Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Pope Francis[edit]

The article about Pope Francis is currently nominated as a good article. Reviews may be welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mid vowels in Ecclesiastical Latin[edit]

I'm curious about the pronunciation of the letters e and o in Ecclesiastical Latin. Help:IPA for Latin lists two pronunciations for each letter (/e ɛ/ and /o ɔ/), as in Italian, but I'm not sure if this is correct. If you know anything about this, please comment on the WikiProject Latin talk page. — Eru·tuon 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christian denominational families[edit]

You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Catholics in the United States Military[edit]

As Buddhists in the US Military was deemed notable, than I highly suggest that a new article Catholics in the United States Military should be created. Using the logic used to defend the kept article, an article about Catholics in the United States Military will clearly pass notability requirements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA might be expanded to include the content you desire? --Zfish118 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Roman Catholic Church was recently redirected to Latin Catholic Church, which is itself a redirect to Latin Church. Likewise, Roman catholic church was directed to Latin Church. This is problematic. Human searchers will invariably be looking for Catholic Church rather than the sui iuris Latin Church. Hundreds if not thousands of articles which link to the Roman Catholic Church article intended to point to the Catholic Church article. Those with doubts should consult our article, Roman Catholic (term) which explains the many and varied uses. I suggest that these redirects both be pointed back to the Catholic Church article to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I had already reverted this redirect before I notice this discussion. The redirect to RCC should not have been made in the first place and was done so on the very false premise that "Latin Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are "synonomous" when, in fact, they are not as the Roman Catholic (term) article makes clear. The only correct redirect of "Roman Catholic Church" is to "Catholic Church". Anglicanus (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Lucidius of Verona[edit]

Hi, is anyone able to validate this saint? I can't find (anything other than mirrors) from Google, and some websites with lists of feast days exclude him entirely. Does anyone know if he existed? Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is in the Roman Martyrology. Elizium23 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV discussion[edit]

Neutrality issues have been raised on several related articles. More contributions would be welcome.

Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute devolving into edit war[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Episcopal ordination/consecration[edit]

I am not sure anyone besides the three of us care about this, but I thought I would at least bring it to public attention. The IP 71.191.176.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is slowly but surely changing all articles that reference episcopal "ordination" to "consecration". Philip Trueman (talk · contribs) objects to this but he doesn't believe that "consecration" is correct - it is correct, it's simply an older, more traditional specific term for episcopal ordination. If it were up to me, I'd just let the IP continue on his merry way and change them all, but I thought I'd float it here just in case anyone else has objections and thinks the IP should be stopped (although I'd be curious to see how that would be possible.) Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

1983 CIC canon 379 uses the word consecration. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
1997 CCC #1559 uses the word ordination. Next? Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mmmm. Latin also has this difference. CCC 1554: "sacramental act called "ordination," that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders". And 1557 "The Second Vatican Council 'teaches . . . that the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration, that fullness namely which, both in the liturgical tradition of the Church and the language of the Fathers of the Church, is called the high priesthood, the acme (summa) of the sacred ministry.' " Canons 1010–1014 add insight. I believe "consecration" is more correct. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify the terms a bit. Consecration is a more generic term - places, items, and people can be consecrated in a variety of ways. Ordination is specific to the sacrament of holy orders (deacon, priest, and bishop). Ordination is just one way of being consecrated.--Dcheney (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question as to how the IP can be stopped: Wikipedia has processes for resolving content disputes - WP:DR and the like. The aim is to achieve consensus and then, if necessary, enforce it. I'm happy to participate in such a process (although real life has been intruding recently); it is significant and disappointing that the IP has shown no inclination to do so. My initial interpretation of the distinction between the words was that 'ordination' is the sacrament, and 'consecration' a specific act which occurs within it - just as 'confession' is a specific act within another sacrament, but not the sacrament itself even if sometimes it is used to refer to it. I'm open to persuasion on this, and I'm grateful for the references above which I intend to read more closely. Philip Trueman (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
See Consecration. Consecration is another name for episcopal ordination, the two are synonyms, just as Confession is another name for the Sacrament of Penance ([1] CCC #1424). Elizium23 (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If they are synonyms, then I don't see how one can be more correct than the other, as BoBoMisiu suggests. I'm much more inclined to Dcheney's suggestion that 'ordination' is a more specific term [and, presumably, 'episcopal ordination' is a fortiori an even more specific term] and 'consecration' a less specific term. In which case I think the more specific term should be used if it is appropriate, and that it is up to the IP to justify his preference for the generic over the specific, which he hasn't done. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Philip Trueman: from canon 1012 "The minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop." Commentary explains "that only the consecrated bishop is a minister of sacred ordination". Yet the same commentary uses both terms to explain canon 1013 the faculty to authorize episcopal ordination [...] bishop who consecrated. A different commentary on canon 379. comparing CIC canon 336 and CCEO 49 that "instead of Summus Pontifex ('Supreme Pontiff') one finds Romanus Pontifex ('Roman Pontiff') and in the place of 'sacramental consecration' one finds 'sacramental ordination'." They are both in contemporary use in parts of the Catholic Church. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This discussion thread is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. The box is simply for organization.
I'm not an active member of this WikiProject, but looking at this, I believe Philip Trueman has it right - "ordination" is the more specific term (and "episcopal ordination" even more specific", while "consecration" can refer to any of a large number of sacred actions, of which ordination is only one. Thus at the very least, a reference to a priest's elevation to the office of bishop should be referred to as his "episcopal ordination" the first time it's mentioned in an article. For stylistic reasons (not repeating the same thing over and over), future references could mention "consecration" instead. Argyriou (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember reading something about different use in different English speaking countries, but I don't remember more details. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
(now becoming another subject). I had thought the church had discarded the term "Pontifex Maximus", ""Supreme Pontiff." This term was used to denote the Head of the Roman Church under Paganism and was transferred to the Pope after Christianity became the state religion. Critics point out that the Religion has changed and the term is therefore hypocritical, or whatever critics would usually say in such circumstances. I think the Holy See has dropped this title. (apparently still in some documents). Student7 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No, as Pontifex Maximus says, & you can easily see from the Vatican giftshop, it is still used in some contexts, such as coins, medals, and inscriptions on buildings. Mainly for the Pope in his capacity as the ruler of Vatican City really, but also on encyclicals etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
PS Benedict XVI is "no longer available", but JP2 is. Hmmm! Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Greetings, While doing article assessments, for the first time I notice that these two articles are almost duplicates.

