This article 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
The following is a closed 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.
Oppose. I can't find any consensus justification on the clergy-naming talk page for the addition of titles only for Eastern Orthodox clergy. We don't use them for Popes and western Bishops and see no reason why it should be any different for eastern Bishops. PowersT 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The user above seems to be mistaken. We use the title 'Pope' in the respective articles. Please see the Category:Popes. Flamarande (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mistaken indeed; I could have sworn what I stated was the case. Patriarchs should indeed parallel Popes, although I cannot see the reasoning in either case. I would still prefer leaving off the titles. PowersT 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe I take issue with the Patriarchs and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops sections of WP:NCWC. By convention we don't normally use prefixes unless on a WP:COMMONNAME basis. I did searches of the requested names and no reliable sources come up, in either google books or google scholar, for most of these requests.[1][2][3][4] Perfect hits only seem to appear when either the "of Constantinople" or "Patriarch" is dropped. I also looked at what is done in the other language wikipedias and none of them (with the exception of Greek) employ a prefix system for Patriarchs. SupportMichael I Cerularius → Michael Cerularius.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the guideline is in place, and the overwhelming majority of articles use it already. Furthermore, it does IMO serve a useful purpose of disambiguation: "Patriarch" alone is obviously unacceptable, "of Constantinople", "of Antioch" etc alone are also somewhat obscure. The full form proposed by the guideline is somewhat awkward, but it is precise. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
In this case I believe the guideline is flawed and contrary to higher guidelines. The talk page presents no indication that there was widespread interest or proactive support for the Patriach guideline.WP:NCP clearly notes that prefixes should be avoided, except if it is the simplest and most neutral way of dealing with disambiguation (hence the exception for popes and some saints). The theme of avoiding prefixes is present throughout the naming conventions (see WP:NCROY or WP:ROMANS) No other wikipedia (except Greek) applies the convention put forward and no relaible sources exist for the suggested names. IMO, it's still a bad move all around, with the noted excepton of moving Michael I Cerularius → Michael Cerularius (that still has my full support).--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
