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
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
edit · changes

New 1983 Code of Canon Law citation template is ready for use[edit]

I created a new 1983 Code of Canon Law citation {{CIC1983}}. Add a code number and get a linked {{sfn}} citation with a link to the code number on –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! --Zfish118talk 18:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Fairly new to the group, so I just saw this. Awesome, very helpful! Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: The template doesn't seem to work. It takes up a whole line like some other templates and can't be used as a normal ref. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Crusadestudent: discussion continued at Template talk:CIC1983. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the pope head of state & government of Vatican City?[edit]

In the article List of heads of state and government who died in office, aswell as the Years articles - List of state leaders in 2016, 2015, 2014 etc etc. We've the Presidents of the Governate of Vatican City & the Vatican Secretaries of State, being listed with the popes. Is this correct? Isn't the Pope both Vatican head of state & government? GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: yes, the pope is the elected absolute monarch of the Vatican City State. This is not the Holy See. The Vatican City State has a civil government delegated by the pope to act on his behalf with an executive body (headed by the President of the Governate of Vatican City State), a legislative body, a judicial body, a gendarme, a post office, etc. (see –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
So should the President of the Governate of Vatican City State, be included in such articles? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I think yes, with maybe a footnote to explain that he serves as the executive at the pleasure of the elected absolute monarch. "The exercise of executive government is entrusted to the Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State who, in this context, assumes the title of President of the Governorate."[1]
I see. Howabout the Secretaries of State? Should they remain, too? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: the Secretariat of State is part of the Holy See.[2]
"The task of representing Vatican City State and managing its relations with foreign States is the prerogative of the Pope who does so through the Secretariat of State."[3]
"Both the Holy See, the sovereign body of the Catholic Church, and Vatican City State have always received full recognition of their particular international natures."[4]
The Secretary of State is not a head of the Vatican City State government but is part of the Holy See Curia. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
So include the Presidents of the Governorate of Vatican City State & exclude the Vatican Secretaries of State, from those articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: yes, because the Secretary of State is not a head of the Vatican City State government. Yet, obviously the pope is the supreme leader of the church structure (Holy See) and the state structure (Vatican City State). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
While the Vatican City State is an independent country, the Holy See is a sovereign entity, and it is the Holy See that is a member or obsever in many international organizations (including the UN), and that's the one that handles the Catholic Church's diplomatic relations, not the Vatican. And accordingly the United Nations' list of heads of state and government ( includes the Secretary of State as the head of government of the Holy See. Therefore the Holy See and the Vatican City State are two distinct entities and therefore it is appropriate to list their respective leaders besides their common supreme leader, the Pope. ZBukov (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@GoodDay and Zoltan Bukovszky: The entry in the United Nations' list is for the Holy See, the older sovereign entity, which has observer status. I am confused however, I did not know that the Secretary of State was considered the head of government of the Holy See. I think finding and citing a source that explains these intricacies would be the most informative edit:

  • "The secretary of state constitutes the church's combined foreign minister-prime minister."[1]
  • "the Vatican's secretary of state, a cardinal who is the ranking official in the Roman Curia."[2]
  • The "Secretary of State, a title which dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century, is in effect the papal Prime Minister, ultimately responsible for both the issues arising internally within the Church, and those relating to other states."[3]


  1. ^ Hanson, Eric O. (1987). The Catholic Church in world politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 68. ISBN 9781400858606. 
  2. ^ Hehir, J. Bryan (2012). "Roman Catholic Church". The Oxford companion to comparative politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199738595 – via Oxford Reference Online. (subscription required (help)). 
  3. ^ Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism: the basics. London [u.a.]: Routledge. p. 85. ISBN 9780415263801. 

These do not mention the President of the Governate of Vatican City State as a head of government? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC); modified 17:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State states that "The Supreme Pontiff, Sovereign of Vatican City State, has the fullness of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers." I think that reads straightforwardly as stating that the pope and only the pope is the head of State ("Sovereign of Vatican City State") and government ("has the fullness of...executive powers"). I don't object to a footnote mentioning the President of the Governorate of Vatican City State, but I think that only the Supreme Pontiff as such should be included in the actual list. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 03:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The Pope is a special case, because he one of only a handful of absolute monarchs still in governing positions. The head of government tags were not set up with this scenario in mind; it would not be inappropriate to list the Secretary of State as head of government, with a footnote as to the real subordinance of his position. --Zfish118talk 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Papal travel articles[edit]

Please take a look at recent activity on the articles List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy and List of pastoral visits of Pope Paul VI outside Italy. An editor has been making changes to the tables on those articles.

