to Christian clergy.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • This page contains guidance on how to title articles about members of the Christian clergy (popes, cardinals, bishops, etc.), as well as saints. -- the intro sentence specifically restricts this guideline to only Christianity. Other religions is the equivalent to a See also section. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated above. Bede735 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose There is no sovereign right to take offense. I don't see a problem with consolidating the various guidelines strewn over other pages into this one and taking the word "Christian" out of the first paragraph. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and support removing "Christian" from introduction as per Mangoe. LCS check (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this page's title is uncontroversal & acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because User:65.92.180.137's opinion seems to be prejudiced idea and he doesn't explain at all what he wants to do by renaming. -- Rocky7 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • move to close-some re-wording may be needed, however, this is just a loose guideline, and does not imply anything. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't close it for another few days. it needs to run the full 7 days, even though WP:SNOW is fully applicable. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this page isn't moved, it needs to be expanded beyond its Christian bias. Statements like "This page contains guidance on how to title articles about members of the Christian clergy..." and "For guidance on naming articles about people associated with other religions, see the appropriate religion- or country-specific convention or guideline pages..." needs to be reworded and its coverage for "other religions" needs to be expanded beyond listing a few wikilinks for naming conventions in other cultures.  —Sowlos  05:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the problem. The page currently says "this page contains information about naming christian clergy." IF someone amended the page to include information about naming other clergy, that sentence could be followed up by another that says describes the contents of the page. I read the current sentence as a "here is a summary of what is currently on this page" not a decree of what is and isn't allowed. "It needs to be expanded beyond its Christian bias." I don't think anyone is apposed to that. Feel free to add more information about other religions. Xkcdreader (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The lead should describe the topic of the page. If that is clergy in general, that's what it should describe. If that is Christian clergy, then that's what it should describe. Similarly, the title should indicate scope.
"It needs to be expanded beyond its Christian bias." I don't think anyone is apposed to that.
Well, a start to that is rewording what's already written (as needed).  —Sowlos  09:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Pope title in article names[edit]

Current Francis I is the Pope and King of Vatican City as well as the seated executive (CEO) of Holy See (a legal corporate person). Currently only one of these titles are mentioned in the article name. C.G.P. Grey explains the Pope with fascinating detail.

If "Pope" is a title rather than a commonly used first name it has no business being in the article name. Curently Queen Elizabeth II, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Emperor Akihito (It is exceptionally rude in Japanese culture to refer anyone by first name, unthinkable to refer the Emperor without the appropriate honorifics & titles), Abdullah (of Saudi Arabia) bin Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Saud1, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah1, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said1, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani1, King Mswati III1 or even Jesus does not have a title in their article.

Currently John Paul II is a redirect to Pope John Paul II and it should be the other way around per the custom seen elsewhere on the site as existing policy and customs suggest. Pope Francis should be moved and redirected to Francis (Pope) or Francis I. Francis I looks better IMHO as the title doesn't clutter the article name.