If another more experienced editor could look these over and do the merging would be great. I am asking for help mainly because I do not know how to do this. Thanks. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think these two articles may be conflating more than two groups. I think this edit took out actual historical content, a new contributor (Special:Contributions/Halcyon0612), @Halcyon0612: seems to know something about the subject but just not knowledgable about wikipedia methods. I think this contributor needs some hand holding to format what, to me, looks like content that just needs attribution. That would be a start at helping to resolve what to do. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on confirmation of election of Church of England bishops[edit]

At Talk:Martin Seeley. Dan BD 14:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to this project.--Dcheney (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"catholic". The Church of England has a catholic ecclesiology. Dan BD 23:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Must we use the word "Roman" in a title like "History of the Catholic Church in (a country)"?[edit]

Some 50 years ago the world's Catholic bishops issued decrees that would in effect make the Catholic church less "Roman" and more a world church. Some of the changes that have eventuated are Mass in the various vernaculars throughout the world, diversification of the curia into a truly international body, and selecting the last three Popes from outside Italy. Pope Francis at his first public appearance referred to himself as "Bishop of Rome", acknowledging this as his primary job, though this Argentinian will also be the Catholic church's spokesman when necessary. As we move into the future Catholics will still recognize that their church is centered in Rome but may not want to emphasize the "Roman" characteristic as much as was done during fifteen centuries of the Holy Roman Empire, and in the century after Vatican I when Counter-reformation theology was the order of the day. Now Pope Francis is calling for more synodal governance and has greatly diversified the college of cardinals, with the South replacing many of the Italian cardinals who run the curia and will elect the next Pope. My point is that we as Catholics should come together and request that going into the future we need the freedom to leave the word "Roman" out of the titles of our articles, when this leads to no confusion of churches (it doesn't in Belize). An editor changed the title of my article "History of the Catholic Church in Belize" to "History of Roman Catholicism in Belize". Restoring the title I had was disallowed by the Wikipedia editor I spoke with on the English Wikipedia help channel, May 14, 2015; in his words: <+Huon> jzsj, not without a discussion, and I pointed you towards the appropriate place. This is the place he pointed me to, so let's hear what Catholics think about leaving the word "Roman" out of some articles about local Catholic churches they write about in the future. They could still include it if they like. And Wikipedia could keep the category "Roman Catholic" for clarity and simplicity; articles without the title "Roman" could be properly placed there.jzsj 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talkcontribs)

Greetings Jzsj, at |Category, Unassessed Catholicism articles for History of articles it looks like the consensus of editors is to include the Roman on the article titles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"It looks like." Could you flesh that out a bit for me, please, I'm new here. Is there any point to our discussion in the WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology (Section) and on this page if the editors are closed to any changes in this?jzsj 22:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talkcontribs)