He has been replacing the numbers of journeys with "Type" creating a redundant list of each the countries for each voyage. The heading "Apostolic Journey" is being listed over and over again which does not contribute any added value to the tables either. One of his "Types" was "Voyage of Poland". That is ungrammatical nonsense. The nation of Poland did not make a voyage.

Also, in regards to the edits to List of pastoral visits of Pope Paul VI outside Italy, he changed the wikilink for Nazareth, the city in Israel to Nasareth which is a hamlet in Wales.

While I believe these edits are being made in good faith, Wikipedia:Competence is required applies as well. Feedback here or at the individual article's talk pages is welcome. Mtminchi08 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Lady of Akita[edit]

Something crazy is going on at Our Lady of Akita, take a look at the history. We could use the opinions of more editors. Sro23 (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Catholic Church in" vs. "Roman Catholicism in"[edit]

There are various articles about the Church in individual countries that have inconsistent titles and leads. In keeping with the main Catholic Church page calling the Church simply the "Catholic Church", I propose that all such pages be moved such that their titles read "Catholic Church in ____" and their leads begin "The Catholic Church in <country> is a part of the worldwide Catholic Church, under the spiritual leadership of the pope." Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the Terminology page, the consensus of which coincides with my proposal here. (HT Athomeinkobe) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not think there will be much support for this proposal. There are thousands of articles, and each would need to be manually revised to avoid nonsensical results (such as might be produced by a script). "Roman Catholicism in X" is not incorrect, at most somewhat inconsistent. The main category of Catholic Church-related articles is still "Category:Roman Catholic Church", and numerous navigation templates use the term (ex:template:Roman Catholicism) In some cases, "RC in X" serves as a natural disambiguation in countries that were historically Orthodox Christian. You might get more support if you suggest a list of pages that might strongly benefit from such a revision, but there is little benefit relative to the needed effort from wholesale revisions for mere consistency. --Zfish118talk 05:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no automatic requirement that all related pages have to match the title of a main page. There are also, presumably, questions regarding Polish Old Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches and other groups in various areas, and on that basis I think that keeping the existing titles to provide a less ambiguous name is warranted. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this discussion. Adding my two cents worth: This is where Wikipedia:Redirect is most helpful to point from an "Alternate title" to the actual article title. For example: if the article content is located at Roman Catholicism in xxx then it would be okay to make a redirect for Catholic Church in xxx and vice versa. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose the proposal due to the amount of work that would be involved for very little information gain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
A lot of it had already been done, until someone labelled it "disruptive" and reverted most of it back last night/this morning. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Crusadestudent: I poked around a bit to see what might be the issue. This was a bit difficult, as you had not provided a list of articles that you wanted to edit as I had suggested (while not strictly required, it is helpful to provide links to articles when you comment about difficulties you were having, such as edits being reverted). One page I found was Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan, which you edited here. There were several minor formatting and style issues that you inadvertently added. For example, the article is called "Roman Catholicism in ..." but you removed the in text reference to the article title when you changed "The Roman Catholic Church in Afghanistan" to "The Catholic Church in Afghanistan". Such changes should usually only be made at the same time that an article is renamed (you were, however, correct to use WP:MOS#boldface formatting for the in text reference!). While other edits were helpful, such as removing unnecessary abbreviations, and capitalizing "Mass" for consistency, it is an accepted practice to revert edits that introduce problems, even if the helpful edits are also removed. It is an editor's responsibility to following the formatting standards; others editors are not expected to carefully clean up problematic edits. Browsing through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style may help you avoid simple formatting issues, and make it more likely that your edits will be accepted! --Zfish118talk 05:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Zfish118:. It looks to me like you misread the history, at least in part. I had done the following: Roman Catholic Church in -> Catholic Church in (there was no link here to begin with, so I couldn't have removed it); Pope -> pope; mass -> Mass; mission sui iuris -> mission sui iuris; Father -> Fr. Then you reverted, and then made another edit to bold the name in the lead. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I had read an edit history backwards, and may have misread some details. There does not need to be a "link" to the title in the lead paragraph. Any text referencing the article title is acceptable. The problematic edit was that the article was titled "Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan", and you had removed the reference to "Roman" in "The Roman Catholic Church in Afghanistan" within the lead. This change normally should not be done until the name change request has been approved by consensus, and the article name change was completed. It would also be helpful, though not strictly required, to provide a list of all the articles you wish to rename, rather than individual discussion on each page's talkpage. --Zfish118talk 16:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Verification needed: Pontifical Council for Social Communications: suppressed in March 2016?[edit]


