Talk:Perfectae Caritatis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vita Consecrata[edit]

I added a link to this article over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Consecrata#Relation_to_Vatican_II_Documents FullfillC21 (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus due to lack of further input, no prejudice against speedy renomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Perfectae Caritatis → Perfectae caritatis – Per MOS:INCIPIT and standard practice in Latin (which doesn't use title case). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: a google search of the term presented all first 20 sources using the Title case. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Literally the first Google result I see doesn't use title case. But regardless, that doesn't override the established consensus on the matter, reflected in our guidelines and numerous other articles about magisterial documents. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please be patient, Your request is still open. Another editor will review your request above and move it if he agrees with you. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: I'm sorry, do you feel I'm being impatient here? I thought we were discussing this in an effort to build consensus, are we not?
And I'm going to ask that you not substantively edit your comments after someone else has replied to them in accordance with WP:REDACT. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced for the rename. So it is upto another page mover to decide. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's up to us to build consensus (WP:CON), DBigXray. So on what basis does what you're saying override the established consensus on the matter, reflected in our guidelines and numerous other articles about magisterial documents? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So on what basis do you continue to contest it, DBigXray, provided that you still do? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ip user 142, I have already said what I feel. Another page mover Admin Anthony has reviewed your request after me and he has decided that your request needs more feedback from the community, so let's wait and see what other editors have to say about your request. After a week an admin will judge the consensus and do the needful. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said what I feel. It actually isn't entirely clear what you feel here because of your failure to engage substantively with the consensus-building process, DBigXray. So again, on what basis does what you're saying override the established consensus on the matter, reflected in our guidelines and numerous other articles about magisterial documents?
Another page mover Admin Anthony has reviewed your request after me and he has decided that your request needs more feedback from the community As I'm sure Anthony Appleyard will attest, he only took the action he did because you contest the move. (Based on what I've seen from him in the past, I don't suspect that he personally has any particular concerns with it.) That being the case, I'm not sure why it seems to come as a surprise to you that I am enquiring as to the basis of your contestation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: DBigXray: am I to understand you're !voting oppose, per the context of your comment? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:StraussInTheHouse thanks for your ping. No, the RM contributors are encouraged to do their own independent research and provide the feedback to the request. I made the note on top only to clarify that the discussion including me, was copied from elsewhere. As I noted above, I personally am unconvinced about the request based on its usage in the media (evident my search results)--DBigXrayᗙ 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perfectae_Caritatis&oldid=1204586488"