  • Two quick observations. First Rome does not have a monopoly on the use of the term Catholic in self identification. And secondly the Roman Catholic Church correctly refers only to the Latin Rite of those suis juris churches that are in communion with the See of Rome. Consequently if you are to drop the "Roman" part from article titles you might be seen as inferring that you are addressing a much broader topic than is in fact the case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • But there is no confusion on which Catholic church you are referring to in Belize since no other Latin rite or Catholic churches exists in Belize. Please note also that this discussion has progressed to why the name of the topic was changed on the first line of the article also, not just in its title. I can see why the editors may want the title to correspond more directly with their categories, but I don't see why they need to add the term "Roman" within an article since it had occurred only once in the article (in a reference to the Roman authorities). I explain on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Terminology why this is a sensitive issue in the Catholic church. By inserting the word "Roman" within the article the editors are injecting themselves into the discussion within the church and biasing the article in favor of those who don't want change (by slowing down the process toward renewal). When the context makes clear what "Catholic" church you are speaking about, then why not let it go? If catholic wasn't capitalized then I could see others could be offended, but which other churches refer to themselves now as the Catholic church. One more question, what more do I need to do to "sign" these articles, to not get them tagged "unsigned"?jzsj 22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) —jzsj 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talkcontribs)
So there are no Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics in Belize, a former British colony? There are no Orthodox Christians? All of these groups also self identify as Catholic. But even if all of that were true, you are still implying that the term Catholic applies only to those Christians in the Roman Communion. And then you are implicitly suggesting that we have multiple standards and guidelines for the term catholic depending on which country we are talking about. At the very least that is bound to create confusion. And it seems that a good part of your argument is based on a belief that the RCC is going to start moving away from it's emphasis on the Roman Primacy and related doctrines. That strikes me as extremely unlikely. No, I'm afraid that your suggestion, undoubtedly made in good faith, is unlikely to gain much traction here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt if Christians not in union with Rome want to call themselves Catholic with a capital "C", and I fully agree that they are part of the universal (catholic) church with a small "c". The terms should be distinguished. Catholic is not ambiguous today since other churches don't want to be called simply Catholic with a capital "C". When you say that it seems unlikely to you "that RCC is going to start moving away from its emphasis on the Roman primacy and related doctrines," what do you make of the very concrete steps Pope Francis has taken (mentioned above) that have moved to synodal governance (2 very open synods called already) and decentralization in the Catholic church as evidenced in his appointments to the Curia and selection of Cardinals?jzsj 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Use four tildes , the squiggly lines usually found in the upper left of most keyboards to sign your name. Anglo-Catholics most definitely consider themselves big 'C' Catholics. As do the Orthodox. However the RCC does not recognize the Anglicans as in any way a part of the catholic church and do not even recognize their orders and sacraments. As for Pope Francis, when he repeals this little line... "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema." do let me know. Until then you may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I can give you a whole list of anathemas that any Catholic who inquired into it would know do not mean today what they meant when spoken in the Counter-reformation period. Your quote could not have come from Vatican II since it delivered no anathemas. When you say "Catholic church", from the time of Christ and still today that means the people, not the government. Note that Vatican II places the people and the "sensus fidelium" (tradition sustained by the people, what Jesus meant when he said that the gates of hell will not prevail against "it") before the hierarchy in its document on the Church. And one needn't hold that those not in union with the Pope are not in any way a part of the catholic church; the church allows the validity of ordinations in the Anglican and other Christian churches, and so also of their sacraments, and has many circumstances when it admits to the Communion table any who believe in the real presence of Christ in this sacrament.jzsj 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talkcontribs)
@Jzsj:"the church allows the validity of ordinations in the Anglican [church]". You are mistaken. While the Catholic Church has always, since at least 200 AD, recognized that break away churches could validly ordain clergy according to its standards, the Catholic Church has never accepted the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church to be valid. Any practicing Anglican priest with orders recognized by Rome must have been ordained by a bishop of another Church. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Denotatively, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are perfect synonyms. "Roman Catholic" is sometimes used refer to only Latin Rite Catholics, but it is perfectly correct to refer to the universal church as "Roman Catholic". Some people avoid the use of Roman Catholic in the universal sense to avoid offense towards Eastern, non-Roman Rite Catholics; some also choose to avoid the use of "Roman Catholic" to avoid appearing to endorse Anglican Branch theory, but these are more modern connotative choices. Roman Catholic has been used for centuries to refer to refer to the whole church in communion with the Pope; thousands of reliable sources will use the term to refer to the whole church without irony. Wikipedia cannot redefine language, nor give undo weight to more modern definitions that are inconsistently used. Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources and external researchers have concluded about the definition of terms. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118: Thank you for your insightful answer and clarification. Being somewhat new to WP Catholicism I am grateful for the practical explanation for this discussion. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The original question raised remains important to most progressive Catholics. The "Roman" Catholic church is far less Roman than it was during the days of the "Holy Roman Empire", and is growing less so over time. The Catholic church is truly worldwide in its leadership, with bishops receiving power directly from God and from consecrating bishops, all of whom, including the Pope as their presiding officer, must remain in communion with this universal college of bishops, successors to the Apostles. Catholics grow increasingly uncomfortable with the designation "Roman", given that it essentially designates only where the chief Bishop is found, without all the cultural baggage that was associated with it for 1500 years. But I recognize that it would present a problem for Wikipedia to make a decision at this time to make allowance in its categories for what is still in process.jzsj 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talkcontribs)