1: Absolute Monarchies.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue was recently discussed several times in detail (see above) and was closed per consensus. The administrator who closed the last discussion wrote in summary: "Consensus is against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Bede735 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not find the above discussion satisfactory. I have actually read it before posting this. The actual issue wasn't addressed. A naming convention for popes has not been established as far as I know. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The naming convention for popes has been established and provided in the guidance WP:NCCL. It states:
For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. For popes who are also saints, see Saints below. ...
This convention has been in place for years. The proposal was to change this convention by applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes—that was the actual issue—and this proposal was rejected by concensus. Bede735 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not remember a pope discussion that established the consensus you mentioned. All I see in archives is people disliking the pope title in article names and some support to that end. This isn't something that there had ever been an established convention in the past nor has it been established above. Current structure is not line with WP:NPOV and there is always room for more discussion. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Francis I would be wrong. Current pope doesn't have a roman numeral associated with his name. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
These exact issues were all discussed in great detail above in two threads (they're not in the archive) with the discussion closed with this closure summary: "Consensus is against changing the the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This does not apply to vast majority of popes. If the problem is disambiguation, there are ways around that used on the rest of the site. I do not know what you mean by "European sovereigns" but we avoid any kind of title in article names of people on the rest of the wiki as I have demonstrated with a few examples. Wikipedia does not abide by religious rules regardless of the religion and roman catholic popes are no more important than leaders of other religions/countries. Akihito is the current Japanese Emperor vast majority of other names I have mentioned is middle eastern hence not European. I do not see a sufficient reason for us to have a double standard on this matter. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Insisting that we need to use some Wikipedia-contrived designation for disambiguation instead of following real-world usage has a distinct air of Wikipedia:Right great wrongs masquerading as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see no compelling reason to change existing usage. Choess (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia NOT Pope-pedia. There is a reason why we have general guidelines. Exceptions to the general guidelines should have a good reason not the other way around. This is the only instance of a general exception to site-wide guidelines on people tiles. I do not see the relevance of "Wikipedia:Right great wrongs" to this situation. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not surprised; if you were sufficiently disinterested to understand its applicability, or sufficiently well-informed to base your positions on reliable sources rather than some video that struck your fancy on YouTube, you wouldn't be doing it. Anyway, you're proposing to break WP:COMMONNAME (in the real world, which we're supposed to be documenting, people distinguish Popes from other people of the same name and number by calling them "Pope so-and-so") and the "consistency" criterion for article naming to uphold a principle that isn't actually true. (Our entire suite of articles on the British peerage uses "title[s] in article names of people", for instance.) That's never going to get consensus, which is why the responses to your lengthy arguments have been short and relatively flip. Find an article to write, or go to an Orange Order meeting if you prefer to rant about Popes. Choess (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Conventions in title and in text[edit]

The introductory text states that this guideline deals with article titles, but some of the content clearly applies to article text: "Do not use a pope's personal name except when referring to his life prior to becoming pope: 'Luciani entered the minor seminary of Feltre in 1923...' (life before papacy) but 'John Paul refused to...wear the Papal Tiara' (after being elected pope)" and "When it is necessary to add the title "Cardinal", it will usually be sufficient to prefix it to the surname of the cardinal, especially in the body of an article". And the MOS:HONORIFIC guideline, which has to do with text, says "Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)" (i.e., NCCL).

In my opinion it's quite relevant to cover both name and content of articles, and I've added "Some content is relevant to the text of articles, not just the article title." in the first paragraph. If it's considered instead that the guideline should be more narrowly focussed on article names only, then the content should be edited to purge references to article text, and my now-incorrect clarification removed. Pol098 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to MOS:SAINTS[edit]

It's evident from recent RMs at Talk:Saint Joseph, Talk:Saint Timothy, Talk:Saint Peter that the current guideline does not have the support of editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify: I had a quick look at the linked discussions and I couldn't see opposition to MOS:SAINTS - I may have missed it though. Please point out specifically where it is. What I see was a lot of argument about whether a particular Saint is known as "St. X" or not. Isn't that just applying the guideline, not disagreeing with it? DeCausa (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There were at least 2 comments saying "then MOS:SAINTS is wrong" "MOS:SAINTS needs to be changed" and saying that "WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over MOS:SAINTS" with discussion spread over 3 RMs I make approximate quotes because it's a bit difficult, but just going down the first RM I immediately meet 2:

I'm sorry but this does not appear to be the case. Google Books is not a reliable reference, and counting google hits is no way to do research. Stripping "saint" from the title name gives us Joseph, which is already taken, so MOS:SAINTS supports Saint Joseph. Rwflammang (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Cf. also Saint David, Saint Anne, and Saint Christopher which include the title for the same reason. Rwflammang (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the guideline supports "saint" only when the individual is only recognizable when it's included, i.e. Saint Patrick. That's obviously not the case here since most reliable sources, as well as most Bibles, do not include it. --JFH (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nor does the section mention WP:COMMONNAME at all. MOS:SAINTS is a sentence or two tucked away in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and it is questionable whether it applies to non-clerical saints at all. In any case neither over-ride WP:COMMONNAME, and many exceptions to both have stood the test of time. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Similar in the other RMs. e.g. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should be changed to clarify the scope and meaning, and its relationship to WP:COMMONNAME. Also whether and how it applies when disambiguation is needed and "Saint Foo" seems to be the most appropriate alternative. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a change[edit]