At article Roman Curia today I did the Undo for this edit, and am asking for help to confirm this fact.

08:59, 15 May 2016‎ JoeHebda . . (58,477 bytes) (+552)‎ . . (Undid revision 720294309 by Dcheney (talk) leave here; need to add suppression info.
18:22, 14 May 2016‎ Dcheney . . (57,925 bytes) (-552)‎ . . (→‎The Pontifical Council for Social Communications: suppressed in March 2016

IMO this section should remain, with an additional sentence of details about the Council's suppression. After posting here, I will also post a notice on Talk Roman Curia pointing here. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article, Pontifical Council for Social Communications, with more details which can be updated with this recent history. JoeHebda • (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dcheney and JoeHebda: several organizations will be combined into the Secretariat for Communications.(see Francis's 2015 letter "For the establishment of the Secretariat for Communications" article 1) But you need to cite that it has already happened. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
My primary source is non-public ('Variazioni All'Annuario Pontificio 2016 - N. 4' - which is a twice monthly update from the Vatican). It is dated 16 March 2016 and indicates 1) Abp Celli is now "former" President and 2) for the council itself it says "ha cessato la sua attività e le sue funzioni sono state assunte dalla Segreteria per la Comunicazione". --Dcheney (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
A source does not need to be public or freely available; it just must be cited within an article so that the credibility of the information, based on where it came from, can be assessed. --Zfish118talk 20:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Dumb question, how do I cite a source when removing a section? (the current circumstance) --Dcheney (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but you might edit it in, then remove it, so it's in the page history. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Works for me - 2 edits complete, the first notes the suppression, the second removes the entry. --Dcheney (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Under "Roman Curia#Secretariat for Communications", it mentions that "council for social communications" is being merge into it. This would seem to be a logical place to mention that council was suppressed. There could also be a subsection to list suppressed councils, etc. --Zfish118talk 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there is a section on the Secretariat for Communications in the article, remove the section on Pontifical Council for Social Communications, note the restructuring in edit summary, and add {{infobox organization}} to the affected articles where Annuario Pontificio update can be cited (the infobox has fields for predecessor, merged, and successor to show the structure). For example, I think Vatican Radio will not disappear off the air but will be reorganized or renamed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hoping to prevent edit-waring, I added at Pontifical Councils another sub-section for Suppressed Pontifical Councils and moved the Social Communications there. As an encyclopedia, it is important for the historical record to preserve this information. Even though this P.C. no longer exists, it did at one time and can be useful for interested WP readers. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
If all the suppressed curial offices are going to be included, then this article needs major work as there are dozens upon dozens of them. I'll leave the article alone and let others deal with it. --Dcheney (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Dcheney – Wondering, if there are dozens, could they be first listed into the Suppressed Pontifical Councils section; and then later on, created into a separate article? The new article could be titled something like Roman Curia suppressed Pontifical Councils. I would be curious as to the date of the first suppression; was it hundreds of years ago? It's name and and which Pope created, and which Pope suppressed? I think all this history would make for interesting reading. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to give you an idea, these are the congregations listed in the Annuario Pontificio 1837 (available on google books) starting on page 170: Inquisition; Ordinary Apostolic Visitations; Extraordinary Apostolic Visitations; Consistorial; Bishops and Regulars; Council; Residence of Bishops; Ecclesiastical Immunities; Propagation of the Faith; Index; Sacred Rites; Ceremonial; Discipline of Regulars; Indulgences and Relics; Examination of Bishops; Correction of Books of the Eastern Church; Fabric of St. Peter's; Sacra Consulta; Good Governance; Administration of Loreto; Waters; Economics; Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs; and Studies. Some of those remain in some form today, but most have been merged or suppressed. While I think an article on the history of the roman curia would be worthwhile, I also think an article describing it only as it now exists is also appropriate. --Dcheney (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability of parishes (and dioceses)[edit]