@Jzsj: I don't who you talk to but I have never talked to a Catholic, i.e. a member of one of the Catholic Churches, who was "uncomfortable with the designation 'Roman' ", even Eastern Catholics since they know the context. I have talked to some Polish National Catholics and some people in what they call a Catholic parish run by a man who was never a member of one of the Catholic Churches – they seem to bothered by how it is used or not used. But not members of the Catholic Churches. It is used in Wikipedia for convenience to differentiate between what members of the Catholic Churches call Catholic and what other folks (who are not members of one the Catholic Churches) call Catholic (e.g. Old Catholic or Independent Catholic or the defunct American Catholic Church (1915)) in a neutral way. And, like Ad Orientem said there are others who also self identify as Catholic but are not members of the Catholic Churches.
From another direction, Belize was British Honduras and may have had an Anglican Church that called itself, hypothetically, something like the "Catholic Church of Honduras" since the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America that called itself, at times, the "Catholic Church in America" (or something to that effect) founded Anglican Churches in harmony with Crown laws in Crown colonies. It may have been part of those 19th century Protestant propaganda campaigns to convince people that churches should be formed along national and racial lines; and that what was Roman was not Catholic.
while I don't like it and I disagree with Zfish118 that "external researchers have concluded about the definition of terms", using Roman Catholic benefits the people who read wiktionary articles by differentiating when there is doubt about the meaning. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc.?[edit]

In the course of improving Roman Catholic Diocese of Líbano–Honda, I replaced an in-text reference to The Bull "Ita Iam" with a reference to the apostolic constitution, which does, in fact begin "Ita iam". The reference I've used is

{{Citation
 |url=http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19890708_libana-hondana.html
 |date=8 July 1989
 |first=Pope
 |last=John Paul II
 |author-link=Pope John Paul II
 |title=Quibusdam distractis territoriis ab Achidiocesi Ibaguensi nova Diocesis Libana-Hondana conditur
}}

Do any of you have suggestions for a better way to cite this, or some sort of consensus on how to do this? Argyriou (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I normally use the Latin title in references and not the incipit if the title is available. That is the modern way. I use author=Pope John Paul II for popes. I think the diocese name is also the title of the apostolic constitution Libana Hondana (see here for how others are listed). But, if I'm writing about the document, I use the style I find in the new version of Enchiridion. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. I fixed it up a little, and put the incipit in the quote= parameter. Go take a look and tell me if you like it. Argyriou (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Argyriou: I do not think you even have to that, few people will read the Latin. You already wrote that in English and the linked document has all the Latin text. I think it looks good, there is not more say about the territory. I would just add that it was erected from territory divided from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ibagué. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Asking for consensus for diplomatic article titles[edit]

Greetings,

Recently while doing WP Catholicism article assessments, I see that for Category:Diplomatic missions of the Holy See articles there are a mixture of titles. For example:

The category shows 48 article pages, so before making any changes I am wondering if there is a preferred article title, or something different (and better)? Please feel free to leave your feedback and opinions. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Google Ngram shows "Nunciature in" has more use. But "Nunciature to" seems more precise to me. I would use "Apostolic Nunciature to [country or organization]" in title, and "The Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See to [country or organization], also known as the Vatican Embassy. (see e.g. diplomatmagazine.com, Azerbaijan diplomatic list, Catholic Almanac) I would also have redirects:
  • from "Nunciature in [city]" with {{R from alternative name}}
  • from "Nunciature to [country or organization]" with {{R from alternative name}}
  • from "Vatican embassy in [city]" with {{temp|R from alternative name}}
  • from "Vatican embassy to [country or organization]" with {{temp|R from alternative name}}
I'd like to see what others think though. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Nunciature" seems more correct - the Nuncio is a person; you wouldn't have an article about the U.S. Ambassador to Liberia, you'd have an article about the U.S. Embassy in (to?) Liberia. An article about a particular Nuncio should be in that person's name (unless, hypothetically, there was a nuncio who did something important but whose name has been lost), just as there's an article about J. Christopher Stevens, not about U.S. Ambassador to Libya. But this being Wikipedia, there should be redirects as BoBoMisiu suggests.
Incidentally, tying this with another discussion above, there should probably be a redirect from Diocese of [city] to Roman Catholic Diocese of [city] when there are no other Christian churches which have sees in that city. And a disambiguation page for cases like Diocese of Birmingham. Argyriou (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)