Tell me how you like this, In ictu oculi, Johnbod, DeCausa, etc.? [4] User:Red Slash (User talk:Red Slash) - 6 December 2013

Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint". Another, more controversial exception, may occur when the base name (for example, "Timothy") requires disambiguation due to lack of primary topic for the saint. In that case, natural disambiguation has been preferred at Wikipedia, which sometimes but certainly not always involves the title "Saint". For example, we use Ulrich of Augsburg (perfectly unambiguous) but Saint Patrick (see Patrick, a disambiguation page). Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint". (See also List of saints.)

I'm not sure this change relates to the central issue which is opposition to the basic MOS "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint"." The New Testament figures Peter, Joseph, Timothy are evidently not "only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint" " since they are not called "Saint" either in the NT or in 80% of Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with In ictu oculi. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I do as well. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not typical guideline format maybe, but certainly an improvement. The idea that this page over-rides WP:COMMONNAME, which it doesn't, should also be addressed. Naturally I reject Iio's description of the issues. As he himself has complained above, his interpretation of this page has been consistently rejected by consensus in recent move debates he and others have started to remove "Saint", and it is better that the policy is clarified. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure who "lio" is in Johnbod's comment above, but I've been a party of several name change discussions and the suggested name change was not rejected due to concensus - the name change was rejected due to a LACK of concensus. This is a notable difference as John's statement implies that the attempts were shouted down. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod that the policy needs clarification. Ckruschke (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's In ictu oculi. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A saint is only someone who has been declared to be a saint by one or more churches; it is a neutral fact that this is so. That is not biased against atheists etc, to whom the concept is merely meaningless except as part of the person's "reception hisory", which with figures like Joseph is almost all we know about them anyway. Joseph is only notable as a Christian, and the issue we are discussing arises only when other forms of disambiguation don't work. We are not talking about changing Thomas More here. Though other religions sometimes use the concept of "saint", in English "Saint Foo" is only a Christian formulation, so disambiguating by "(Christian saint)" is overkill. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"Saint Peter" and "Saint Joseph" are unambiguous and neutral expressions. Even atheists tell non-malicious jokes about "Saint Peter" as doorkeeper to heaven. Use of the term "Saint Peter" implies neither belief nor unbelief. Calling Saint Joseph "Joseph (Christian saint)" (an expression that fits Joseph of Cupertino much better) or even "Joseph of Nazareth" would not be common speech, and for that reason use of such terms would have non-neutral POV overtones unlike use of the common established "Saint Joseph". Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with both John and Esoglou. You'd actually be INSERTING POV by using the naming convention Peter (christian saint). Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's clear reviewing that only a very few such articles have used the "Saint" or "Pope" in the title, and indeed many of those could have done without, such as Paul VI, which presently is simply a redirect to Pope Paul VI, itself a rather blatant hagiography in need of revision. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BISHOP revision[edit]

I propose revising naming conventions for bishops and archbishops:

Preparatory reading[edit]

Considerations[edit]

  • Consistency
  • Recognisability
  • Official names
  • Common names
  • Ambiguity
  • NPOV

Involved parties[edit]

Comments[edit]

Proposals[edit]