So after finding Parish of the Holiest Saviour, Włocławek, and then Category:Parishes which includes entries like San José de Gracia, Michoacán, I came to the conclusion that we need to discuss the topic of whether individual parishes are notable by default. Relevant guildelines include WP:GEOLAND, which does not mention parishes, and WP:NPLACE which does ("Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities."). However, given that both of the above focus on government, I think they mean Parish (administrative division). In other words, it seems to me that a religious parish is not notable by default, and unless it can meet WP:N on individual basis, they should be deleted. At the same time, it's worth considering whether this should be the case; on Polish Wikipedia parishes are assumed to be notable by default and have extensive articles (albeit focusing mostly on their history), see pl:Parafia św. Bartłomieja Apostoła w Osiecku. Here is the well-populated Polish Wikipedia category which has no English equivalents, as far as I can tell: pl:Kategoria:Polskie parafie katolickie (Polish Roman Catholic parishes). As far as I can also tell, English Wikipedia has assumed that dioceses are notable by default (Category:Roman Catholic dioceses), through I cannot figure out why (there's no mention of them on GEOLAND/NPLACE). Was the notability of dioceses and parishes ever a subject of discussion? Who and when drew the line at dioceses (notable) and parishes (not so)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: a parish is a church organization with a defined territory. It is not necessarily a type of WP:GEOLAND. It is sometimes a WP:NPLACE that is found in Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) but more often the church building of the parish organization has an associated GNIS authority file as a church building (see type list) feature (see example Sacred Heart of Jesus Roman Catholic Church) – not all church buildings have that kind of record. In another example, Shrine Church of St. Stanislaus, I have added various external authority file links to the building and the surrounding area, see (Shrine Church of St. Stanislaus § References). Parish local histories may be also be notable.
A diocese article, in my opinion, is notable even as a stub by default. It serves as an organization name anchor (and include links to external authority files, see Library of Congress list example and, an individual authority file) for other articles especially about regional structure of the Catholic Church, depending on the historical period and location. Again, it is a type of church organization with a defined territory. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC); modified 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

* Vote Cleanup parish articles, not delete: – I agree with Piotrus about the Diocese notable by default. And I do understand that in places like Poland with over 1,000 years of Catholic history, there will be much historical content for many of these ancient parishes, vs. like here in United States & mission countries where a newer parish may not meet the notability guidelines. From time to time, while doing WikiProject Catholicism article assessments I find articles created without the talk page assessment completed. For parish articles, they are for the most part either Stub class or Start classifications. If an article is less than stub, does it need to be discussed before AFD? Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that dioceses or eparchies or any similar sort of well-established similar structures are not notable. If bishops are, basically, considered notable by default, so would dioceses be. Also, dioceses are, pretty much, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, discussed in works by the main bodies themselves, which are sort of independent of the diocese anyway, and thus qualify as basically independent RS's. Regarding parishes, that would be a separate story, particularly for some of the younger parishes in the Americas and Asia, which will not have been so closely tied to so many possible historical events as European parishes of long standing. And I am not aware of any particular source from the Vatican, for instance, or other global organization or work with describes in detail all the parishes of the world, although Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Almanac here pretty much describes most of the dioceses that would be of interest to that source's audience, anyway.
For purposes of clarity, I would personally be inclined to think that notability of individual parishes should not be considered virtually automatic. There will be a lot of parishes which are created within, for instance, a huge city, which, in some cases, merge into another after only fifty or so years. Ideally, the best way to proceed in these matters might be to generate a list of sources which can be expected to deal with parishes, either from a national-history perspective, or documents of a diocese, like its newspaper, which would, presumably, discuss parishes, etc. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Clean up as well. A large portion will independently qualify based on NRHS or local historic listings. In rare casrs, parish articles might be merged into the diocese or parishes of diocese article. --Zfish118talk 15:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

update a template[edit]

See Template_talk:Infobox_encyclical#Use_for_all_papal_documents--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Related wikisource work[edit]

wikisource:Index:TheRosaryItsHistory.djvu is a work of I think rather obvious interest to some of the members of this project, and all it needs is some editors familiar with the wikisource system to proofread it for accuracy and completion. Just thought some of you might be interested. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New userbox for y'all[edit]

If anyone would like to use it, here's a brand-new userbox for ya:

Gay flag.svg This user believes sexual orientations are a "fact" fabricated in the 19th century. Read up!

