Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2020

Archive 2015

←

Archive 2018

Archive 2019

Archive 2020

St. Francis of Assisi in Andean mythology

During discussions of Coropuna, the question was raised about whether the content currently in that article that refers to St. Francis of Assisi is accurate. Does anyone editing this page have the expertise to judge? Please reply at Talk:Coropuna if possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Turin Shroud

Some users do not want to include a reliable source published last year in an Oxford journal, showing that the issue of the carbon dating of the shroud of Turin is not at all settled. I have introduced a Request for comments on the talk page. Thank you. Frezase (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that other discussions are also already in progress (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING):

• WT:CHRISTIANITY#Request for comments on the Turin Shroud
• WP:FTN#Shroud of Turin

—PaleoNeonate – 12:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Old Catholics = Catholics?

Please see: Category talk:Old Catholics. PPEMES (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Papal supremacy vs. Papal primacy

Please see the discussion I have initiated at Talk:Papal primacy#Major confusion of terms. Ergo Sum 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Religious text, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Honorifics (esp. "Saint" in the lede sentence)

Per MOS:HON and MOS:SAINTS we all know to eschew honorifics such as "Saint" and "Reverend" in the normal course of writing articles, and in infoboxes, etc. However, I see a large variance when it comes to the lede sentence of a biography. What is the consensus here?

1. Always omit "Saint" (& "Blessed", "Venerable", etc.) in the lede sentence and everywhere else in the article, except direct discussion of the path to sainthood and canonization.
2. Any editor or article may include "Saint" etc. in the lede sentence only, omit in other places as above.
3. Editor discretion is to be used. Establish consensus on a single-article basis for or against inclusion. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC replies - numbered choice

2 seems the most natural to me with a couple of notes: don't include if it is already in the title of the article and, when "Saint" (etc.) is in dispute, a short explanation in the article about who recognizies it and who does not (and if possible a brief explanation as to why).--Dcheney (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Variation on 2 – include "Saint" in the lead sentence, but as an alternate name. E.g. Ignatius of Loyola, also called Saint Ignatius of Loyola. Designation of a historical individual as a saint is very important and should be emphasized in editorial discretion, but affirming someone's sainthood is POV.Jancarcu (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Jancarcu's variation on option 2. It allows the article to follow MOS:HON, but still convey the status within Catholicism while maintaining NPOV. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

2 with addendums. MOS:LEAD allows for both fuller forms of the name, and alternative titles. This is fine for any individual where reliable sources consistently provide the term or use it to describe the subject. Where significant disagreement exists this can be indicated, and if it is a significant part of the body a proportionate representation in the lead will be warranted. In the body fuller versions of names should be avoided in general, but the longer form may nonetheless be situationally appropriate, e.g. following occurrence X, Y became known as saint Y of Z. IIRC Mother Teresa was in the past a subject of significant dispute, and has been extensively wordsmith-ed over the years to gain consensus you probably can't go too far wrong if you follow that same basic style. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Dcheney: could you describe cases of dispute? It seems to me that practically every saint would be in dispute if we ran the gamut of Church of the East through OO through EO through Catholic through Anglican, etc. What do you feel is the prevalence of notable disputes? Elizium23 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

True enough, I was thinking of a case like Gregory Palamas - the 2nd paragraph provides a reasonably short explanation of his status. In most cases, unless it was someone fighting against that particular church, there is a tacit acceptance of their holiness without explicitly accepting the title (for a recent example, John Henry Newman who is not a saint for Anglicans).--Dcheney (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abune Mathias#Requested move 21 February 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abune Mathias#Requested move 21 February 2020. Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Perpetua

Hi! Came across these three articles while reviewing, and am unsure how to proceed, given they technically are about separate topics: a biography, a diary, and a dual biography. Should the three be merged? And if so, how? There doesn't seem to be a separate page for Felicitas, as far as I could tell. Thank you for your input. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You may want to run a formal merge discussion once you have enough ideas for your options. Here's what I would do: keep the Passion article, almost as is, but cut any strictly biographical information that can be placed in the bios themselves. The article on the Passion should focus on the text, criticism of the text, reception, etc. There seems to be plenty of grist for the mill there. I think, given the small size of Perpetua's bio, that I would merge them into Perpetua and Felicity and delete the individual one, especially since Felicity doesn't even rate her own at this point. They are inseparable: mentioned together in the Roman Canon, (I assume) a single feast day for both, etc. etc. No reason to separate their bios. Elizium23 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the "Perpetua" redirect was very recently turned into a new article, with the rationale Create a stub article to focus on Perpetua as a woman writer (as opposed to the article on the veneration of Perpetua and Felicity as a pair of saints, or the article on the Passio and its redactors) by @AndrewNJ:. I feel this is an unfortunate WP:CFORK and the two saints don't rate three articles. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. What is there to say about "Perpetua the Writer" that isn't already covered in the bio (Perpetua and Felicity) and her putative writing (The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity}? Move for redirect. As for the rest, Be Bold. Manannan67 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I was ready to do a little work myself, but it appears that AndrewNJ has come in with earth movers and done an extreme makeover in this corner of the project, including adjusting dozens of redirects. I think it would behoove him to come here and justify his work, because he did it without first seeking consensus, as such a great overhaul might have required in the first place. Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest in this! Perpetua has attracted an enormous amount of attention as a woman writer in Africa, and Wikipedia does not yet reflect this. Most of the content we have is criticism on the text and discussion of its anonymous redactor, so it makes sense to have a Passion of Perpetua and Felicity article. A separate Perpetua article is also necessary, since Wikipedia normally provides articles about authors before their books, however little information we have about them. The recent book Perpetua: Athlete of God provides an outline of what we're missing. On a practical level, I've seen libraries link to articles on authors automatically using the authority files listed on Wikidata; but using such tools, Perpetua will not show up as having coverage on Wikipedia unless she has her own article. Similarly, a Google or DuckDuckGo search for 'Perpetua' shows the Encyclopædia Britannica article as the first result. I would not myself have planned a Perpetua and Felicity article separate from the Passion, but nearly every other Wikipedia language has one of these: these articles tend to focus on their cult, similar to the old Catholic Encyclopedia. The foreign-language content is invisible unless we have a parallel article. AndrewNJ (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. "A separate Perpetua article is also necessary, since Wikipedia normally provides articles about authors before their books, however little information we have about them." -That is not so much a rationale as, would appear in many cases, merely an example of marketing on the part of the respective publishers. Perpetua is rarely discussed absent her other associates, even in the book mentioned, which appears to be more a study of the "the social milieu" of the pre-Constantinian period. There is nothing that would not fit appropriately in either of the two current articles. (The "Passion" comes up second on google, which links to the authoress.) If there is ever sufficient information on Perpetua to justify a separate article, it can be split. Manannan67 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If Perpetua's article can stand on its own (and that is a big if) then Felicity needs to have an article of her own too (and this necessitates her being independently notable of Perpetua) because, as I said, they are paired in the Church's Tradition and their narrative is inseparably intertwined. To me it doesn't make sense to have separate bios, but I would support their separation if both have an article in their own right (and in that case, we would necessarily reduce Perpetua and Felicity to a disambiguation or redirect.) But that is a poor solution. The solution before us is clear: to re-merge Perpetua back into the original article and redirect it there. A standalone article is not warranted here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that from the perspective of cataloguing saints Perpetua would not merit a separate article, but I am working on it from the perspective of WikiProject Women Writers. Written from that angle, there is a great deal to be said on Perpetua herself and her perspectives that would not fit with the dual biography; and would make the article on the Passio, its redactor, and its analysis too complex if added there. Perpetua is one of the most significant woman writers of the premodern period, and it would be a matter of some embarrassment if we could not find space for an article on her. AndrewNJ (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge Perpetua to Perpetua and Felicity per WP:CFORK. Even if there is a sufficient amount of sources to have a stand-alone article Perpetua, an independent article for Felicity would not work because of the lack of sources. Futhermore, The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity seems to be the primary and only-known source concerning both of their lives, and they're also venerated together. Jerm (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems as if AndrewNJ drifted off on February 19, so what's the conclusion here? Should I throw out some merge tags? Elizium23 (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to have a more formal discussion in a place where all interested parties beyond WikiProject Catholicism can be involved. I'm not sure of the best place to conduct that – on the Perpetua talk page? AndrewNJ (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That's probably lower-traffic than here, but you could do an RFC or proposed merge and advertise it at WP:Women's History, maybe WP:Ancient Rome, WP:Christianity in general... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

AfD on Auxiliary bishop

Please see my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Miguel Romero Fernández -- I would like to resolve the question of whether auxiliary bishops have the same presumption of notability as Diocesan bishops. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox merge proposal

There is a suggestion to merge the templates for the "clergy" and "Christian leader" infoboxes. To know more or take part, go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19#Template:Infobox_clergy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Two articles?

Hello, I am writing an article on a parish with two churches. Should I make two articles or one article for the parish? Also should I refer to it as a parish or a church. --Mikeduke324 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikeduke324, is the article about the edifices, the organization, or both? Most Wikipedia articles tend to be about the architecture, history, and construction of the buildings, in which case I would say write two articles. Elizium23 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 It is about both, including the history. Basically they were separate until sometime less than 20 years ago. However now the churches are extremely unified, sharing a pastor. Even the website says "Saint Agnes-OLPH Church". --Mikeduke324 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless the bldg. is on some official list of historical places (Listed Bldg, NRHP), I would say one; particularly if one of them isn't all that notable. The merger is part of it's history, and sometimes the parish gets renamed. Manannan67 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Church Fathers and abortion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church Fathers and abortion that might interest editors of this WikiProject. NightHeron (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the article was deleted, some of the content may end up in another article. There is a discussion on this here: Talk:History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion#Content_that_could_be_merged_into_this_article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Confused: Infobox Christian leader's "rank" parameter

Please see this revision for context. For how long have we been including little "bishop" or "cardinal" graphical icons in the infobox at the "rank" parameter? I have begun removing them, upon finding out that @Ginelle2017: was expanding their usage. Furthermore, what in the world is a "bishop-priest"? As far as I could tell, "rank" is used for cardinals only. A dude who is a bishop is ranked a bishop, not a "bishop-priest" - there is no such thing. Of course he has already been ordained deacon and priest before his consecration, so he holds both those ranks, but we just don't, as a matter of course, acknowledge that in a biography like this. So why are these dudes labeled "bishop-priest"? Is it some kind of pseudo-cardinal rank? Color me confused! Elizium23 (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pope Paul II#Category:Popes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pope Paul II#Category:Popes. Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections in diocese articles

I have become concerned about the lack of references in diocesan articles, specifically in the sections that list bishops, past, present and future. There are many details about these bishops: date of accession and renunciation, death or elevation to the cardinalate, or translation to other sees. There are "priests of this diocese who became bishop" with no reference to support the simple fact that the priest was of that diocese first. For these and other problems, I have recently begun adding {{unreferenced section}}. However, there's a loophole. The vast majority of these facts are supported by data at catholic-hierarchy.org. What do you all feel about dropping a single citation to C-H somewhere obvious and being done with it? It should support almost everything, with perhaps the exception of the priests who became bishops. I hate dropping maintenance tags on thousands of articles, but I also hate seeing violations of the verifiability policy when it relates to biographies of living people. Thanks for your input. I appreciate the lively discussion here. Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Do the listed individuals have their own referenced articles? Manannan67 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Manannan67, that makes no difference. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the references need to be in each article that contains assertions of fact. Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If they have their own referenced article, it shouldn't be difficult to find them. Manannan67 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Without looking at anything anew, I can assure you that 9 times out of 10, the sole reference for the facts in question is Catholic-Hierarchy.org. Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please delete talk page-bot maintained

Greetings, There is no need for this talk page - Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log as the "Project page" is generated by "enwp10" bot daily. Please, can someone who knows how, please delete Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log.