  • Proposal 0: the status quo
  1. (Implied: Use "Common Name" {per WP:COMMONNAME.})
  2. If ambiguous, use paranthetical dab phrase "Common Name (bishop)". ("bishop" in the sense of the order and therefore including archbishops.)
  3. If two or more (arch)bishops have the same common name, dab by current or most recent (or, in practice, most senior) see "Common Name (archbishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (bishop of Otherwhere)." (Customarily and incorrectly uncapitalised.)
  4. If two or more bishops of the same common name held the same most recent or most senior see, then "Common Name (died 1066)".
  5. Bishops of only one name must not be dab'd with only (bishop); if two one-named bishops of the same see are generally distinguished by Roman numerals, they should be dab'd by such.
  • Proposal 1:
  1. Use "Common Name" (per WP:COMMONNAME.)
  2. If ambiguous, use paranthetical dab phrase "Common Name (bishop)". ("bishop" in the sense of the order and therefore including archbishops.)
  3. If two or more (arch)bishops have the same common name, dab by current, most recent or most senior see "Common Name (Archbishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (Bishop of Otherwhere)." (Properly capitalised as episcopal titles; avoiding use of disambiguation by denomination since sees are better recognised.) Dan BD 16:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. If two or more bishops of the same common name held the same most recent or most senior see, then "Common Name (Bishop of Place, died 1066)", or (if no year is known for one of them) "Common Name (12th-century Bishop of Here)", or "Common Name II (Bishop of There)" (if both were active in the same century and not dab-able by years). Dan BD 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals[edit]

I propose (proposal 1, point 3) that all episcopal titles be properly capitalised, since in that phrase we do not mean that this person was "a bishop, of Wherever", but that they hold/held the specific title "Bishop of Wherever. Dan BD 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see one potential drawback to this proposal, although it is also admittedly a problem present in the existing guidelines. There are, at least for the Catholic and Orthodox churches (the latter of whom should probably also be notified) some problems regarding really early bishoporics where more than one individual bishop of a diocese are known to history by the same name. I have seen in some reference books on saints entries such as "Foo I of Fooville" and "Foo II of Fooville" and whatever. How would these changes deal with such circumstances? John Carter (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added to my proposal to cover that eventuality. I have essentially formulated what seems already to happen in practice. Dan BD 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, some of those saints "Whoever II of Over There" would have that as their common name. Dan BD 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose making changes to Naming conventions (clergy) guidelines. I don't see any problem with Proposal 1, points 1 and 2 since they are the same with Proposal 0, but Proposal 1, point 3 is not a natural progression of points 1 and 2, and Proposal 1, point 4 has too many options. Although the current guidelines are not perfect they have remained in place for many years and should stay as they are. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal lacks one detail: how to cater for two bishops of the same name in the same diocese but from different denominations. Following the Reformation in Ireland, many dioceses had parallel successions - 1 for the RC Church and 1 for the Church of Ireland. It's possible therefore that over the centuries, two Irishmen occupied the same see but in different denominations. So we'd need "Common Name (Bishop of Here, Denomination Foo)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Or (Church of Ireland Bishop of There) and (Roman Catholic Bishop of There)? Dan BD 09:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Although I suppose there's the outside possibility that we'd end up with a (United Church of England and Ireland Bishop of There) which is becoming a bit ridiculous... Dan BD 09:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for complicated options to distinguish one bishop from another with the same name and title. The current guidelines simply has their death year in brackets: e.g. Alexander de Kininmund (died 1380) and Alexander de Kininmund (died 1344), both bishops of Aberdeen. It is very unlikely, if at all, with two bishops with the same title and death year. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Scrivener, I'd like to know what you mean by "point 3 is not a natural progression". That would help me prepare a Proposal 2. Dan BD 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I always thought the disambiguation phrase in parentheses should normally be in lowercase, unless it is a proper noun (like a book title) that would appear capitalized even in running text (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Format. The progression I see is (1) Common Name, (2) Common Name (bishop), (3) Common Name (bishop of Wherever) or Common Name (archbishop of Wherever). With number 3, I see them as a bishop/archbishop of Wherever, and not the Bishop/Archbishop of Wherever. We don't see people in the peerage with their title in parentheses: e.g. Thomas Howard (3rd Duke of Norfolk) but with their title after a comma e.g. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. So the progression with bishops is either Common Name (bishop of Wherever) / Common Name (archbishop of Wherever), or Common Name, Bishop of Wherever / Common Name, Archbishop of Wherever. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Outcome[edit]