...And a complementary First Things article to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadestudent (talkcontribs) 21:18, 02:58, 19 May 2016‎

@Crusadestudent: I think since WP:USERBOX says believes is a "potentially divisive" term, that the infobox text would be improved by removing "to make so-called 'straight' people feel better about their own unchastity." This box will become a distraction that some editors will use as a red herring to challenge what you contribute. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion taken. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Crusadestudent: I do not see why this is the least bit relevant to the purposes of editing an encyclopedia. It certainly had no relevance to Wikipedia:Catholicism: it does nothing to improve the organization or content of articles relating to the Catholic Church. It reflects no official belief of the Catholic Church; it reflects at best a tangential view held by a small minority of individuals that might be associated with the Catholic Church. As a distinct issue from its lack of relevance to the Wikiproject, I concur with @BoBoMisiu:, that the template may suggest that your edits are intended to promote a biased WP:Point of view, that may undermine the credibility of your future contributions. --Zfish118talk 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It's no less relevant than all the other "This user identifies as..." boxes. Since every sexual orientation under the sun has one, it's only fair for those who think it's bunk to have one of their own. No, it's not an official teaching of the CC, but I figure someone out there might agree and maybe want to use it. If that's not you, then of course you don't have to. (And the box itself doesn't say anything about being Catholic; anyone of any faith or none at all can use it; it's listed alongside its counterparts at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
User boxes are primarily meant to help Wikipedia editors identify topics they are knowledgeable and interested in, specifically topics they are interested in editing articles on. The content of the infobox would suggest that your are interested in editing articles about sexual orientation to promote a minority point of view. Wikipedia does not promote particular viewpoints, only documents what reliable sources state. The content of your infobox seems to come vary close to prohibited advocacy (see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions for details). In addition, the use of sarcastic tone, such as the use of "fact" in scare quotes to mean myth, or the use of the LGTB rainbow to promote an opposing viewpoint is inconstant with Wikipedia's commitment to WP:civility. Wikipedians are expected to use a respectful tone when interacting with others, particularly those with whom they disagree. I would recommend you revise or remove your infobox.--Zfish118talk 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"The content of the infobox would suggest that your are interested in editing articles about sexual orientation to promote a minority point of view. Wikipedia does not promote particular viewpoints, only documents what reliable sources state."
Then so do all the "This user identifies as..." infoboxes.
"the use of the LGTB rainbow to promote an opposing viewpoint is inconstant with Wikipedia's commitment to WP:civility"
1) How? 2) By extension, that means that I don't identify as straight, which throws me under the LGBTQA+ (i.e., not-straight) umbrella. I didn't add the +, it was already there. 3) So again, how, exactly?
"I would recommend you revise or remove your infobox."
I already did, perhaps before you commented. (I'm way too lazy to check all the timestamps.) If you don't like it, don't use it. If you dislike it that much, go ahead and remove this section from the talk page. I really don't care. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Crusadestudent: we are really trying to help you fit in here. Wikipedia is a complex place; not everything is perfectly consistent. Some of your edits have seemed over-enthusiastic, that make us other editors uncomfortable. There are a lot of norms that are only learned by incrementally editing, seeing how these edits are accepted, and being gracious when you receive feedback, even if it is a reversion. While it is good to be WP:Bold, it helps build your credibility when your limit bold edits to a handful at a time, especially within one content area such as Catholic-related articles. There are limited editors within this Wiki-project and we have limited time; chasing down and participating in several scattered discussions across several articles is not easy, and becomes frustrating when major changes happen with little input. As for this userbox in particular, it is not necessarily as clear as you believe to be. It does not, for instance, state that you do not personally identify with a particular sexual orientation, only that you believe the concept is a vague "Fact", presumably (but not clearly) stating you believe orientations are false. This is an inherently contentious position, and attracts negative attention to yourself.[note 1]. In another userbox, you describe yourself as a "Wikignome" quietly making improvements without fanfare. If you slow down a bit to see how others react to your edits, supplemented by reading through policies and essays, you might get a better feel for the community norms, and better achieve this goal! (By the way, I am also an Eagle Scout!) --Zfish118talk 15:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: duplicated categories for Pope Leo XIII?[edit]