Discussion should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index instead. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The use of self-published sources

Hello, there is currently debate about the proper use of self-published sources.

1. Editors in most areas of the Wikipedia seem to use self-published sources (WP:SPS) according to the verifiability policy set forth there: in a nutshell, that SPS can be used with caution as long as they meet certain criteria, and secondary, indepdent sources should typically be preferred as the basis for a good article. Any business org article can be seen to use SPS in this fashion, such as Boeing, Google, and Apple Inc. There has been little to no resistance or protest against using SPS for all manner of statistics and information, as long as reliable secondary indepdent sources are preferred for analysis and support.
2. Editors editing in the anti-abortion topic area have adopted a novel interpretation: SPS are never to be used because their information is considered promotional. For example, an organization publishing its membership numbers or revenue cannot be used as a source, because the organizations always inflate those numbers falsely, making the SPS a decidedly unreliable source. In particular, view #2 has been adopted by Avatar317 (talk · contribs), on the article Knights of Columbus and related articles.

RFC question: So which view is correct? Should the WP:SPS policy be interpreted so strictly that we practically never use SPS? If #2 is true, then what are the actual acceptable criteria? What is the action plan for implementing the reinterpretation across vast swaths of topic areas that apparently have had it wrong all this time? Elizium23 (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, interpretation #2 is clearly an overinterpretation of the policy. "All self-published sources are bad" is far too general a statement. I see WP:SPS not so much as an actual policy and more as an additional warning: that a book seems to be written by an expert on the subject doesn't mean it is. Quoting WP:SPS to dismiss any and all self-published sources is illegitimate. In the specific case you mention and in most cases where WP:SPS gets brought up, I think WP:PRIMARY is a far more relevant guideline and that's what arguments should be based on instead. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 is misrepresenting my edits. I see SPS as acceptable for non-promomtional claims, like for example WHEN an organization started, or BY WHOM; I don't recall ever deleting any such content sourced with SPS. I do however, see things like mission statements, (see this essay, which I agree with WP:MISSION) membership numbers, and revenue numbers to be promotional content WP:PROMOTION, just like the number of marchers at a political rally, or the number of views a YouTube video received.

There are several policy points to remember here: (both paragraphs from WP:IS, my bolding) Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind. Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article. It also ensures articles can catalog a topic's worth and its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure. ...

Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes "promotional" is sometimes "in the eye of the beholder". Some information is likely to be not readily available any place else. I see no problem including it as long as it's qualified as the subject's data. Manannan67 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Manannan67 here. With respect to the concerns listed by Avatar317, the defense is that the reader can always check out the references for him or herself. Do you want to prohibit medical establishment sources from describing medicine? Same goes here. As for concerns about membership figures, feel free to look in already published scholarship for criticism, and then add the criticism to the article. I did once years ago with one organization whose inflated membership rolls were criticized by a published author.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Cardinal Pell Conviction has been quashed

The long and highly controversial legal case has come to a definite end with a 7-0 High Court Ruling that quashed the convictions and ordered the verdicts amended to acquittal. The article needs to be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Linking like categories

Should there be a category linking together churches in the Catholic Church that are used by ordinates or special groups (such as Category:Churches used by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Category:Churches of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, etc.)? Inter&anthro (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It sounds quite reasonable. What would the contra argument be? Elizium23 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess WP:SMALLCAT might be an objection, or the name of what the container category should be. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I count 55 apostolates for the FSSP, so the answer to SMALLCAT would be to write more articles about churches they run :)

It could be debated whether to create a separate category for each Ordinariate or to just make a single Anglican Ordinariate container for all three, thus enlarging the potential category. Elizium23 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 I just found the Category:Roman Catholic churches by religious order which probably would be appropriate for these two, although neither the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter are religious orders in a strict interpretation of the definition. There is also the debate of whether Category:Buildings and structures of the Society of Saint Pius X should be included although the SSPX are not in communion with the Catholic church. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The FSSP is a society of apostolic life, which for Wikipedia parlance is a "religious order" or rather, institute (Wikipedians have a difficult time with canonical terminology and twist it to suit their own notions of how the Church should name things.) The Personal Ordinariates are a strange animal, almost--but not quite--sui iuris Churches. They are mostly like big Dioceses, let us say.

And I would say that the SSPX fits in fine with other Catholic categories, despite their irregular communion, they are still, at the end of the day, Catholic. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 I'm still a bit uncomfortable about including the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, as then Eastern Catholic diocese such as Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia would also be included by this definition even though they are not religious orders. Perhaps Category:Roman Catholic churches by religious organization would be more appropriate for the categories discussed in this forum? Just a proposition. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the Ordinariates must fit under Category:Roman Catholic churches by diocese. That is the best way to describe them and fit them in hierarchically here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Discalced Carmelite bishops?

Should there be a category created Category:Discalced Carmelite bishops for the bishops who belong to that order, or is Category:Discalced Carmelites and Category:Carmelite bishops sufficient? Didn't know if Discalced Carmelites and Carmelites were distinct enough to warrant separate categories, such as Category:Conventual Franciscan bishops and Category:Franciscan bishops. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a can of worms. There are dozens of branches of the Franciscan family as well as the Carmelites. WP:SMALLCAT says we shouldn't be splintering them too small. Category:Conventual Franciscan bishops has 37 entries. If it were smaller, I'd be calling for its deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the Discalced Carmelites article there are 27 bishops past and present who have belonged to that order, but of that 17 by my counting have article on en.Wikipedia. Would it be too small then? Inter&anthro (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It depends. Are there any other Carmelite orders that might have produced bishops? Should we give them categories in parity or lump them into the main Carmelite category? Is it fair to have Discalced split out while the others are not?

I think, given my casual survey just now, that O.Carm and OCD are the only orders significant enough to worry about. So I would say, go ahead and create the category (it does have potential for growth.)

One thing to remember is the third orders. It is not unheard-of for a cleric to be a member of a third order such as the OCDS. So... a "Discalced secular Carmelite bishop" category on the horizon? I don't know. Elizium23 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Another branch is Carmelites of Mary Immaculate (CMI) which is mostly Syro-Malabar with about 15 bishops. --Dcheney (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Religion in Albania

An RfC at Religion in Albania may be of interest to project participants.[1]Resnjari (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

St. Joseph's hospital update

• Excommunication of Margaret McBride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dignity Health St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas Olmsted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a press release at this time; I also possess a print article (the online article is 404'd). Privileges have been restored to St. Joseph's hospital in Phoenix, so that they may reserve the Eucharist, and Mass may be celebrated in the hospital chapel. The first Mass was celebrated on the Solemnity of the Annunciation, March 25. I am hoping for a volunteer to make the edits, due to my conflict of interest. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Michael D. O'Brien AfD

Hello. Today I added the article on Michael D. O'Brien to WikiProject Catholicism. O'Brien is a seemingly popular Catholic author (I am out of my element here but all signs point to that). I discovered the article in the author deletion sorting list. His name isn't appearing in the WikiProject Catholicism article alerts... probably because I just added him?? I don't know how that works. I want to let people here know about the discussion in case anyone wants to participate or add him to that list. I am not attempting to WP:CANVAS in any way. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on non-contemporary images of popes

Surtsicna has removed numerous non-contemporary lead images of biographies of popes from articles on the basis that they are inaccurate depictions and are unsuitable for the articles. The question is now put to Wikipedia consensus to decide. It is as follows: Are non-contemporary images acceptable for use in papal biographies, and should these images be restored? Display name 99 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes-Images, even if non-contemporary, that are not grossly inaccurate and are shown to be reasonably authentic depictions of what a person in the distant past might have looked like substantially increase the quality of articles and have been used throughout all of Wikipedia's history. In this case, representations of popes that have been removed on the basis of being inaccurate have been shown to be realistic depictions. Surtsicna originally claimed that depictions that had been included in articles showing Medieval popes with beards were inaccurate because Medieval priests in the West were canonically prohibited from having beards. I found a source here (p. 146) stating that the 1031 Council of Limoges made it optional for priests in the West to decide whether or not to have beards. I found a reliable source (p. 101) explicitly stating that Pope Urban II, one of the popes in dispute, had a beard. Surtsicna said that he would be fine with including non-contemporary images of popes if they were cited in academic biographies. I found images of popes that had been removed in numerous books of seemingly respectable quality, dating from the 19th to the late 20th centuries, but these were deemed unacceptable because, well, whatever...

According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, lead images should be the "type" of images found in high-quality works, not that the exact images must necessarily be included in such works. So even if a particular image could not be found anywhere in academic works, that would not necessarily disqualify it from inclusion in an article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". This does not qualify as such. Neither does this. The images removed come almost exclusively from these two series of portraits. The images you found were deemed unacceptable because Ealdgyth pointed out that the "numerous books" containing them are put out by Arcade Publishing, which is not an academic press. Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why the first portrait listed, of Benedict IX, wouldn't qualify, because it says that it does appear in a high-quality work, that being the 1842 book The Lives and Times of the Popes. As for the second portrait, of Pope Dionysius, I again have no idea why that wouldnt' qualify as the type used in academic works. It is featured inside the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, one of Rome's four major basilicas. That itself makes it notable. I have not called for any depictions to be reinstated as lead images that came from Arcade Publishing; I pointed to a single depiction contained therein of Pope Urban II with a beard to show that he had one and to argue for the restoration of a separate portrait of Urban II on that basis. It was among the less significant pieces of a mountain of evidence that your argument for removing the image of Pope Urban because it depicted him as having a beard was groundless. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives and Times of the Popes is not a high quality work. It is a highly romanticized history, not unlike most that came out in mid-19th century, and it would never qualify as a reliable source. It is certainly neither modern nor academic. Being one of over 200 portraits in a basilica does not make an image the type used in academic works. Appearing in academic literature specializing in the popes is what does. These images are appropriate in sections such as Pope John X#Reputation and legacy but not in infoboxes. We should not force them into hundreds of articles just because we can. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You are asking two questions, which is unnecessarily confusing. Yes, non-contemporary images are acceptable. There is nothing wrong with them when they are commonly associated with the subject in academic literature. No, the ones removed should not be restored because they are obscure doodles which are not found in any academic biographies or works of reference specializing in popes. This means that they fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, not being "significant" or of "encyclopedic nature" but "primarily decorative" instead. This has been explained to you by Ealdgyth, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and me, but you are conveniently ignoring us. MOS:LEADIMAGE states that lead images are not required. Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I have had no contact with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Secondly and more importantly, as you admitted above but are conveniently ignoring now, the specific images do not have to be included in academic literature. They simply have to be the type of images that would be included. This means that it's fine to include them as long as they have no obvious inaccuracies. Display name 99 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Likewise - this image from the 1842 original publication is also misleading because it shows a coat of arms - a good hundred years and more before a coat of arms was even dreamed of for individuals. This image from around 1850 is likewise also faniciful, and a poor quality image to boot. There is no need for images, and we're better off not having misleading or crappy images. And at this point, it's getting a bit pointy to continually have to restate these reasons ... --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your links aren't working right now so it's hard to know exactly what you're talking about, but the coat of arms on the portrait linked by Surtsicna above is blank. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that popes at the time of Benedict IX did not have coats of arms, but I imagine it was included to distinguish the subject of the portrait as being a pope, which the viewer might otherwise not have realized as quickly. It's clearly separate from the actual portrait. Of course the image from 1850 is fanciful; the person who drew that didn't know what his subject looked like. But we include non-contemporary images for people all of the time, so it shouldn't matter. If you find it annoying to have to continue to restate your reasons, perhaps you should think of better reasons. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the links. There are three versions of the Dionysius portrait on Commons. I'll admit that none of them are of great quality, but two of them are at least acceptable. Your link was to the crappiest of the three. Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is annoying to restate reasons because you keep reopening this discussion on a new page every week. None of the those illustrations are acceptable because nothing of the sort is found in modern academic literature. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment It seems this RFC may be somewhat malformed. It does not appear that their is much disagreement on the general question of whether non-contemporary depictions in images are allowable for the lead of historical bios, as everyone seems to broadly agree that sometimes they are, and there is a evidently a healthy WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS to that affect judging by clicking through bio categories more or less at random (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). The locus of disagreement seems to be whether certain specific images are appropriate for certain specific articles. That would probably be best addressed on a case-by-case basis, with the answer varying in accordance with the specific details of every single individual article. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D, Surtiscna maintained that non-contemporary images could be used only if they appeared in academic works, while at the same time removing images which either appeared in what were, at least to my knowledge, academic works, or were supported by academic works as being accurate. It therefore seemed to me like he was saying that virtually no non-contemporary images could be used. The problem with addressing each individual picture at an individual article is that there are just too many. I estimate that dozens of images have been removed, and it would take too much to start discussion and RfCs at all of these different articles, especially since the circumstances are virtually the same in many cases. It's an issue that has to be addressed in a more general forum. Display name 99 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A scholarly source saying that Urban II had a beard is not the same as a scholarly source featuring the disputed image. Spectrum is correct in assessing that the RfC is malformed since there is indeed no dispute about contemporary images being acceptable. Like any other content, if they are found in reliable sources specializing in the subject, they should be in the article too. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna and Display name 99: Please correct me if I'm wrong, my new understanding is that the dispute as it applies to multiple articles is about whether non-contemporaneous images must appear in scholarly works to be included in the lead. If that is the case it would still be best to close this RFC early, and open a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images especially since the outcome would effect more than just the images of popes. However I would still caution that while such an RFC would help add clarity, there would nonetheless be room for case by case disagreement regardless of the outcome. btw IPs are immune to pings Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sort of, Spectrum, but this already is covered by the Manual of Style, namely MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says that the lead image should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:Well yes and no, as written there is still wiggle room for someone to claim an image is of the type used, even though it is not actually in use in any specific academic reference work. So such an RFC would provide clearer guidance, I don't yet have a well-formed opinion as to how I would !vote in such an RFC. My initial assessment is that it is generally a good idea. However, I could see circumstances where a later sculpture or painting has become so closely tied to a subject through cultural diffusion that it would be exceedingly peculiar of us not to use it even if it does not appear in recent academic works. This would especially be true in cases of individuals where the definitive histories were long ago written and there just hasn't been much recent scholarship period, so I'd have to think on that more. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to be on lengthy wikibreak soon. So I'll try to clarify my thoughts here while I have time. The two linked images should go, the burden for non-contemporaneous depictions should be significant, and without saying where to draw the line, those do not satisfy it. I would add artistic depictions that are independently widely recognized in their own right, to depictions used in recentish (say last 50 years) academic works as a starting point for acceptability, however meeting either of those criteria should not itself guarantee inclusion which ultimately should be a case-by-case editorial decision. Further even if included all such images must be captioned appropriately to provide context, and I suspect a lot of work will be needed around the 'pedia to remedy this for existing images. The scope of this RFC is still a bit unclear, but in so far as it applies to additional articles I support removal of any depictions that do not meet either of those two criteria set out above, otherwise neutral. No opinion on usage of abstract representations.Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support removal, both from the individual bio articles and the list article. My thoughts on this are expressed at WP:PORTRAIT. There are undoubtedly some situations where a non-contemporary, imaginary depiction can be legitimate – but these items here are the very paradigm of when they are not. They are worthless from every conceivable angle – artistically, historically, esthetically –, and completely random. Entirely exchangeable bearded faces, one like the other - you could literally jumble them and sprinkle them across these articles at random, and they would still have exactly the same information value. Which was precisely zero before, and remains precisely zero after. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that in general, without regard to this current set of images, that non-contemporaneous representations of historical individuals, can sometimes be used as lead pictures where the image in question serves a higher purpose of doing more than just having a face in the infobox. If the particular representation is ubiquitous (as the Piombo portrait of Christopher Columbus is) or if it serves to highlight certain common tropes of iconography surrounding the individual does (as the portrait of Saint Jerome in the infobox does, showing the cave, the red hat, and the lion which are common tropes in the images of Jerome) then those sorts of things justify having an image. An otherwise indistinguishable image of a person, is not actually of that person, is not historically significant, and does not otherwise have some defining characteristic unique and ubiquitous to the image as in the above examples, is not necessary, as in these cases this just serves to have an image for an image's sake, without adding any meaningful content for the article. For this reason, I support removal of the particular set of images so removed above. If, in individual cases, better images which hold some historical significance were instead added, that may be fine. This set of images is not particularly useful or historically significant. --Jayron32 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal of portraits not contemporary with the subject (or otherwise of particular significance with respect to the subject, e.g. later paintings that become notable in their own right, or images depicting the specific indicia of a saint), per WP:PORTRAIT. (Here from ANI) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal of the two terrible inauthentic series of early popes. These have been removed before, more than once. We have no idea of the personal appearance of the first few centuries of popes, except sometimes some vague words. Other historic images may be fine in certain cases, even if the face is imagined by a later artist. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal I agree with Jayron32 and with the WP:PORTRAIT essay: non-contemporary depictions can be fine in some cases, but these particular ones are decorative, not informative. Cheers, gnu57 13:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support They don't really add to the article. ~ HAL333 23:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: purge the popes There is no reason for Wikipedia to reflect the pious image of sanctity some non-notable 19th century engraver was commissioned to produce. No images exist of popes, at all, for a good many centuries after "Peter", and these fictitious place-holders add nothing, still less accurately illustrate Late Antique or Mediaeval priests, even as generic depictions. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the spurious papal portraits is worse even than, say, using the Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum for placeholder portraits of every (not-)historical person since Adam. Even using the |Recueil des rois de France for French monarchs would be better, since the images are in themselves significant; these apocryphal papal portraits are, as elsewhere pointed out, completely interchangeable, forgettable, and ahistorical, as well as being ugly as sin. GPinkerton (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support & comment essentially, these are what are often termed "pious fiction". Fiction, pious or otherwise, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The same issue is presented with nearly all pre-modern biographies; likely no accurate likeness survives (if ever any was made). Even contemporary portraits until the age of photography suffer a related issue: the portraits were often commissioned to make the subject out to be idealized or demonized rather than accurately depicted - so with that in mind, nearly all portraits of pre-modern figures are suspect and probably ought not be used without explanatory material. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sure the closer will note that effectively two questions were asked, but that the second assumed the answer to the first, which is fundamentally flawed. However, treating them as separate questions, I Support the removal of these unencyclopedic images (while noting that that is not a synonym of "old images"). I Oppose the restoration of those images already removed. ——SN54129 06:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mortara case#One source issues

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mortara case#One source issues. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Lists of schools of U.S. Catholic archdioceses

Hi! Please see the deletion discussion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago which may affect lists of schools of Catholic dioceses in the U.S.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Basilica#RFC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilica#RFC. Elizium23 (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

FLC review request

Hi everyone! I've got two featured list candidates presently opened (List of Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong and List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Vancouver), with the first nominated back on February 28. If a couple of folks from our Project community can give it a quick look and some input, that would be much appreciated. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Marist Brothers

Hello! I need help with the Marist Brothers particularly with the controversies section on the Chilean priests. They might have been connected to the Marist Brothers in Chile but they are not Marist Brothers. There are no "Marist Brothers priest". Thanks! —Allenjambalaya (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Alice, Sweet Alice

I just completed some technical cleanup of this article. It was marked as a Start-class, I believe it to be B-class and marked it so. As this project had a banner on it I thought you might want to be aware. —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Blood of Christ

Blood of Christ, Feast of the Most Precious Blood, Procession of the Holy Blood, Blutritt. Should one, some, or all of these be merged? Please see hatnotes. PPEMES (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be completely distinct topics. What advantage is there to merging? –Zfish118^⋉talk 11:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Isn't it as following? Blutritt is a local tradition as part of the Procession of the Holy Blood, which is a tradition during the Feast of the Most Precious Blood? PPEMES (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Catholic Church is a stale proposel. For comparison, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints exists since before. If it has been established that Latter Day Saints merits a Wikipedia:Manual of Style, wouldn't also one for Catholic Church be at hand? In practice, this would only document what is already established, as reflect inter alia on User:Grabado/List. PPEMES (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions#Requested move 22 May 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions#Requested move 22 May 2020. Elizium23 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes the title of a source?

This press release from the Holy See is used in Ante Jozić. I am of the opinion that the title that should be listed in the cite template should simply read "Resignations and Appointments", without including the date at the end (i.e. "Resignations and Appointments, 21.05.2020"). The browser tab for all Holy See press releases omit the date on the browser tabs (e.g. Messages of the Holy Father, Holy See Press Office Communiqués, etc.), and it is redundant to include that info since it is already included in the date parameter. Another editor (the creator of the aforementioned article) still thinks otherwise, even though I have tried to explain to him why this is not the case. What is the consensus format? (either WP as a whole or, barring that, within WP:CATHOLIC) —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect the consensus to be, "who cares?" IMO including a quote is overdoing it.  --Lambiam 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is fairly insignificant, but since the title on the actual page (not the browser tab) includes the date, I would say the date is part of the published title. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In the most common use case, there will be at least two of these sources from different dates, in a single article. I think it is a disservice to the reader to omit the dates and make them so ambiguous as to be useless. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be part of the title. Manannan67 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Bon Secours

There are at present all of at least four separate articles covering the unfortunate subject of infant burials at the Tuam Children's Home between 1937 and the mid-50s. As usual, it's all the nuns' fault. I was under the impression that this article was about the congregation itself, yet 40% is about Tuam. Even after the addition of other material, Tuam still took up over one-third of the article. Most of the articles re diocesan sex abuse claims have their own article with brief summary and a link from the diocesan page. I attempted something similar, but it is repeatedly reverted. Considering the fact that they have been around for almost 200 yrs. during which time they worked in a lot of places -not just Galway; founded a lot of hospitals; most of the sisters have never set foot in Ireland; and the healthcare system they originally founded serves over 10 million people, I suggest it is "Undue" at least in this context. An editor has objected that there is no consensus for removal of the extraneous material. Views may be expressed at Talk:Bon Secours Sisters). Manannan67 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS‎

The article Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS‎ has recently undergone a fairly substantial expansion and there is a content dispute brewing. It would be helpful to bring in some outside voices, if anyone is so inclined. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Lists of parishes, schools, religious on diocesan article pages

How do people here feel about long and exhaustive lists of parishes, schools, and religious orders in diocese articles? For example, Roman Catholic Diocese of Imus is an example of what I am talking about. Some of us already feel that per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate list of things, and it is not proper for us to be maintaining diocesan directories of parishes (some of these lists even include current pastors, vicars, administrators, etc!) Does anyone object to the removal of these lists (possibly to be replaced by summary figures in a line or two of prose)? Elizium23 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It would take a gargantuan job to trim them all to just the essential stats, and some would insist on keeping them despite the lists being WP:LISTCRUFT. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure whether those are the right questions to be asking ourselves here at this time. Elizium23 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I would remove them, except for any of particular note, as the information would seem readily available on the presumably linked diocesan website. Manannan67 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Upon further reflection, I would say that it depends. Where these are a list of items that link to individual articles, I would keep them. (Someone would probably add their favorites to See also anyway.) but where you have a some disparate articles, many stubs that could be enlarged, and they have only one thing in common, it's useful to have them listed coherently in one place, if someone's gone to all that work; (categories don't necessarily prove adequate). In reference to parish lists, another approach might indicate which ones historically developed from some "mother" church. Manannan67 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

In some cases I have redirected NN elementary schools to their respective notable churches/synagogues. When Annunciation Orthodox School got deleted, I created a section at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Houston) and redirected it there. I also redirected the elementaries of two Jewish congregations to Congregation Beth Israel (Houston) and Congregation Beth Yeshurun (Houston). WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, guys! @Manannan67: @Blake Gripling: The practice on Wikipedia is to merge articles on non-notable schools, either to the locality (generally outside of North America), or to the school district/school authority (in North America). These two come to mind:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_advice states: "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA)"
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools states: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America)[...]"