Greetings, While doing updates I discovered Category:Documents of Pope Leo XIII (25 articles) and Category:Works by Pope Leo XIII (8 articles). Wondering if the last 8 ones can be moved into the first 25 and the Works by Pope Leo XIII category eliminated? This is my first time finding, so asking for expert help/advice please. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: I prefer [[Category:Works by Pope ABC 123]]. But I do not think it matters which category it is as long as the super-categories are included in the merged category. Open both Category:Documents of Pope Leo XIII and Category:Works by Pope Leo XIII in edit mode to see the super-categories listed in each of these category pages. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Saint" in leads of canonized popes[edit]

The JPII and Pope Leo I articles name them as "Pope Saint John Paul II" and "Pope Saint Leo I", respectively. The article on Pope Gregory I lists him as "Pope Gregory I" and edits to add "Saint" get reverted, supposedly "per MOS". Can we establish a convention on what to do in these cases, for consistency's sake? If there is one, it's not well-enough publicized or enforced. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, John XXIII is listed as "Pope Saint John XXIII". Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Crusadestudent: there is a convention for article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) § Popes (WP:NCCL), for Catholic popes:
"Pope name ordinal" (if more than one), e.g. Pope John XXIII.
"Articles on popes who are also saints are titled according to the guidance in Popes above, with any necessary redirects from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms" (WP:NCCL § MOS:SAINTS).
Since WP:LEADSENTENCE states that "fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead", I think saint as an honorific is acceptable in the first paragraph and in harmony with the WP:LEADSENTENCE example: Sir James Paul McCartney. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
"Saint" is a postmortem honorific added by the Catholic Church. Wikipedia's convention is to omit most WP:honorifics. --Zfish118talk 00:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Further opinions on debate at Talk:Mary,_mother_of_Jesus#BVM_as_title_in_lead[edit]

Looking to develop a broader consensus here, besides the 2 people who have currently been in the debate. Please take a look if you have the chance. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also duplicate this on other denominations' WikiProjects that you might be part of as well, to help avoid biased canvassing. I've already duplicated at WT:WikiProject Christianity. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: for update to "Infobox encyclical"[edit]

Greetings, There is a discussion here about the renaming of Argument parameter. Please add your contributions there. Help from experts with templates would be great. Cheers! JoeHebda • (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

LGBT issue at Catholic school[edit]

Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places -

The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Source for excommunication[edit]

See discussion at Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church#Madonna

Is this source sufficient for the claim that Madonna was excommunicated? BoBoMisiu (talk · contribs) believes that a WP:SELFSOURCE is adequate and points out that the source supports Madonna saying she was excommunicated three times, while I believe that you cannot identify into excommunication, a quasi-legal action taken by someone else, the way you might be able to identify with a religious faith or lack thereof. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It's a reliable enough source for the fact that she said it, but we should expect independent confirmation that these excommunications actually happened, especially given that the source says she "joked" that she was excommunicated three times. - Cal Engime (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Mere mockery is usually not enough for an excommunication. This source says that excommunication has been called for by a cardinal, but the website has no article state that anyone followed through on this suggestion. This might be one of the three "excommunications" that Madonna is joking about. Given the generally high criteria for a an excommunication, I would be wary of listing her at all without a solid source explicitly citing a church official stating that an excommunication exists or existed in the past. --Zfish118talk 13:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelese: point to the Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church § Madonna discussion where other sources are included. @Zfish118: she is a reliable source for events about herself, see discussion in article talk. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wanted to make someone aware of this edit...[edit]

An edit where "Roman Catholic" has been changed to simply "Catholic", and it looks like the user has done this on a few userboxes, like this one as well. I was under the impression there was an important distinction, but I'm not qualified to comment. It looks like the user is heavily editing related topics, so a contrib perusal might be in order. MSJapan (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar template name[edit]