In the United States Catholic grade schools are often operated under the archdiocese, so the archdiocese should be where the school is merged into. The destination article should mention the schools, so this results in lists of grade schools being a feature of archdiocese articles. What we can do is collect information from newspapers, typically local newspapers, talking about non-routine news related to the schools. There is a trend of U.S. Catholic schools closing due to low enrollments and lack of funds, and several local newspaper and news channel articles have discussed this in a micro level.

In the List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston–Houston I list all of the schools under the archdiocese, and when school closings/mergers occur I noted that.

I have also informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools of this discussion, and the participants will be helpful in advising what to do next. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see any mandate or need to list non-notable entities in a diocesan article. That is beyond the scope of a diocesan article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The question is whether a diocese counts as "school district authority that operates" the school. Several Catholic elementary schools are directly under their parishes, and therefore under the authority of their dioceses. This isn't the case with all Catholic schools: some are "independent" ones that are only loosely associated with respective dioceses (I think in the case of high schools they are usually "independent"). I can see the case for independent Catholic schools being redirected to their respective localities. But if its directly operated by a church in the diocese, the diocese list should be the destination. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, why would they be redirected instead of simply deleted? What articles are currently redirected to diocesan articles now? How would we know/track that? Why is it the responsibility of the maintainers of the diocesan article to retain mention of a non-notable entity that has been deleted/redirected? Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The archdioceses typically list their respective schools on their websites, and the Wayback Machine keeps copies. I've found it very helpful in establishing which schools were in operation by the late 1990s, and then calculating which mergers/closures have happened. To be honest the "maintainers of the diocesan article" don't need to do the legwork if they don't wish - the Schools WikiProject guys can help with that :) - Having said that the decline of Catholic education, especially in low income and inner city areas, is a real issue and a crisis in the United States and personally I think that would be of interest to people writing about dioceses.

Example: Saint Ambrose Catholic School is a disambig for various schools with the same name created in accordance with the guidelines above: Most point to a locality but for Houston I pointed to the list of schools in the archdiocese on purpose.

Redirects are done as people will want a place to find info about the school, but it's the larger organization that operates/its locality it rather than the school itself. That is probably why redirects have become the standard practice.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If its directly operated by a church in the diocese, I would merge it to the church's article, rather than the diocese. Some of the old churches pre-date the diocese. Manannan67 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh if the church is notable I definitely agree with merging it into the church. I did that for Annunciation Orthodox, Beth Yeshurun, and Beth Israel. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In Talk:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Dubuque/draftlist (my working on the list of Dubuque Archdiocese's elementary schools) I found an instance of a Catholic school belonging to two Wikipedia-notable churches at the same time. That school eventually closed... WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Doing some more research in regards to the Philadelphia Catholic schools I found a case where three Wikipedia-notable Catholic churches shared the same interparochial school. This is why archdiocese articles should have common Catholic grade school lists (or they should be in a daughter article). WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought of an idea: I made a daughter article for the schools: List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque. It's under the jurisdiction of this project, the Iowa project, and the schools projects. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have filed for deletion of a test case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The AFD closed as a "no consensus". I think a good strategy for non-notable Catholic grade schools would be this:

• If the school is a parish school of one notable church, redirect to that church.
• If the school is a parish school of a single non-notable church or of more than one church (notable or non-notable), redirect to a diocese/archdiocese list of schools
• If the school is an "independent" Catholic school, it may depend on whether the diocese/archdiocese had ever directly controlled the school in the past. If so, redirect to the diocese/archdiocese list. If not, redirect to the locality or a list of schools in the locality.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Assessment page, charts

Hi all, Today I added charts to assessment page. Found on another wikiproject & thought to had here also. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is currently a discussion at WP:AN#Articles giving religious doctrine from primary sources concerning four additional articles: Hell in Catholicism, Catholic theodicy, Christian Socioeconomics, and Holy obedience. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, where was this discussed prior to bringing up Oct13's behavior on WP:AN? Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23: I brought up the matter on WP:AN because of an accelerating pattern of writing new articles that are sourced only to primary Church sources. I suggested that User:Oct13 be asked not to do this. But I did not propose (nor do I favor) any sanctions, because as far as I'm aware Oct13 is a good-faith editor who interacts cordially with other editors. But note that Oct13's POV fork Church Fathers and abortion was deleted in early March, and later the same month Oct13 wrote another new article sourced just as poorly; and a week ago wrote two more such articles. Trying to fix the articles through extensive sourcing and/or discussing them at AfD is a tremendous time burden for other editors. Oct13 has been editing for 8 1/2 years. Editors on various occasions have asked Oct13 not to add unsourced or poorly sourced content (going back to March [2] and May [3] of 2012 -- the very first such admonition was from you). I'm now hoping that perhaps a more forceful request or warning (but not a sanction) will have some effect. I repeat that I do not question Oct13's sincerity or intentions.

By bringing this up at WP:AN I'm also hoping for suggestions on how to handle those articles. It's unclear to me whether WP:MULTIAFD would be appropriate, or individual AfD's or some combination of AfD and merging. Or maybe some editors will have the time and interest to find reliable secondary sources and rewrite the articles. NightHeron (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

He relies on the Catechism of the Catholic Church in these articles, which is a secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A statement or manual by an organization about its beliefs, principles, or purpose is a perfectly good source for factual information on what the organization believes, but it's not a secondary source. (From WP:PRIMARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.) An article that uses the Catechism (and possibly other Church documents) as its only sources is not encyclopedic -- just as an article about the US Constitution that does nothing but quote from and paraphrase the document would be unsuitable for Wikipedia.

As an example, in March, User:Oct13 wrote an article titled Miraculous plague cure of 1522, which still had just one source, Vatican News, yesterday when I nominated the article for deletion. Other editors quickly decided that the topic is notable, and rather than deleting the article they completely rewrote it and retitled it Plague procession of 1522. It now uses secondary sources, includes historical perspective and analysis, and in my opinion is up to Wikipedia standards. Is it reasonable for Oct13 to repeatedly write poorly sourced articles and wait for other editors to spend time debating whether to delete them or thoroughly rewrite them? What should be done about the two poorly sourced articles Hell in Catholicism and Catholic theodicy that Oct13 wrote just a week ago? NightHeron (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, it's a secondary source. Primary sources would be, e.g. Humanae vitae, the Bible, Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae. The CCC compiles such primary sources and cites them as footnotes, making it secondary. Elizium23 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, having footnotes to other sources does not make a source secondary. For example, an autobiography or a report of a medical study is a primary source, whether or not it has footnotes to other sources. The Wikipedia article about the Catechism describes it as follows: It sums up, in book form, the beliefs of the Catholic faithful....[quoting John Paul II] "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith". It's somewhat analogous to a code of laws, which is why I made an analogy with the US Constitution. NightHeron (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, yes, it sums up the beliefs - it's a secondary source of beliefs - the primary sources are Church documents, books by theologians, the Bible, they are all there in footnotes in the secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is about as official a statement of Church doctrine as there is. The fact that it has footnotes does not change that. Another analogy: the official decisions of the US Supreme Court are heavily footnoted with references to legal doctrines and earlier cases. But they're still primary sources. A Wikipedia article on Brown v Board of Education could not simply use the actual decision as its only source. Nor could such an article simply combine material from that decision and earlier related decisions, because combining primary sources into an article with no secondary sources would violate WP:OR. By the same token, a Wikipedia article on Catholic views of Hell, for example, cannot be just compiled from official Church sources. NightHeron (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, now you're arguing that it's not a third-party source. I never said it is third-party. Could we stay on topic please? Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, where did I say anything about "third party"? The topic is primary vs secondary sources, and statements of official position from an organization are not secondary sources. The Party Platform of the Democratic or Republican Party is not a secondary source. Neither is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. NightHeron (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I said this at RSN, but the CCC is tertiary: it is designed to summarize primary and some secondary sources, not to add value in itself. That being said, we should cite tertiary sources as a last resort. There are legion of secular and Catholic sourcing on virtually anything related to the Catholic Church. In part because of its founding of universities, and in part because its history is effectively the history of the West from 500-1900. There are many, many, many much better things to cite. The CCC doesn't do nuance or complexity because that wasn't what it was designed to do: it was designed to give a summary of every belief in a paragraph or two. That doesn't leave much room for analysis or nuance, which is what we expect secondary sources to do. It can be used, but please use it sparingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Aurora Quezon

Can anyone provide an actual source for Aurora Quezon being given the title "Servant of God" by the Catholic Church or that the beatification process actually began? A "new" editor is being insistent on adding the title to the page, as well as including her as such on other lists: List of Filipino saints, blesseds, and Servants of God, List of saints from Asia, List of Servants of God. The one source that has been provided is a reddit thread (not a RS), which doesn't even mention the title - just points to a defunct change.org petition. The one thing I can find, following a link from the petition to this self-published site is that the cause was stopped at the Diocese of Cubao level, and that the Bishop of Cubao was not able to act on the petition. But not even that or any other source I can find supports the "Servant of God" title. Have I missed a source from the Vatican or CCS? Any help would be appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Decrees, public statements, etc: placement

When a bishop issues a public statement or makes a canonical decree, the statement is often placed in his BLP. Can we move to focusing more on the office? If a bishop makes a decree or statement, then it should go in the article according to his office: the diocese he leads, the dicastery of which he is a member, the episcopal conference. For example, Jose Horacio Gomez issued a statement this week in his capacity as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I have moved this statement from where it was originally placed, in his BLP, to the article pertaining to his office, the USCCB. This is less WP:RECENTISM and more WP:DUE coverage. Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right in this case, as I think he was speaking particularly as an extension of his office. I think there can be times where it is more fitting to his particular person than to his office. Certain prelates might be more apt for this, like Gomez, but others might not be. Is there ever a reason to put in in BLP? (User talk:J-a-t 96) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (EST)

Elizium23, Why not in both places, with due amounts of coverage in each? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, well, there was one statement recently which was placed in the BLPs of three bishops, when they made it jointly as a committee of the USCCB. I don't think it can be rightly said that each bishop issued the statement motu proprio. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, it is extremely hard to harmonize text when it is spammed in 4 different places of Wikipedia. The sexual abuses cases are becoming intractable sprawls of coverage between master article, regional article, country article, state and diocese articles, bishops, priests, all kinds of BLPs. Copyediting these things is a nightmare. They should be transcluded. Elizium23 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, If they issued it as part of a committee, I think a statement saying as much would be totally appropriate on their BLP. A link could provide further details. Also, keeping text coordinated across articles is always going to be a challenge. I don't think it is a reason to exclude relevant details from some articles, however. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on style and content in bishops' articles

This pertains to what should be included in articles about Catholic bishops worldwide:

1. Do co-consecrators have to be included in the "consecrated_by=" parameter of {{Infobox Christian leader}}, when such information is already included in {{Ordination}}?
2. Do succession boxes at the end of the article have to include the heading "Episcopal succession"?
3. Should an external link to the generic (arch)diocesan website be included in individual biographies of bishops?

Submitted for your consideration. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• No to all three. (1) The "consecrated_by=" parameter should only mention the principal consecrator of a bishop. The template {{Ordination}} has the additional "co-consecrators =" parameter, which is where the names of co-consecrators can be included. (2) Succession boxes do not require headings. It especially complicates matters when other, non-episcopal positions are listed (e.g. curial or diplomatic posts, vicar general, positions at academic institutions, etc.). (3) Fails both criteria of WP:ELOFFICIAL guideline. It is not controlled by the subject (i.e. the bishop himself), but rather an organization (i.e. the (arch)diocese he oversees). Moreover, the linked content does not primarily cover the area for which the subject of the article is notable. An appropriate external link for a bishop's article would be one that is a link to the bishop's personal website, to the (Arch)diocese's page on him specifically, or to a column in the (arch)diocesan newspaper written by him. For example – in William E. Lori's article, this page from the Archdiocesan website (specifically relating to his office of Archbishop) would be a relevant external link, but not the generic website of the Archdiocese. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment this is highly unusual for an RFC, which is usually on one focused topic, and this has the potential to go all over the place.
• No, No, and Yes (passes both criteria of WP:ELOFFICIAL). Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies for that – this is the first time I've ever initiated an RfC. Since all three aspects were being disputed in the bishops' bios I created over the past 2 weeks, I didn't want to open 3 separate RfC's. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Head of the Church

@Elizium23: I propose a solution to this issue. Pope and episcopals of the Eastern churches are not the head of the church even though for the layman it is common speaking. Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church see https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm . The pope or patriarch is the head of the episcopal college see here https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm . The pope is the head of the episcopal college for the entire church and for the Latin church. While the bishops of the eastern churches are for respective episcopal bodies. The articles on the churches should state that the bishops are the head of the episcopal college and a note should be added to avoids misunderstandings. This can be seen by my edit here -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=964315338 . I don’t know if there is a terminology convention on this but the Catholic church’s position should be given some weight and not entirely deleted. We could leave the catholic theological incorrect statement that the pope is the head of the church and add a note on catholic teaching. I want to hear your thoughts on a solution between the two terms.Manabimasu (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 05:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Manabimasu, the Pope is head of the Church. I can provide you multiple WP:RS proving this. I believe most Eastern Orthodox believe that the Church is headed only by Jesus Christ. This is not a Catholic perspective. Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we have a difference in adjectives to further clarify our positions. Christ is the invisible head and the pope is the visible. Can we just add a note to clarify this? If not, Besides the Catholic Catechism, what reliable source can you provide that only the pope is the head of the church? Manabimasu (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Manabimasu, I never said that "only the Pope" is the head of the Church. I said the Eastern Orthodox believe that "only Jesus Christ" is the head of the Church. I can provide plenty of WP:RS to support the Catholic position, not the position that you propose, which is a straw-man. You will have to provide sources for the visible-invisible dichotomy, which I think is a distinction not commonly made, although it is found in Head of the Church. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, may I provide a note stating that Jesus is the head of the church and the pope is the head of the episcopal college or vicar and pastor of the universal church as provided by the two sources above? I would like to see your sources now. I rely on the Catechism for my understanding and would like to see your perspective. Manabimasu (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Manabimasu, no, you aren't getting it, are you? The Pope is the head, the visible head, of the Catholic Church, full stop. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Catholic Encyclopedia
2. Catholicism for Dummies
3. EWTN
4. Vatican II: Lumen gentium Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Catholics, in referring to Christ as the Invisible Head of the Church, would typically refer to him as Head of the Body of Christ. It is not common to see Christ referred to as Head of the Catholic Church, simply because of the "Invisible Head" qualification and the Pope being the Visible Head. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are two CCC references which obliquely place the Roman Pontiff as head of the Catholic Church, or at least the Latin Church:

1. CCC 1462
2. CCC 1594

So indeed, even diocesan bishops are the heads of their particular churches. Elizium23 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Because of the uncommon nature, would you agree I can place "Christ is the "invisible head"" as a note if I provide the sources?Manabimasu (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Manabimasu, in what article? Elizium23 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, would these two books be enough or should I cite the text as well?

https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Dogmatic_Theology.html?id=TqZaDwAAQBAJ

https://books.google.com/books/about/Catholic.html?id=qtEQAAAAIAAJ Manabimasu (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are extremely good sources, even better than the meager ones I proffered; the second one can also be used to cite the Pope as the head of the Church.

And once again I'd ask, which article? This discussion has ramifications for quite a number of similar articles on the topic. Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23:These are the articles I have seen mentioning invisible head https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church,https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/catholic-church-is-the-mystical-body-of-christ-89, and https://www.catholicculture.org/Culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32529. Lumen Gentium in Chapter 3 refers to the Pope as the visible head in Chapter 3 - https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html . I looked at the Head of the Church article on wikipedia and it seriously needs development on the catholic perspective. I skimmed through the english translation of the CCEO here - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM and it seems that head is an appropriate term regarding the particular churches. I think the scope is just within the Catholic church article unless you disagree. I know the citation would take longer, but would books work as well in the note? Manabimasu (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

John Paul II, not just John Paul

Perhaps we should point out at October 1978 papal conclave, that Cardinal Felici forgot to add "the second" to John Paul II's name, when he announced to the public from the Sistine Chapel's balcony, who the new pope was. PS - Note that Felici did add "the first" when he announced John Paul I's name at the August 1978 papal conclave, oddly enough. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess so, if it's WP:DUE? Is there sourcing? Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A copy of the introduction or a link to the moment, would suffice. Just don't know how to do the linkage. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There's videos at Youtube, of both announcements by Felici. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen some of them; I am concerned that they might be WP:COPYVIOs if not taken from an official news channel. Elizium23 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A written copy would also suffice, if there's any. But he did indeed, make (actually) two plunders. The news media at the time (no doubt through excitement & lack of knowledge), seems to miss it entirely. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not that I do not believe you, it's just that we need a reliable source for (1) verifiability and (2) to prove it's WP:DUE because to me it sounds like utter trivia that is not worthy of inclusion. It is one thing if the media made some deal of it at the time and there are editorials written about the omission, and it is another thing if it was a mere slip of the tongue not really given any accord by the chroniclers of the event. Do you see? Elizium23 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I know, it's just that it was a glaring mistake, that seemed to go over the heads of those involved at the time. Kinda like the 2013 papal conclave, where the news media (initially) failed to notice that Francis (purposefully) appeared only in white, on the balcony. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pais de los Maynas

Pais de los Maynas is currently at AfD. I This made sense, given the version that was AfDed. I've reworked it substantially since then, but am no expert at all – so would appreciate any help you could give on the article. Thanks! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Could anyone take some pictures?

The pen used by Piux IX to sign papal infallibility is currently on diplay in Rome (source). Could someone near there take the opportunity to take some pictures of the pen and upload them under a CC licence? Veverve (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on how to refer to clerics

You may be interested in participating in a RfC on how to refer to popes, cardinals, and bishops in running text. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also now a specific proposal on the table to create a new subsection of the MOS as follows: "Do not use ecclesiastical titles such as "Elder," "Pope," "Sister," or "Bishop" when referring to leaders of a church, except at first occurrence of the name and when the context provided by the title is useful. After the first occurrence, the subject's surname is sufficient and conforms to general encyclopedic style. For example, write "Elder McConkie published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine..." at the first instance his name, but "McConkie published a book entitled Mormon Doctrine..." for subsequent appearances." Your thoughts are welcomed. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a new proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Our Lady of Porta Vaga

With all due respect, but could anyone look into this as while the major contributor has obviously done things in good faith, I am concerned that this might end up getting bloated and unwieldy. I'm debating on whether the inclusion of (public domain) lyrics could still constitute as WP:NOTLYRICS as they can still be moved to Wikisource at the moment for one. Full disclosure: my brother's a devotee of the image as well as a member of the confraternity mentioned in the article, and I don't want him to get riled up and misinterpret what we've been doing as sacrilege. :/ Blake Gripling (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of extant papal tombs for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanmosa (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Images in Pope's infoboxes

I was surprised to see that there were so many articles of popes that did not have single image in their infoboxes, let alone articles, despite the fact that there were in excess of 20 images in their Wikipedia Commons categories. I started adding images but and editor has quickly reverted them, claiming that these images are "worthless" and that there is a well established consensus regarding this issue. There were two discussions that I could find on this topic (see here and here), but these had more to do with adding poorer quality images to already existing ones, not claiming that all these images were "worthless". Generally speaking it is accepted that images can improve and articles quality, and it seems odd to me that none of these images are deemed suitable. Obviously most popes did not live at the time of photography, so it is generally accepted that images of them and other medieval are not entirely accurate. Tagging the editor who reverted (@Surtsicna:). Inter&anthro (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Inter&anthro, please see #RfC on non-contemporary images of popes. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC) --Link to Archived Discussion

@Surtsicna: so correct me if I'm wrong, but your basically saying that any non-contemporary image of popes should be removed? What's the point of having a bunch of pages in commons if not a single one is quantifiable? That sounds a bit harsh to me. Could these images be used elsewhere in the article? Inter&anthro (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, of course he is not. The Rfc decided that in particular these two sets of totally imaginary low-quality 19th-century images were WORSE THAN NOTHING. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So basically all of these images are not suitable? Inter&anthro (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Especially the early ones - they were apparently made after 1823, & where there are more or less contemporary portraits they copy these, so do have a genuine likeness. For example Pope Paul III is based on the famous portraits by Titian, and one by Sebastiano Del Piombo. But then we will almost always have the original portraits (or similar ones) which are much superior. The earlier popes are just made up. They are all very low-res poor-quality images too - most about 45 kb, which is pathetic. So effectively, yes - avoid. Possibly some late-medieval popes where they use an original that Commons doesn't have might be acceptable, as a last resort. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Johnbod, if you don't mind I have just one more question. You say that there will usually be more original portraits available, but my question is are there and if there are are they suitable as well? In this edit I added an image from coomons that was not associated with the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, but it was reverted anyway too. Are images like that from manuscripts also suitable for some of these pope articles or are they also inaccurate? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not from a manuscript, but is a hand-coloured print (19th-century). We don't seem to have any genuine portraits of him. I think nothing is best. Actual medieval manuscript images are probably usually not real likenesses either, in most cases, but are less objectionable, to me anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Btw, a crop of this image of his tomb should be added to Pope Honorius IV, currently with no image. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Catholic churches by country has been nominated for discussion