Please add your opinion as to regarding the name of Template:Roman Catholicism; does Template:Roman Catholicism make more sense or Template:Catholic Church sidebar? See discussion at : Template talk:Catholic Church sidebar#Requested move 31 May 2016. --Zfish118talk 01:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Catholicism RM discussion[edit]

Please see the RM discussion here. Looking for relevant voices to round out the discussion. Please copy this to other WikiProjects that might be interested. I'm putting this up initially at WP:Christianity, WP:Catholicism, and WP:Anglicanism, since the page is part of those projects. Thank you. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Blessed Martyrs of Drina" from template "Catholic saints"?[edit]

Greetings, At Template talk:Catholic saints#Not canonized: Blessed Martyrs of Drina? I posted details about whether the Blessed Martyrs of Drina article should be removed from the template. Or were the martyrs canonized? Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked and cannot find any RSs claiming they have been canonized; it appears they have only been beatified so far. And recently, too, so that's not too surprising. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Today I removed the 'Blessed Martyrs of Drina' from template 'Catholic saints'; and removed template from article. I did place the 'Subject bar' template instead. Cheers! JoeHebda • (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

RM in need of closing[edit]

Looking for an uninvolved editor to close the RM discussion at Talk:Theology (Catholic Church)#Requested move 1 June 2016. Looks to me like consensus has been reached, but not unanimously, so I can't close; the discussion seems to have come to an end as well. Please evaluate for yourself and close if appropriate. Thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The move request template triggers a post at the appropriate noticeboard. Someone with page move privileges will eventually get to it. There is no need to rush the process. --Zfish118talk 17:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Was not aware of that. Thank you for informing me. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 08:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions --Zfish118talk 00:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Help at Christian perfection article[edit]

To any interested and knowledgeable editors, help is needed at Christian perfection. As of now, the section on Catholic teaching is not very informative. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Ltwin – Today I did update top of the Catholic section with {{for|additional information|Catholic spirituality|Universal call to holiness}}. While the article is beyond my area of expertise, after a quick read I thought pointing readers to both of these articles I had previously found would be helpful. Cheers! JoeHebda • (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: Thanks! Ltwin (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Conservator (religion) untouched since 2005[edit]

I just happened across Conservator (religion), which was copied from the 1913 Encyclopedia Britannica back in 2005 and has received maybe 20 edits with no major changes since. It's not presently tagged or rated by any WikiProject (its one-line talk page predates that). Maybe somebody should take it back into the fold. :) Wnt (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've put the Christianity/Catholicism and Middle Ages talk page banners on. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Wnt – Today, I added a 'History' section title so the article now has a lead. Also added a subject bar template. Cheers! JoeHebda • (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Christian mysticism}} RM needs more voices[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Template_talk:Christian_mysticism#Requested_move_24_June_2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Catholic prayers[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Catholic prayers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Low-quality, far from complete duplicate of the much better (B-class) Prayer in the Catholic Church.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Should be proposed for AFd or merge. Not a duplicate at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII at FAR[edit]

I have nominated Pope Pius XII to have its FA status reviewed - the article was nominated and reviewed last in 2006, ten years ago, and has not been kept up to date, especially not concerning the more critical literature that has come out in the past decade. Please chip in at the review here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Society of Saint Pius X[edit]

This article about the radical schism needs some serious neutralizing, if anyone is interested.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Monochrome Monitor – Today I added at the article's talk page, the Catholicism WP article assessment criteria. Uncertain if this will help draw additional editors to the article. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Monochrome Monitor: could you start a discussion at Talk:Society of Saint Pius X which points out your concerns. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I really intended to be more of a messenger to those more knowledgeable about/ with more investment in this area. But I'll start one soon. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Divine Liturgies RM[edit]

There's an RM at Talk:Divine_Liturgy_of_St._John_Chrysostom for multiple related pages that has not seen a single vote despite having been relisted. Please pay a visit. Thanks. (CC: WP:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits for review[edit]

Could an experienced editor review these edits by Hymnodist.2004? They've been adding that certain months traditionally represent a certain item (Jesus, etc) in the Catholic church. I would think that if these entries were truly notable, they would've been added by now. Also, some of this user's other edits are interesting. Thanks. Graham87 09:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).