Category:Catholic churches by country has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Saw some news reports today suggesting that H.H. is in generally poor and declining health at age 93. While I hope he lives to be 100, the fact remains that at some point he is going to be called home. When that happens it is all but certain his passing will be nominated for a blurb on the main page at WP:ITNC. As a long time regular at ITN, I am pained to say that after looking at his article it would be very unlikely to be posted to the main page in its present condition. Referencing in particular is problematic with many unsourced claims and entire paragraphs lacking a single citation. Anyhow, just passing along a friendly heads up that this is coming and the article is currently not up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Your input is solicited on a proposed merge at Talk:Catholic teaching on homosexuality! Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexander VI

The legacy section reads like a revisionist apologia and completely ignores historical consensus. It's been tagged for several years and really needs some attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholics has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman Catholics has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Catholic propaganda

The disambiguation page Catholic propaganda could benefit from the attention of someone knowledgeable about the topic. It's not clear me to that either article listed is about, or contains much discussion of, anything that's commonly known by that name. Neither article uses the phrase, and the articles that do use the phrase use it to mean quite different things. But it's also possible I'm missing something. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like the search results are using the phrase in the sense of "propaganda that is Catholic or aligned to Catholic interests". The dab creator appears to have added the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on the assumption that evangelization is per-se propaganda, a decision which is probably out of the remit of the humble dab page editor. I could see linking Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Propaganda_during_the_Reformation#Roman_Catholic_reaction_to_Protestant_propaganda, or Counter-Reformation (the latter has a whole book on Counter-Reformation propaganda in its reference list), but on another hand, it's highly likely that people who might search on this are searching for any of several topics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (now know as the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples) was frequently known as "The Propaganda" before the name change, and probably still is in some quarters. Manannan67 (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Latin name for "Propagation of the Faith" is "Propaganda Fide" Dcheney (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Catholic Charismatic Renewal in England

This draft was declined, but I'm not sure I agree with the decline. I don't know whether there are enough sources to write an article specific to CCR in England. Thoughts? Should this be moved to mainspace? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Error has no rights

I came across the article Error has no rights at DYK, and the original contributor is objecting to what I think are routine additions of text from the same sources already used in the article. I'm not too much of an expert in this topic, so I'd like to have some more perspectives on this. You can check the edit history and talk page for details. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions

We have thousands of dioceses, thousands of bishops, and thousands of other miscellaneous articles that qualify for a "shortdesc". They probably already have one from Wikidata. There's been a project on now for a few months to import and override those on Wikidata and put the shortdesc here on the English Wikipedia. Here's my question: are we going to standardize them? What information should we put in them? What information should be left out? How long should they ideally be? Should they all follow a common template for similar topics? Thanks for any input you have. Elizium23 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Pope Francis

In the process of paring down the article on Pope Francis, the question arises of whether to greatly trim the Pope Francis#Ecumenism and Pope Francis#Interfaith dialogue sections or to create a separate article for them. It seems to me that there is very little here that could not be said of the previous popes. Please comment at Talk:Pope Francis#Page needs trimming or possibly further splitting. Jzsj (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done by User:Jzsj 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Neocatechumenal Way § Introduction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neocatechumenal Way § Introduction. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox encyclical

Template:Infobox encyclical has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox apostolic exhortation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary § NPOV discussion: Arguments and evidence

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary § NPOV discussion: Arguments and evidence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on "People of Praise" article

I've constructed an RfC about an unresolved conflict on the "People of Praise" article if anyone wants to take a look at that. Novellasyes (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Catholicism

I'm in the early stages of updating pages related to Black Catholicism (the unique history and expression of the faith among African-Americans), and I would love for it to be integrated with this project somehow. I'm new to Wikiprojects (and, while not new to editing, still learning how to be a decent/good editor), but I am wanting to expand and improve my Wiki skills.

I plan to create a "Black Catholicism" page later today, and will go from there. I would love to create a Black Catholicism series unto itself, but I'm not sure if that's couth or called for. I also don't know how to do it. Lol

Anyway, good to be here and I hope other editors will join in as they are able! natemup (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just hit on this: not many active RC editors, African-American or not! I see you haven't yet created this page, and suggest you call it "African-American". The term "Black" is now in disfavor from what I hear. I'll help with this once I finish the Pope Francis consolidation. Jzsj (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't realize there were so few! This project immediately made me think there's a ton... Anyway, the page is still in draft stage (Draft:Black Catholicism), but "Black" is almost certainly the correct term (source: I'm Black 😁). "African-American" is a very common moniker for the people group (and I did put it in the heading), but "Black Catholic" has been the most common term for African-American Catholics for several decades. natemup (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Overdone categories

Please could somebody knowledgeable about the subject clean up the parent categories of Category:African-American Roman Catholic clergy? This is one of the worst cases of WP:OVERCAT that I've ever seen outside article space. I don't know which should be removed per WP:DIFFUSE, or kept per WP:DUPCAT. I've done one, to begin with - content categories must not be placed inside themselves. Also notifying Natemup (talk · contribs), who created the cat. Recent edits to its subcategories (African-American Roman Catholic bishops and African-American Roman Catholic priests) should also be examined. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

✊🏾. (and sorry for effing shit up. 😬) natemup (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Canonization guilds

I can't currently find any page that directly references "guilds" for a canonization cause, which is odd to me since it's a common term for such groups—in my experience, anyway. Should there be a new page for this (or a new section on the existing Guild page)? natemup (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Natemup, I agree with you that the petitioners and postulators often form "guilds" to oversee the cause, but my question would be whether this is universal or there are other names as well. I am not sure this is a notable concept that has enough information for a separate article. Could we grow a section under Canonization to incubate a possible article for a while? Elizium23 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases § Merge discussion: Catholic Church abuse

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases § Merge discussion: Catholic Church abuse. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft approved and published

Hi! As my first task as a member of this WikiProject, I've approved and published a draft tagged in the project. The new article is Thomas_Reynolds_(priest), please give it a look and tell me if you notice that I have to something to learn/improve --Clementeste^(Talk) 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft republished

Hi! I did some improvements in the draft of Georges Perron and then I moved it into the main space --Clementeste^(Talk) 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GCatholic.org

This article is being listed for deletion. The source is used on numerous wikipedia projects and newspapers as a reliable source. I cannot find an article directly about the subject. If you would take a look and see if you agree, it would be appreciated. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like its already toast. I won't comment on the merits for COI reasons (direct competitor). Dcheney (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft published

Hi! I did some improvements in the draft of Francis A. Arlinghaus and then I moved it into the main space, just in case you want to give it a look --Clementeste^(Talk) 11:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New Cardinal - November 2020

Just my normal reminder, the announcement today confers no titles, etc. - it is just an announcement. While it is appropriate to make note of the upcoming honor in the individual person's articles, they are not Cardinals until that ceremony. (Cardinal-Designate is a suitable term until then.) Dcheney (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Listings of coadjutor bishops in articles about dioceses

In a private exchange, Elizum23 and I have come to the conclusion that, in articles about dioceses, it would be more appropriate to include coadjutor bishops in the listing of diocesan bishops rather than listing them separately. There are two important considerations here: first, that coadjutor bishops nearly always succeed to the diocese upon death, resignation, or transfer of the incumbent diocesan bishop, making a separate listing substantially redundant, and, second, that coadjutor bishops typically exercise substantial authority in the governance of a diocese, even to the point of taking over governance completely if the diocesan bishop is seriously incapacitated. It's fairly simple to include the dates of service as a coadjutor bishop after the dates of service as a diocesan bishop (for example, "George Smedley (1972-1978; coadjutor bishop 1971-1972)") in the list of diocesan bishops. In the rare cases in which a coadjutor does not succeed to the diocese, it's fairly easy to append a break tag ("< br >" without the spaces) followed by a hyphen and the information about the coadjutor (for example, "- Sam Smith (coadjutor bishop 1857-1861), died before succession") after the information on the diocesan bishop with whom he served -- it appears indented with a dash on the next line and does not disturb the enumeration of diocesan bishops. Any thoughts or objections? Norm1979 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, there are examples of both a coadjutor who succeeded to the see and a coadjutor who did not in the article on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston. And I should also note that the format for a coadjutor who did not succeed to the see also works for (1) a current coadjutor, (2) an auxiliary bishop "with special faculties" of Canon 403, §2 (who is functionally similar to a coadjutor but does not have the right of succession), and (3) an administrator who governs the diocese for an extended period of time, either during or after the tenure of the respective bishop. However, it probably will be difficult to identify the latter two groups after the fact. Norm1979 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Post-nominals RFC

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.

---

Bearing in mind MOS:POSTNOM, in the case of post-nominals indicating membership in a religious institute (S.J., O.F.M., C.Ss.R., etc) where in an article is it proper to attach these to people's names?

1. In the lede section of this person's biography.
2. When the article specifically brings up the post-nominals to discuss them. he joined the Society of Jesus and therefore received the right to place "S.J." after his name
3. Anywhere the person is mentioned in a list.
4. In an infobox.
5. Anywhere the person is mentioned in prose, even in an article not about him or her.
6. Other times (specify).

Submitted for your consideration by Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I don't see why it's necessary to start an RFC on this, since this is already taken care of at the very end of MOS:POSTNOM: "Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honor." Unless, of course, you are trying to amend that section of MOS itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1, 2, 4 (only in bio subject's infobox). This excludes e.g. lists of bishops in an article about a diocese. This excludes infoboxes in diocesan articles. This excludes most any time the article topic is not the person in question. Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of post-nominals at every mention of a person's name: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: anywhere. Elizium23 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as the exceptions in the MOS remain and the post-nominals are mentioned in the prose, I can (and will) continue to avail myself of those. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bloom6132, not if this RFC decides you can't. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bloom refers to this article where if he describes one religious institute in one place, he can tack on post-nominals anywhere else he can? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm referring to List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Vancouver. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems you didn't read what I wrote at the beginning: "As long as the exceptions in the MOS remain". And nothing in this RFC is going to amend those exceptions. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Cardinal electors for the 2013 papal conclave was promoted to featured list back in October 2018. With post-nominals included for those belonging to a religious order or institution. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In this case, I think post-nominals provide a significant amount of information about the person. It is not like a degree, it is a life-long vow (or promise, etc.) that impacts many parts of their lives. I would say include it in 1, 2, and 3. 4 gets a maybe since it, in theory, is in the main text. Dcheney (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for that – I didn't think about it in that way actually. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think including post-nominals in a diocesan list of bishops would be very helpful, at least to indicate what order may have originally staffed a vicariate, and to show when it was taken over by secular clergy. Manannan67 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed a "support/oppose" leaderboard because (1) this is not a "support/oppose" style RFC, there are multiple numbered options, and (2) it is not for a biased participant to keep score, the determination of consensus will be done by the closer. Elizium23 (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Elizium23: For someone whose trying to find a consensus, I find it very ironic how you get to unilaterally decide what kind of RFC this is and how it will be conducted. Also, calling me a "biased participant" falls foul of WP:NPA, since I have – in fact – made an honest breakdown of each respondent's opinion. I guess you wouldn't have mind the inclusion of the Participation Guide (not a leaderboard as you misrepresented) if your proposal was having more support – but it isn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  It was not honest because this is not a "support/oppose" RFC, you have completely misconstrued the central issue. And yes, you are a biased participant. So am I. Elizium23 (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I still don't get it. You alone do not get to decide what kind of RFC this is. And no, I'm not misconstruing the central issue – it revolves around the inclusion of religious institute post-nominals in a list of bishops. You just decided to conflate it with its inclusion in other places for good measure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I alone get to decide what kind of RFC this is. I am the one who posted the original questions. I designed the options. If I wanted 3 options instead of 6 then there would be 3. If I wanted it to be "support/oppose" like you then it would be. But it's not. I've said it 3 times. It's no mystery. If you want a "support/oppose" RFC then start one yourself. Elizium23 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Guess you didn't read WP:RFC Suggestions for responding, which states: "Responses may be submitted in a variety of formats." So once again, no, you alone do not get to decide what kind of RFC this is. If others want a vote, let's have one. We really don't need this me, myself, and I mentality coming from you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the sake of transparency and those interested, here is the Participation Guide which Elizium23 deleted from this RFC. I wonder why he doesn't want others to know about it or to see it? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• My reading of WP:POSTNOM indicates that where you don't have a complete section of an article about a person's honors, that they should be part of the lede introduction. Common sense indicates that it should be included in the lede of a section when you are talking specifically about a person's involvement in an organization for which they received the honor, for example you would have the article lede "Sir Jacob Random OBE OStJ was a British doctor during WWII...", but you could have a section on his work in establishing hospitals for the early NHS with a section lede along the lines of "Following WWII, Sir Jacob Random OStJ led the army in converting field hospitals and other medical institutions across the north to build the beginnings of the National Health Service in northern England. Five years later, Queen Elizabeth II knighted him in to the Order of St. John Hospitaller etc." So I guess that puts me into Support #1 (with the caveat that there isn't a separate article section on honors received) and #2, Generally Oppose #3 and #4 unless the honor is specifically germane to that list or infobox (e.g. infobox Order of St John), and full Oppose on #5. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanisaac: For #3, would your response be different if the post-nominal denoted membership of a religious institute (as opposed to honors conferred)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a substantive difference between a membership post-nominal vs. a bestowed honor. Either way, a post-nominal would only be appropriate if it is germane to the list. If you had a list of patrons of some Scottish charity, you wouldn't have "Elizabeth II, LG Cl PC GCStJ CD NPk GCON DUT(1st) DMN NGIV DKMB CGH GCRG POB GCFR KUOM SG CSG DAH TC RE LSerafO m kedja GCR GColSE GColEG", you'd just put "Queen Elizabeth II" because none of those honors have anything to do with the charity. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1 and 2: yes. 3: no, except in a list consistent entirely or at least mostly of people with such post-nominals and in which the post-nominals are helpful to the reader (e.g. a table or list of attendees at a multi-denominational ecumenical summit); 4: depends on the infobox, but generally yes in a biographical infobox on that particular person's biography, but usually not otherwise. An exception might be when naming the head of an organization, and the organization is not the same as or a subset of that to which the post-nominal acronym resolves. 5: absolutely not, or we may as well have no MOS:POSTNOM at all. A wikiproject talk page is not a venue for radically changing or invalidating system-wide guidelines (see WP:CONLEVEL). A gaggle of specialist editors can't carve out a "magical exception" for their own interests.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see any convincing argument for treating post-nominals indicating membership in a religious institute any different from any other post-nominals:

  When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. ...

  Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honor.

  Consequently, I support leaving the current MOS guidance unchanged. --RexxS (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS, the reason for this RFC is that I interpret the MOS:POSTNOM guidance differently than other editors, and so it is a question of interpretation, not quoting chapter and verse. Numerically, which options of the RFC do you support/oppose? Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Elizium23: yes, it's obvious why you started the RfC. What made you think I needed that explaining to me? What you haven't told me is why you think your interpretation has sufficient strength of reasoning to amend the project-wide consensus at MOS:POSTNOM. I don't find your numerical options helpful in trying to decide on any amendment to the guidance there. --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS, personally, I am not seeking to amend the MOS. I am seeking clarity in interpretation. What do you think my interpretation is? What is your interpretation and how does it differ? Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Elizium23: If you're not seeking to amend the MOS, then you're wasting your time here, because you can't create a local interpretation that differs from the guidelines at MOS. As I'm not a mind-reader and you haven't told me what your interpretation is, nor have you given any example of where you are interpreting, your question is unanswerable. Did you intend it to be? --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Here is my editing history and that is how I have interpreted MOS:POSTNOM. Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. So where do you think your interpretation differs from MOS:POSTNOM and why? --RexxS (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have been of the belief that I was interpreting POSTNOM correctly. I knew it imperfectly at first, but with corrections from others I feel that I am right about what it permits and denies, and that is how I have used the edit button, until this week. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose any but 1 and 2 only. Anything else is pandering. This is not the Catholic Encylopedia. We do not put "Sri" on the front of Hindu gods' names, why should this be any different? These letters are irrelevant except within the hierarchy of the institution. GPinkerton (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, I don't think it's fair to treat membership in a religious order in the same fashion as an educational degree, or "Sri", or membership in most organizations. Those that profess a life-long vow (or promise) to a religious order are committing to live by the "rule" (or something similar) of that particular order. There is also substantial differences between different orders, which is why I think it is helpful for it to be indicated in lists unrelated to the order itself (such as ordinaries of a diocese, or cardinals, etc.).Dcheney (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Dcheney. Post-nominals for a religious order are different from academic degrees or types of awards. An individual belonging to an order is likely educated/trained by them, governed by the specific rule which distinguishes one fr another; and is generally assigned their work by the order; so whatever it is for which they became notable, it is likely intrinsic to their membership thereof. They are hardly "irrelevant" to anyone who understands their use. Certainly post-nominals are appropriate in the lede which identifies the person (almost like nationality) and elsewhere where it may contribute additional insight re the history or development of a subject. Manannan67 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with both Dcheney and Manannan67. Religious institute post-nominals should (and I believe it does) fall under the "other special circumstances" exception that is permitted by MOS:POSTNOM. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 3, 5, and 6; no change or exception to guidelines needed for 1, 2, and 4. We do not need special exceptions because somehow being religious makes their postnominals special. Lists where the postnominal is relevant (like lists of bishops) can use the postnominal by the already-existing exceptions. We should not be expanding their use into lists where it is irrelevant, or into the text of unrelated articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I knew I was interpreting MOS:POSTNOM correctly when citing the existing exceptions to justify my inclusion of post-nominals in two lists of bishops. Even as I was being told otherwise (without any reason being given as to why I was "wrong"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1, 2, and 4 this is also the standard practice for most Catholic historical writing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: Would a list of bishops fall under 1, 2, and 4 (or the existing exceptions in MOS:POSTNOM) in your opinion? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, List of Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong (which includes post-nominals of religious institutes) just got promoted to FL after an almost three month candidacy, in which it was checked for compliance with MOS. It is the fourth FL to be passed in the last 2 years that includes post-nominals of religious institutes (after Cardinal electors for the 1978 papal conclaves, Cardinal electors for the 2005 papal conclave, and Cardinal electors for the 2013 papal conclave. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was just thinking about that. I think for lists of bishops, the post-nominals likely make sense, but I wouldn’t want it that way in every list. MOS isn’t mandatory, but rather a suggestion, and if there’s a valid reason to ignore it (as there would be for some bishop listings, in my view) that’s fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Just thinking about this from a practical standpoint, what might be some conditions where they should and should not be included in a listing? (One obvious case against is an article about a religious order where I would only include it if that person was NOT a member of that order.) Dcheney (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
      • For bishops in articles on diocese or cardinals in conclaves, I think it’s fairly important. Members of religious orders being a part of the episcopacy is not usually the norm, so it’s important from a history perspective, and in some mission diocese, where a religious order basically gets to “nominate” (for lack of better word) a bishop since it’s their mission area, the listing of their order and showing that it’s been consistent for that see over time is fairly significant. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• 4 only. As seldom as possible. Post-nominals are a distraction. If the person is a bishop, I don't really care whether he was a diocesan priest or a religious priest before he became a bishop. If the person is a provincial or a superior general, we don't need the post-nominals because we already know what order they are a provincial of. As seldom as possible. Post-nominals are a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• only 4, begrudgingly 1 and 2 if we expand allowable post-nominals allowed by MOS:POSTNOM. Post-nominals for membership in a religious institute seems to fall outside of the type of post-nominals allowed by MOS:POSTNOM ("received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence"). I would prefer an explicit statement in the lede in case 1, saying a person is a member of whatever religious institute written out. IMO the post-nominals makes sense for the infobox where we want a shorthand to summarize information of the article. I worry that if we carve out a special exception to MOS:POSTNOM for one group, others groups might try carve out similar exceptions, such as academic degrees or PBUH. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • After ruminating on it some more and seeing people start to tally responses, I feel that I should refine mine: 1: No, as it falls outside of MOS:POSTNOM, at least how I understand it - if the MOS changed, I would change this response. 2: Maybe, but a statement like that really only belongs on the institutes page itself, not on biographies - the wlink to the institute from the biography when mentioning the person's membership in said institution is sufficient IMO. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Only 4 per above. ~ HAL333 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Only 4, 2 if you absolutely must because it is encyclopedic for some reason (but I don't see how it could be). The others simply aren't encyclopedic uses. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1 yes, 2 yes. 3 could be helpful when Catholic Church-specific scope, such as the mentioned List of Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong? 4 yes. 6 possibly in cases I can't think of, but I suppose mostly not per preexisting policies. While at it, would it be helpful if the results would be stipulated in a manual of style pertaining to Catholic stuff? Please see below discussion. PPEMES (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Only 4, but frankly, I'd rather we didn't do ever, but that goes against WP:POSTNOM, and I'll never get that wish. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any changes to the relevant guideline WP:POSTNOM and how it is currently interpreted. It is beyond me how the nominator can claim that they do not want to change the wording of the guideline but somehow think that "Anywhere the person is mentioned in prose, even in an article not about him or her" is a possible interpretation of it (both in the opening question and their separate supporting comment). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• My Count (so far): 1 9 yes, 3 no; 2 9 yes, 3 no; 3 2 yes, 1 maybe, 7 no; 4 9 yes, 4 maybe, 2 no; 5 1 yes, 7 no Dcheney (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, and 4 with links. Really I think only the main, relatively well-known, ones should be given as initials (SJ, OP and errr...). Even they may puzzle many readers, including some Catholics. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2020 (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.

RFC: bishop-elect

Should bishops-elect be listed in relevant infoboxes under the title "Bishop-elect" (and same treatment for archbishops)? Or should the infobox continue to display the factual "Sede vacante" status until their installation ceremony? (Either/or proposition). Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I prefer to show the elect in the infobox. While it does happen, it is quite rare for someone named to later decline before ordination/installation. While sede vacante is technically correct, someone looking for quick information is not likely to read the body of the article to discover about a recently named bishop. It also makes the update trivial when ordination/installation occurs. Dcheney (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Dcheney, if we are going to shoehorn the bishop-elect into the infobox then I would demand that Sede vacante be also included, because as you say, it is the correct current status of a diocese. Elizium23 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for using Lyon as an example - easier to see it "in real life". But I'm not sure I like the way it comes out with "Archbishop elect Sede vacante". But I can't think of an easy fix either. Let me think about it. Anyone else have any thoughts? Dcheney (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is instructive to consider this from the viewpoint of US politics. Who would we put in the "President of the USA" infobox and when would we update that value? Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is helpful - there is no such thing as "sede vacante" of the US Presidency. The Presidency is also a bit odd in that the November election is technically just a vote for who gets to vote (electoral college). Although if the winner is clear-cut, President-elect will be commonly used instantly. This despite no actual "real" votes being cast until mid-December. Dcheney (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Under Canons 382 & 418 of the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law), does not gain that office until he "takes possession" of the diocese by showing his letter of appointment to the College of Consultors or, in the case of a new diocese, to the clergy and people gathered in the cathedral. This usually happens immediately after his Episcopal Ordination or, if the individual is already a bishop, during a Mass of Installation in the cathedral of the respective diocese. There's an example at about 27:50 in the video of the installation of Andrew Bellisario as the first Archbishop of Anchorage-Juneau. If the individual is already a bishop, he retains his former office but obtains the power of an administrator in his former diocese until he takes possession of his new diocese. Thus, the sidebar should show the current bishop as "(sede vacante)" until the ordination or installation of the new (arch)bishop takes place. It's reasonable to show the (arch)bishop elect on the next line, for example, by appending a break tag ("< br >" without the spaces) followed by the name of the individual and the term "bishop elect" or "archbishop elect" as applicable. In (now rare) cases in which a bishop elect receives episcopal ordination elsewhere before going to his diocese to take possession of it, this listing should remain until the actually takes canonical possession. Norm1979 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

While I generally agree with your statement, I take exception to saying that a separate installation ceremony is "rare". In 2019, there were 149 bishop consecrations, of those, 25 had separate installation ceremonies. Dcheney (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dcheney Okay, I did not have actual statistics. That ratio -- about one in six -- is more than I would have expected, though clearly few enough to constitute the exception rather than the normal practice. It would be very interesting to know the circumstances of those twenty-five cases. Norm1979 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I must ask, are you two referring to the common case where a bishop is already consecrated a bishop but is being transferred to a different see? Or are you referring to priests who are consecrated in one ceremony, such as in Rome, and then installed soon afterwards in their new diocese? The former case seems incredibly common... Elizium23 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It helps to have databases easily available :-) The 25 are cases where I have separate consecration and installation events for the same person/title/jurisdiction both in 2019. The 149 are all the consecration events I have for 2019. To be fair, the 149 is too high because I should exclude non-ordinaries (auxiliaries, etc.) - but that's more work ;-) Dcheney (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, my initial comment pertains to instances in which a presbyter is appointed as a diocesan bishop. Historically, it was quite common for early bishops in the Americas to go to Europe for episcopal ordination because bishops in the Americas were so few, and so far apart, that it would have been difficult to assemble three bishops in the Americas for their ordinations. They obviously could not take possession of their dioceses until they returned to the Americas after their episcopal ordinations. That difficulty no longer persists in the Americas, but there are still some places in the world where it does persist. Also, there are some instances in which presbyters appointed as diocesan bishops want to receive episcopal ordination from bishops with whom they have a personal relationship. But the normative (and, I believe, preferred) practice is for the episcopal ordination and installation of a presbyter appointed as a diocesan bishop to take place in the same mass, celebrated in his own cathedral. Norm1979 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I did a follow-up query. Of the 25: 10 were in Brazil; 6 in the Philippines. All but 3 were Latin rite. Dcheney (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. That makes a LOT of sense. There are some parts of Brazil, such as the Amazon, and some parts of the Republic of the Philippines that are very remote. I'm also wondering if that number in Brazil might be a statistical aberration that happened to arise in that year. Norm1979 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I expanded it out to 2000 through 2019 (due to covid, I don't want to include 2020). 404 with separate installations out of 3,552 consecrations. The surprize: 140 for Italy! 100 for Brazil, 32 for Philippines, 24 for Columbia, 23 non-Latin-rite. Dcheney (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dcheney, wow, that's very interesting -- and I agree that 2020 is a complete aberration that probably would distort the statistics. So, ballpark, this is about one in nine -- a smaller percentage than for 2019 alone. And you are right -- the 140 for Italy is a big surprise, but a good percentage of those cases probably were priests (mostly monsignori) with desk jobs in the Roman Curia who received episcopal ordination from either the pope or the head of their dicastery before going to their new dioceses to take possession. Norm1979 (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church in Poland has an RFC

Catholic Church in Poland has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Article needs update

• Catholic Church and politics in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could obviously use some TLC from an interested party, in light of current events. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Terminology - Former Priests

There is a major canonical difference between laicization and dismissal from the clerical state (often called "defrocking") (see Canon 290).
=> Laicization is a favor granted by rescript (administratively) in response to a request from an individual who leaves active ministry under generally honorable conditions and does not intend to return (third provision of Canon 290).
=> Dismissal from the clerical state is a canonical penalty imposed by a tribunal that bars an individual from any future exercise of ministry and stripping the individual of any benefits to which he might have been entitled (second provision of Canon 290).
We need to use the correct terminology. I recently encountered articles that used the term "laicization" in reference to two of the most notorious and vile characters of the scandal of sexual abuse (Paul Shanley and Theodore McCarrick), both of whom were dismissed from the clerical state for acts that were anything but honorable. Norm1979 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As the section of Canon Law you cited above shows, the term "Loss of the Clerical State" is the phrasing used for both cases. "Laicization" appears no where. You need to provide a source for your position if you want it to be accepted. Dcheney (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Dcheney, you are correct that the word "laicization" does not appear in the Codex Juris Canonici, but neither does the word "defrocking." Rather, "defrocking" is popular parlance for dismissal from the clerical state (the second provision of Canon 290) and "laicization" is popular parlance for the administrative rescript (the third provision of Canon 290).

But the point basic point, which you did not refute, is that we ought to keep the distinction clear. Norm1979 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are making claims without citing any sources. I do whole heartedly refute the need for the distinction which Canon Law does not make. Dcheney (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree here with David Cheney; I have been aware of no such distinction. It is difficult enough convincing other editors to stop using "defrocking" because all the sources insist on using that. Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe I can see a difference between "dismissal" (active verb for a penalty) and "loss" of clerical state (passive verb for a non-penalty. I still say they're both laicization. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Vicar apostolic

As far as I understand the convention, the term is "vicar(iate) apostolic" and not the other way around. Currently, @Norm1979: is uniformly changing the word order around. I believe this is unsupported by the sources and should be reverted. We at least need to establish consensus to change the status quo on a widespread basis. Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23:, This is actually a linguistic issue. Grammatically, the adjective follows the noun in Latin, but precedes it in English. Thus, the Latin text of Canons 368 and 371 use vicaraiatus apostolicus, Vicario apostolico, praefectura apostolica, praefecto apostolico, administratio apostolica, and administratori apostolico but the official English translation on the Vatican's web site uses apostolic vicariate, apostolic vicar, apostolic prefecture, apostolic prefect, apostolic administration, and apostolic administrator.

Likewise, the English translation of the highest rank of monsignori should be apostolic protonotary rather than protonotary apostolic, though the abbreviation retains the Latin form (P. A.). Norm1979 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Norm1979, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster, and Britannica disagree with you, and are among many other sources I could pull because the Google search results outnumber the other word order. Elizium23 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Elizium23]], so you don't think that the Vatican's usage should be decisive? The Vatican is official, whereas the publishers that you cite are not.
BTW, I have shifted focus to diocesan histories until we get this settled -- much work to be done on some of them! Norm1979 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Norm1979, we rely on the preponderance of reliable secondary sources not primary sources and while some of the sources I cited are tertiary, they are preferred to a single primary source. Elizium23 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, so you prefer to use something known to be wrong from a secondary source than what's known to be correct from a primary source?

But if you really think that we need to change the instances back, I strongly recommend editing the affected pages rather than reverting to a prior version because (1) the changes are pretty limited (typically a head note if there is one, the first couple paragraphs of the "History" section, and the subheadings in the "Bishops" section), and thus easy to find, and (2) reversion to a version will destroy a LOT of other improvements. I'll help with the editing process, as time allows. Norm1979 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Norm1979, why is it "wrong"? WP:V relies on secondary and tertiary sources. So far we've got one primary source as an outlyer (and this translation of Canon Law disagrees with you as well) so I have no idea why you would call 213,000 sources "wrong". Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, I tend to give most credence to the official source when there's a disparity. But I'll help to change them back as I have time over the next few days if that's how you want it. Please do not "revert" anything to a prior version. Norm1979 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Abortion law has an RFC

Abortion law has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje

Please, help by joining the discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Bishops by appointing pope and children

Hi There folks! It's me again! Aren't I a gadfly? Anyway, I just noticed that Category:Bishops by appointing pope is populated with categories but the children are kind of empty. Like, JPII only has 47, Benedict XVI has 49, and Francis only 57! Now we know there are thousands, especially of JPII's, so can I have some volunteers and eyeballs looking out to populate these cats? I will get on it myself; @Jdcompguy: might be interested, also @Carlm0404: or @Roberto221: would be willing to lend a hand. Thanks folks! We now return you to your regularly scheduled editing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Just had a thought that this would be an ideal task for AWB because you should just be able to search every article for "was appointed by Pope Francis" and tag 'em. Elizium23 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I could do that, it's easy enough: Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States. From #1366, Michael C. Barber, to the end of the list are all appointed by Pope Francis. Roberto221 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing WikiData has appointment data as well, if someone wants to generate a list that way. One side question: are those lists for anyone appointed by that Pope or only those first appointed to a bishop by that Pope? (In other words, can a bishop appear on multiple lists within that category?) Dcheney (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dcheney, there is no discussion or consensus that I can locate on that issue, and so I would say it is presently ambiguous and up to us right here to forge a consensus. I suggest the latter, eligible for multiple lists, it makes the clearest sense to me and is the most useful in navigation. Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If you feel adventurous, we could create parallel categories of "Bishops elected by Pope X" and that would be the initial appointment only... Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Done with Francis' appointees. I had the same question as Dcheney since Blase J. Cupich is on three lists... Roberto221 (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually what I should say is that I'm done with his newly created bishops but not ones who have been transferred/appointed to other Archdioceses/Dioceses. That'll take more time pending how we want to present it as new or all bishops in general. Roberto221 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll help with Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian bishops, both the current ones and the old ones. I already this this with bishops of Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and others. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina – done. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong view either way - either is reasonable. A second thought, should there be an indicator about whether the bishop is currently deceased? Actually one indicating they are currently living would make more sense and would be easier. Any thoughts? Dcheney (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

I have nominated Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Apostolic writings of pope Pius XII needing attention

The articles in Category:Pope Pius XII apostolic writings need attention: they must be corrected (grammar, MoS, italics, etc.), and an infobox (Template:Infobox papal document) should be added. Veverve (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I decided to do it myself. Veverve (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Catholic Diocese of Helsinki § Requested move 30 December 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Diocese of Helsinki § Requested move 30 December 2020. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Catholicism in Japan

I'm working on saving Hasekura Tsunenaga from being demoted from FA status. A number of the references that are needed have to do with Catholicism, including records from Spain, Italy, and other places in Europe. I've made a list at Talk:Hasekura Tsunenaga#Refs needed, and any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Categorization and defaultsort

I please someone to have a look at this discussion.

I've categorized a great number of WP articles into categories like "cardinals created by Pope..." or "Saints canonized by Pope...". But I didn't change the related template:defaultsort where it wasn't setted by the suggested surname order. Therefore, some elements in the related categories aren't ordered by surname.

Are they correct? Do I have to correct their defaultsort manually or it is possible to do so through a somesort of bot? The problem existed before my last edits, given that defaultsort template controlled how the WP title was indexed by all the categories it contains. Hope someone helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheledisaveriosp (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)